Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Greenpeace Takes on Apple and Other Tech Companies over Coal-Powered Data Centers

mjtomlin said:
Even after Apple switches to 100% green energy to power their sites Greenpeace will still fault Apple and complain that the manufacturing process of green energy equipment and technologies aren't using 100% green energy.

How can anyone take this organization seriously anymore? Are companies supposed to switch overnight? Green resources aren't economical, or efficient enough yet to be viable to completely replace carbon based resources.

They've become nothing more than attention mongering media hacks.
Click to expand...

No... The articles praises those using renewable energy. If Apple changed, they would not have a reason anymore to include Apple in the list of pulluters.

Green ressources are not as efficient but they are cleaner, no arguying against that.
 
For as large of a company Apple is, they do an incredible job of sparing the environment compared to other companies. Of course, their ways will get better as time goes on and they develop better ways to be "green"; they're not perfect. Even though solar is hardly as efficient as people would like to way it is, I don't see (any?) other huge businesses taking big moves like Apple made just for that purpose. They easily could have built a huge coal plant the same size. I wonder how much **** would have hit the fan in Greenpeace's offices if that happened >=) :cool:

But I hate Greenpeace. It's just another trolling green company that will never be happy.
 
dino12 said:
There are huge advancement in scrubbers to reduce toxins released. Over the next 4 to 5 years over 21,000 Megawatts are being shut down across the US as a result from the EPA's regulations that have been set forth. Thousands of jobs will be lost. I was at a power plant the other day and 90 people were laid off because of the repercussions from the regulations.
Click to expand...

So basically your argument is that with new technology being pushed by regulation coal can be made much cleaner, but at the same time we shouldn't implement that technology as it would affect jobs.

As a doctor I love coal, gives me lots of employment with long term effects of mercury poisoning, releasing more radiation than a nuclear plant, direct coal effects like Black Lung, increased asthma, etc... :D (and yes, I am being facetious and sarcastic)
 
These people are never satisfied

Computing costs continue to go down, while efficiency & processing power continue to go up....So we are getting more efficient every generation.....but that is not good enough.

Also, think about how much "greenhouse gases" are not poured into the atmosphere because we can shop online.

Even without all this phony "Green Movement" stuff, we as a society get more and more efficient in the use of our resources because for one reason technology improves.

Computers use less energy, TVs use less energy, etc. etc. Why, not because of ridiculous regulations, but because of the free market!

Greenpeace is irrelevant
 
Not a fan of Greenpeace. I prefer a much more organized and aggressive approach to environmental activism. Either don't care at all, or be an ecoterrorist and put your money where your mouth is.

But Apple could do a better job of being a cleaner company. ...though taking their dead products back for recycling at retail locations would be a better start.

Of course, focusing on a few companies makes little sense compared to the zoning that allows for millions of buildings far worse than any of these...



Greenpeace & Sierra Club are PR money pits run by and for lawyers whose primary function is self-promotion.
 
Last edited:
Odd that no one is harnessing river power for datacenters. Most major cities have some major river flowing through them. Seems they could turn turbines and produce enough energy. Could also probably use the cooler river water as some sort of chiller for cooling needs.

I don't know all the ins and outs of hydroelectric power but it seems it could be implemented pretty widespread with a very low environmental impact.
 
Lets keep greenpeace busy...

We should suggest to greenpeace to sue and demand from the mother earth to stop polluting on itself... after all our planet is the biggest contributor to the pollution.

I'm all for saving endangered species, but this crusade to single out businesses because they are actually providing jobs to our society has got to stop! Unless you provide a sensible substitute stop yapping about how bad things are...

To all you greenpeace freaks, not everyone enjoys wiping their ass with a leaf while living their life without a job riding a bicycle or a car that runs on spit.
 
When is Greenpeace ever satisfied? My guess is never. It's impossible to please everyone in the world.

But it would not hurt for Apple to install some solar panels on the iCloud data center.
 
Hmm, energy less expensive - products stay affordable

How sinful!

Oh, what about the energy consumption required to power data repeaters for centers located in a cold, remote, location? :eek:
 
This will be a fun one to watch. Been told for years by one of my financial consultants that Greenpeace and other environmental groups makes money by shorting the stock of the companies they critique.
 
Last edited:
StealthRider said:
I thought the world was done caring about these nut jobs and their moronic "studies". Guess not...
Click to expand...
The world? Outside of countries like the United States the environment is considered serious business. Even China's government is willing to meet with Greenpeace to discuss the environment. The United States government? Not so much.


Consultant said:
Perhaps they don't understand Apple's data center will have:
- largest solar panel installment
- largest fuel cell installment
Click to expand...
Perhaps you don't understand that if net pollution increases then all the asterisks in the world won't be able to counteract the laws that govern climate change.


fletch33 said:
Apple does what it can to be energy efficient as do most publicly watched companies. they need the juice to provide the services that also provide jobs. it is not their decision how the local community produces that energy.
Click to expand...
If Apple chooses to build a very energy intensive server farm in an area that is heavily weighted toward coal generation then why shouldn't that decision be on Apple's shoulders?


Fraaaa said:
Also data centres never run all the server at all times. Companies that have data centres already try to cut on electricity costs as much they can. The argument is moot.
Click to expand...
So you're saying they can't do any more than they already are? What source do you have for this claim?
 
dcassone said:
Computers use less energy, TVs use less energy, etc. etc. Why, not because of ridiculous regulations, but because of the free market!

Greenpeace is irrelevant
Click to expand...

What?

If you believe in the free market fixing this stuff then greenpeace is a PART of that process. If you believe in "ridiculous regulations," then GP is irrelevant.

Which is it? You're disagreeing with yourself.
 
Cloudsurfer said:
When is Greenpeace ever satisfied? My guess is never. It's impossible to please everyone in the world.
QUOTE]

Of course they're never satisfied, there is still pollution everywhere around the world.

If they were, then it'd be ridiculous.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, Apple is doing a lot to be as green as they can, but it's good to have a motivating factor to make sure they keep doing it.
 
O and A said:
Also i'm tired of greenpeace complaining about nuclear energy. if he hadn't been so scared of nuclear energy in the 70s and 80s we'd wouldn't even have this global warming problem.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! I got fed up with Greenpeace years ago. Instead of adopting a stance of making it safe and secure as possible and improving on methods of waste disposal, they adopted a stance completely against it. They can't do simple math if they think other "clean" sources can even come close to serving the US it's energy needs. And many other clean sources aren't as "clean" as they think they are... but that is a different topic.
 
Anyone that thinks Greenpeace & Sierra Club have good ideas should look into their ownership and the political background of their owners and managers. I was once a member of both until I found the truth.

No one that wants to work and provide for their family should give any thought to what they think. Don't trust me, look into it. Its really shocking.
 
Greenpuss

Hey Greenpuss...you've spent decades complaining, if you are so smart, why have you not invented a solution....bunch of dopes!
 
Hey Green Peace, how about your leaders practice what you preach and stop driving around in your gas guzzling SUVs and living in your power gulping houses with air conditioning?

Ironically, Al Gore has a far more negative impact on the environment with his cars, air travel and houses that he upkeeps than GWB. The latter has a ranch that is off the power grid and is self sufficient with solar power.
 
I think Greenpeace is trying to make people more aware of the subtleties of how your purchases effect the environment. Most people just focus on how a product is made but its also about complimentary services for those products (like data centers) which draw large amounts of energy.

Those of you who are quick to criticize Greenpeace should think about their children or grandchildren wearing breathing masks 50 years from now because the air is too polluted. The only "cloud" anyone will see is the big grey smog blocking out the sun. It's already happening in China.

Although the community provides the energy, if Apple pressures that community to provide a portion of it with alternative sources then believe me -- that community will bend over backwards to accommodate that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back