G.W. Bush
The invisible part of everything that you thought you could see, you can't see. -- Interview with ITN, Crawford, Texas, Apr. 5, 2002
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Greenpeace Features Apple as 'Green Energy Innovator' in New Report
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
G.W. Bush
The invisible part of everything that you thought you could see, you can't see. -- Interview with ITN, Crawford, Texas, Apr. 5, 2002
Not taking away from Google, Apple or FB in their efforts... but greenpicOshit is a complete joke. The founder left because he knew he was full of ****. They are just a bunch of tree huggers that make money off of ***** like this "rating", they are most likely related to Al Gore. Then they take that money and buy cars, live in homes and piss away all the resources they claim to be so precious.
Bitter? no, just tired of hypocrites getting any worthy press coverage. The ignorance of people to follow them and my past 20 years in the lumber/building industry gives me a few decades of experience about what GP really is and does.
I give GreenPeace 4 out of 4 stars for the complete BS and hypocrisy awards. Print that for news.
Bitter? no, just tired of hypocrites getting any worthy press coverage. The ignorance of people to follow them and my past 20 years in the lumber/building industry gives me a few decades of experience about what GP really is and does.
I give GreenPeace 4 out of 4 stars for the complete BS and hypocrisy awards. Print that for news.
The Google data center near here gets all their power from a coal-burning power plant.
For the record, coal plants are the number one source of mercury contamination into the environment, more than all other sources combined.
But they claim to buy "credits" from a windfarm on the other side of the state, so... hey... Green.
SMH
You need to learn how RECs work
Ironic thing is Greenpeace was using your same exact argument on Apple 2 years ago
Not sure why that meaningless chart was used in the article. I looked at the report and couldn't make sense of it...bigger circles mean bigger energy consumers? Who knows.
This is a more meaningful chart. Apple is doing a much, much better job of greening itself than the other major tech companies:
It's disappointing that Amazon Web Services is still so dependent on fossil fuels, considering how much of the internet uses it for hosting.
This is a more meaningful chart. Apple is doing a much, much better job of greening itself than the other major tech companies:
It's disappointing that Amazon Web Services is still so dependent on fossil fuels, considering how much of the internet uses it for hosting.
Wow... I never realized how much the Picasa logo looks like the Aperture Science logo. o_0
Since when did Google own Snapchat? And Amazon own Tumblr, Vimeo, Vine, Soundcloud, Pinterest, etc.? 
Looks like Tim Cook telling an ******* shareholder to take a flying leap over maximizing profits over green initiatives paid off.
Greenpeace Haters
There's a lot of hate against Greenpeace on this forum. So I would just like to quote from this article regarding hate trolls. Online trolls are psychopaths and sadists, psychologists claim. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/online-trolls-are-psychopaths-and-sadists-psychologists-claim-9134396.html
There's a lot of hate against Greenpeace on this forum. So I would just like to quote from this article regarding hate trolls. Online trolls are psychopaths and sadists, psychologists claim. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/online-trolls-are-psychopaths-and-sadists-psychologists-claim-9134396.html
They both look like something I would draw in middle school right next to bubbly letters and a sword-wielding cat.
----------
troll harder pls
An example of a cleverly disguised ad hominem attack.
Basically you are claiming here that everyone critical of Greenpeace is a "hate troll" and therefore a psychopath and sadist.
Nice try.
While I would not for a moment defend those who post for no other reason than to generate an negative emotional response...I would suggest that this is a bit of an overstatement. And since the article linked didn't give a primary source, it is difficult to say if the "study" is worth anything at all.
Considering the word "troll" is used by different folks in different ways, and tends to be a somewhat subjective designation, seeing the study, and the precision of the definition of the word "troll", as well as the methodology employed to come to the conclusions reported in the article, is essential in evaluating the assertions in the article.
This is nothing but good news. Now only if they would do more to increase the repairability of their products. We'd have nothing to complain about.
It doesn't matter if you like Greenpeace or not. What matters is there are companies that are making an effort to be green, and there are those that are clearly not. Shining the spot light is effective.
I hear these stupid debates about whether climate change is real or not, etc. It's incredibly stupid. At the end of the day, I want clean, clear air for my family. A billion cars exhausting fumes into the air is the last thing we should be 'okay' with.
Clean air. Clean water. A healthy environment were all creatures can flourish. How's that a f-king issue of contention in today's society is beyond me.
I hear these stupid debates about whether climate change is real or not, etc. It's incredibly stupid. At the end of the day, I want clean, clear air for my family. A billion cars exhausting fumes into the air is the last thing we should be 'okay' with.
Clean air. Clean water. A healthy environment were all creatures can flourish. How's that a f-king issue of contention in today's society is beyond me.
A study showed that when you factor in the energy used to produce every solar panel ever made, that it will be 2020 before solar power breaks even.
Wind turbines kill thousands of birds every year.
Both wind and solar can't stand on its own without taxpayer supported government subsidies.
The only thing green about green energy is the money they take from us.
Wind turbines kill thousands of birds every year.
Both wind and solar can't stand on its own without taxpayer supported government subsidies.
The only thing green about green energy is the money they take from us.
Evidence please.
----------
This is what happens when you watch Fox News.
It might surprise you just how much I know about "how RECs work".
A REC is just a certificate used by consumers of carbon emission-based generation to claim "offsets" against geographically disconnected "green" generation (typically wind, but also frequently hydro in the NW and solar in the SW). It's a piece of paper, put in a file or displayed on an office wall, it doesn't change the fact that Google built data centers hardwired to coal generation plants, which are the #1 source of mercury contamination in the environment. A REC only accounts for GHG emissions.
At one point, Google said they were going all in on renewable energy, they were going to invest in R&D and make renewable energy cheaper than coal. That was before they capitulated and went the REC route, like really any other consumer of coal generation.
If Google really wanted to be "green", they would've built their new data centers next to "green" generation assets. Which, as you point out, is exactly what Apple did. (We can discuss whether the manufacture of solar panels is really "green" in another thread.)
Look, I'm not saying what Google is doing is wrong, I'm saying they don't deserve the "Green Energy Innovator" ribbons that Greenpeace is handing out. They are simply buying their way out of the problem, which isn't any more "innovative" than any other California-based company trying to meet the CA state requirement for 33% "renewable energy use" by 2020.
It might surprise you just how much I know about "how RECs work".
A REC is just a certificate used by consumers of carbon emission-based generation to claim "offsets" against geographically disconnected "green" generation (typically wind, but also frequently hydro in the NW and solar in the SW). It's a piece of paper, put in a file or displayed on an office wall, it doesn't change the fact that Google built data centers hardwired to coal generation plants, which are the #1 source of mercury contamination in the environment. A REC only accounts for GHG emissions.
They're not hardwired to coal plants. They have a customer connection to a utility that happens to have coal in their generation portfolio. Same as Apple's Maiden datacenter having a customer connection to Duke Energy, who happens to own nuclear power plants. 3 years ago, Greenpeace basically used the same argument as you - Apple's connected to Duke's infrastructure, Duke owns nuclear generation, therefore Apple must be hardwired to nuclear power plants. That's not how it works.
Once electrical energy is injected into the grid, all you have are electrons flowing around and nobody knows where they came from. So the only way to do bulk power energy accounting is to measure energy at the source - record the amount of energy that goes into the grid from dirty sources and the amount that goes in from green. The record that captures energy injection from green sources is a REC. That's what these companies are buying.
And unless they want to build and operate their own power plant, there's no other alternative.
Always is.....
gratifying when someone that put pressure on you for some issue (s), later praise you for doing the right thing.....
Well done for Apple. But the cinical side in me stills whisper "any company MUST do their part to keep the Earth clean".....And then, that is a utopic tought....
gratifying when someone that put pressure on you for some issue (s), later praise you for doing the right thing.....
Well done for Apple. But the cinical side in me stills whisper "any company MUST do their part to keep the Earth clean".....And then, that is a utopic tought....
I"ll guess you have already searched... but just a few of many articles.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB120882720657033391
http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...ounder-says-no-evidence-of-global-warming.htm
Also having worked for MacMillan Bloedel, one of the largest cedar manufacturers int he world and Weyerhauser Co over the past 20 years I've spoke directly with people who knew the man and could speak of first person accounts of why he left and basically changed his mind. It's all about politics and money now, and has been for decades.
The kind words I've heard to describe those in power at Green Peace are basically "they are bat s***
crazy"
In many fields of science, the ones based on actual facts... they can build computer models to predict furture events based on facts, that usually also means that same equation can typically show an accurate past history of said events. Take the movement of the tectonic plates over billions of years, or various spread of plants, trees, animals etc.. patterns of future prediction based on the facts at hand and the past events.
Global warming: no accurate model has ever been built. Fact, no "warming" has occurred in the past 17 years. Fact, they changed the name of "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" because no more money could be raised due to the simple fact everyone was calling BS on the mere scientific research showing since 1996 there has been no global change in yearly avg. temps.
Al Gore championed it because of money, he will tell his lie to anyone for a dollar. Money always leads you to the truth if your willing to look hard enough.
Last edited: