Greenpeace Activists Protest at Apple's Irish Offices over Data Center Energy Use

[C62008]

Secretly Organized to put more Cash in Gore's Pocket.

Al Gore, an Apple board member, is no doubt behind these protests (and the many more we will soon see) as he exerts pressure on Apple from both inside and in the arena of public opinion to spend even more money using technology from companies he is heavily invested in. It's a cynical scam. But then, that pretty much sums up Gore.

 

[farmboy]

If the people at Greenpeace would do some real research, they would find that the planet itself produces more CO2 than us humans. The CO2 content in the atmosphere is about .04%. Yes, ".04%". For those of us in our 70's and 80's, remember that scientists back in the 60's and 70's were predicting a new Ice Age if we did not reduce the "carbon" in our atmosphere. Now it's global warming. Will the so called "scientists" make up their minds. Do your own research. Do not believe scientists and politicians.

Greenpeace are idiots for whom myths and stories are more interesting than facts. They've always been that way. But reasonable people would agree that we shouldn't trash the place where we live. We haven't found any other place quite like it to move to.

Your CO2 number is correct, but that's like saying CO only has one less oxygen atom than CO2, so it must be OK, it's just one atom. Minute changes matter in science. Just parenthetically, if your own body concentration of CO2 rises from the normal 40mmHg up to 45...CO2 displaces all the oxygen in your organs and you die (CO2 is NOT harmless). Happens to miners all the time, and in industrial accidents.

Even Richard Muller, the guy Fox, WSJ and others trotted out on every climate story, and who was funded by the Koch brothers' "Deniability Institute--Tobacco, Oil, Climate, We Don't Care" (aka Heartland) to deny and refute any global warming claim, has converted. He went to UC Berkeley with the intent of publicly destroying their climate change data...and came back after many weeks saying the data, and global warming, was real. Atmospheric CO2 levels are only one factor.

If you remember a couple of guys in the 60s speculating as to ice ages, you should have also remembered that their claims were universally dismissed by other scientists even then. Not quite the same with climate science.

Eventually the Earth would recover from almost any climate or pollution disaster over time. It's a very resilient place, and scientists acknowledge this. The problem is all the life forms and what happens to them in the meantime.

What are we going to do about it?

 

[MeanAndy]

Hah, this is where I live. Was on the radio earlier and thought, ya of course, after the 'news' that came out yesterday, let's do something stupid...and they did.

Come on, there must be better ways than this. I mean I'm all for companies using renewable energy as much as possible but there are far worse ones than Apple out there. A lot of their products are "Green" and their base in Cork is powered 100% by renewable energy. If anything Apple seems to be paving the way for other companies to follow suit.

Stupid stunts like this just give Greenpeace and even worse image than it already has.

Oh and I hope that was printed on recycled paper...using recycled ink!

 

[3282868]

Judging by the tone in here, I'm assuming this is going to get downvoted, but here goes....

I up-voted you, thank you for a sensible comment, I rather read a well written post than the posts that simply name call and patronize. Whether I agree or not, it leads to civil discourse which is (sadly) lacking on MacRumors.

 

[Jus11]

Judging by the tone in here, I'm assuming this is going to get downvoted, but here goes.

While you may or may not like Greenpeace's tactics, or their singling out Apple and not Lockheed, Union Carbide or whichever other corporation you'd like to name, it seems there's something rather important that's being overlooked here.

Apple, together with Google, is driving the move to the cloud. This is not something that was completely necessary, in my humble opinion, but a conscious business choice on Apple's part. It takes a whole of energy to move things back and forth over the Internet, at least compared to having it stored locally, so where that energy is coming from is important.

Now, while one might point out that no one's being forced to use cloud services, by Apple or any other company, Apple's size and their legendary insistence on us doing things the way they want us to, by way of making "their" solutions (App Store, iCloud etc etc) more prominent than the alternatives, they have a role to play here.

Apple is a major player in consumer electronics, and Greenpeace has always been about raising awareness, in one form or another. This means that if they get Apple to change the way it's going about something, it affects the carbon footprint of A LOT of products and users.

And let's not forget, Apple didn't move to BFR free components, lower power consumption parts (on the desktop side anyway) because they're good people who care about people drowning in the Maldives or the coral reefs dying. They did it because they're a company that cares about bad PR and the effects it has on their profits. They changed things in large part because of organizations like Greenpeace.

Oh and all of you "IT'S A HOAX & AL GORE IS FAT!1!1!!!" types: Go back to sleep, we'll wake you when your house is under water.

A rational voice in the desert, indeed.

 

[Liquorpuki]

Judging by the tone in here, I'm assuming this is going to get downvoted, but here goes.

While you may or may not like Greenpeace's tactics, or their singling out Apple and not Lockheed, Union Carbide or whichever other corporation you'd like to name, it seems there's something rather important that's being overlooked here.

Apple, together with Google, is driving the move to the cloud. This is not something that was completely necessary, in my humble opinion, but a conscious business choice on Apple's part. It takes a whole of energy to move things back and forth over the Internet, at least compared to having it stored locally, so where that energy is coming from is important.

Now, while one might point out that no one's being forced to use cloud services, by Apple or any other company, Apple's size and their legendary insistence on us doing things the way they want us to, by way of making "their" solutions (App Store, iCloud etc etc) more prominent than the alternatives, they have a role to play here.

Apple is a major player in consumer electronics, and Greenpeace has always been about raising awareness, in one form or another. This means that if they get Apple to change the way it's going about something, it affects the carbon footprint of A LOT of products and users.

And let's not forget, Apple didn't move to BFR free components, lower power consumption parts (on the desktop side anyway) because they're good people who care about people drowning in the Maldives or the coral reefs dying. They did it because they're a company that cares about bad PR and the effects it has on their profits. They changed things in large part because of organizations like Greenpeace.

Oh and all of you "IT'S A HOAX & AL GORE IS FAT!1!1!!!" types: Go back to sleep, we'll wake you when your house is under water.

Yeah but in this case, there's nothing for Apple to change. They're not doing anything wrong and have actually gone the distance with this building. They've spent money to put a solar farm on their land when most companies won't even put solar on their roofs. They've designed their building to use alternative cooling systems while most industrial buildings just run their AC 24/7. They're installing 5MW's worth of fuel cells running off expensive biogas when most people don't even know what a fuel cell looks like.

The problem here is Greenpeace is in the wrong and 2 years after their first press release, they still refuse to admit it. Instead of doing their due diligence and researching whether their accusations hold up, they just up the volume and run more PR. It's intellectually lazy and unethical

 

[IJ Reilly]

So the protest weren't at Apple's offices in Ireland, but in their Irish Offices? I didn't know that buildings can have nationalities. So if the building emigrated, it could be known as Apple's Irish-American Offices.

 

[Padraig]

Hah, this is where I live. Was on the radio earlier and thought, ya of course, after the 'news' that came out yesterday, let's do something stupid...and they did.

Come on, there must be better ways than this. I mean I'm all for companies using renewable energy as much as possible but there are far worse ones than Apple out there. A lot of their products are "Green" and their base in Cork is powered 100% by renewable energy. If anything Apple seems to be paving the way for other companies to follow suit.

Stupid stunts like this just give Greenpeace and even worse image than it already has.

Oh and I hope that was printed on recycled paper...using recycled ink!

Rubbish.

 

[HiRez]

I think "Clean our camera lens" might have been appropriate.

 

[Dr McKay]

Greenpeace are nothing but terrorists.

 

[Rocketman]

Apple doesn't say much, but as a public company, whatever statements it does make have to be intended to be accurate as of the time they are made. Greenpeace is just using Apple's mindshare to get attention for itself without the same attention to accuracy or ethics.

Rocketman

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

I up-voted you, thank you for a sensible comment, I rather read a well written post than the posts that simply name call and patronize. Whether I agree or not, it leads to civil discourse which is (sadly) lacking on MacRumors.

The question is, do people care? IOS 5 seems more important.

 

[tmarks11]

In a related story, 10000 green peace activists go home to a house powered by a coal power plant....

...and don't see anything hypocritical about firing up that coal-powered espresso machine for a quick brew...

----------

They better drive electric cars; otherwise, they are full of $h!t.

Electric cars that are recharged from the power grid, which gets 42% of its power from coal power plants.

And if you think coal power plants are better for the environment then an internal combustion engine, then you are looking at different data then I am.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2006/10/coal-chernobyl-twice-week-and-coal-9.html

 

[Revivalution]

Green Peace Say "Thank You"

I don't know of many companies that have tried to please Green Peace as much as apple. After all they Had Al Gore on the board of directors. What could be more Green than that?

And how does Green Peace Say Thank You? By doing this. Great job GP it makes everyone want to work with your flawed views.

For those who are environmental activist you need to separate yourself from Green Peace as quickly as possible, while you still have a sliver of credibility.

 

[mytdave]

excellent

Maybe they need to team up with PETA and have a party. I suggest roasted seal over a coal fire.

LOL. Earlier this month the PETA people were out en masse at the Easter egg hunt I took the family to downtown... They were handing out flyers (and stickers for the kids!) about protecting poor chickens...

After the egg hunt we intentionally went straight to Chick-fil-a for lunch and bought 2 dozen chicken nuggets. It was fun.

 

[mmurphy123]

Idiots!!!!

Would someone please tell Greenpeace to have a Coke and a smile and SHUT UP!

 

[jonnysods]

What were their signs made of?

 

[tigress666]

Just an observation here. It seems every post on here that is, "***** the environment, just liberal blah blah blah" (I'm not saying every post degrading Greenpeace) never seems to have more to say than that.

Yet the posts that will acknowledge there is a problem (Even if they don't like Greenpeace), you can find some posts that have thought put behind and actual bringing up of info they have found.

Seems if people think this whole green movement/protect the earth movement is false, maybe they should at least put some thoughts into their posts to argue the fact rather than just post insults and random sentences making fun of it. If you want me to even entertain the idea that maybe we shouldn't have to worry about the environment, back it up with a real argument, not just slur words made to try to make the other side look silly. It just makes you look like the ignorant one.

If nothing else, Greenpeace has done something constructive, get people to talk about the problem (Even if they are mis aiming their protests or just using the name to get recognition). Though it seems only one side wants to actually talk about it, the other side wants to stick their fingers in their ear and pretend that it's all just a bunch of whackos so they don't have to listen to them.

 

[SBlue1]

Greenpeace is just loosing respect if they keep acting like this.

 

[Blu Reel]

millions...

It's interesting to see numbers posted and actions taken decrying the actions of a few companies as having a negative impact on the environment.

The question I have is:

Which would have the greater impact on changing the environment for the better? A few companies modifying their practices? or millions of people modifying their practices?

If you're looking for a government solution, would it make you mad that millions of American don't pay any income taxes?

If you're looking to raise awareness to individuals across the US, would it make you mad that millions of Americans have higher priorities than making sure their energy use is from clean energy?

Wouldn't you consider such a population demographic that numbers in the millions to be a severe drain on our economy, our society, and our environment?

Would it make you mad to know they represent 6.5% of the American population? That's 46 million people.

By the way, that's how many people who are living BELOW the national poverty threshold in the United States as published by an Indiana University study. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/11/poverty-america-likely-worse-report

They do not pay income tax.
They are more concerned about where and when their next meal is coming from and if they can afford to pay this month's rent.

And hypothetically, if all 46 million people were employed and making $11,170 (household of 1) which is the poverty threshold for annual income, that would mean the companies that employed them for the entire year would have spent $513+ BILLION dollars in their wages alone.

So, once again, which would have a greater impact on the saving the environment? A few companies modifying their practices? or 46 million people having the ability to modify their practices?

 

[macnerd93]

Don't Greenpeace realise how many jobs heat industry create for people?. Why are they always so negative towards anything that they have no understanding of.

Its important to do what we can to help the planet, but the way Greenpeace act is extreme. Why can't they put their time and money to good use rather than just wasting their lives protesting lost causes?

There are far more important things to worry about than all this eco clap trap i.e the major hunger in africa, the current wars and all other forms of societal issues.

I can foresee oil running out way before we have to worry about serious levels of global warming anyway.

They need to be doing more stuff worthwhile to society and not trying to hold us back.

 

[Revivalution]

Global Warming from those smarter than myself

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much different than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

http://www.weatherbrains.com/audio/wb052206.mp3

 

[daxomni]

Is it just me, or does it almost seem like today's Greenpeace story by Eric Slivka was written as soft-sell setup to nudge people into outright bashing of environmental activists for daring to challenge Apple's numbers?

Maybe Greenpeace does have faulty numbers, that's certainly possible. However, so far as I can tell they're also asking for more transparent information so everyone can have a better idea of what is (and is not) being done to actually reduce our net pollution levels (which I understand have continued rising drastically for decades now). If Apple supplies a few carefully chosen numbers that don't seem to entirely add up then I guess Greenpeace is just supposed to pretend they don't see anything questionable with Apple's response? Apple is no doubt greener than it legally has to be, and is probably much greener than many other businesses of similar size, but is it really so crazy to think Apple could do even more to reduce their impact on the environment? Not even Apple is making the claim that there is absolutely nothing more they can do, so why are their fans already exonerating them? I find it interesting how so many people point out that Apple is not and cannot be a "perfect" steward of the environment while apparently expecting virtually no mistakes from activists that may dare to criticize them. If they drove a car or printed on a sheet of paper or made a phone call then they must be abject failures at being environmental activists. Yeah, that sounds calm and objective to me. In the end we have a thread where hundreds of members are calling not for cleaner air or water, but for fewer activists and less dissent. Why? Because they caused a single company a day or two of mild grief? I guess when the stock price falls you have to blame somebody. Might as well be our already dwindling numbers of extremely wealthy environmental activists who live in mansions, fly in private planes, and drive supercars. Right? Makes sense to me.

 

[ramuman]

Green Peace is a joke. They have lost all credibility long ago.

They never had credibility.

 

[RangerOne]

I was stopped outside an Apple store a few months ago by a Green Peace volunteer who said "Are you helping Apple waste energy with iCloud?"

I let him have it. I've been involved in the data center industry for more than a decade, and it was clear to me that Green Peace hadn't done their homework and couldn't understand the numbers even if they found them.

This is a simple case of Green Peace trying to garner free press by complaining about a high-profile company like Apple. Clear and simple.

I have little respect for Green Peace. Not any more. I consider myself a strong environmentalist, but that organization really gives environmentalism a bad name.