Greenpeace Under Fire Again After Regrading of Apple's Data Center Energy Plans

[IJ Reilly]

I think a lot of it stems from how Apple has handled their customers over the years. They have built a loyal following by offering top quality products and backing it up with almost flawless service. That builds loyalty, much like what you often see with people and their favorite sports team.

Treat people right and they'll have your back.

This is startlingly naive. Corporations are machines for making money, first last and alway -- and they behave accordingly. They are interested in you precisely to the extent that it benefits them and no further. If people assume that a corporation is good and right just because they like their products, then they are missing something fundamental about how this bargain works.

 

[ugahairydawgs]

This is startlingly naive. Corporations are machines for making money, first last and alway -- and they behave accordingly. They are interested in you precisely to the extent that it benefits them and no further. If people assume that a corporation is good and right just because they like their products, then they are missing something fundamental about how this bargain works.

Of course they are there to make money. Still doesn't change the fact that people are loyal because of what they get and how they are treated for the money they fork over.

 

[Krazy Bill]

How does one source that condemns Green Peace make it "under fire?"

lol!

 

[Sora]

I trust Greenpeace way more than I trust Apple.

----------

And of course Apple wants none of that!

Look "newbie" - Greenpeace is the one who's picking bones. As for who gets the lions share of publicity - Greenpeace is the one shouting "Look at me! Look at me!!" - just so happens that Apple is a little easier on the publicity eye.
Greenpeace is more of a red headed step child that doesn't know when to shut up and has a black eye and a couple of bruises to attest that fact. Hence - not so easy on the publicity eye.

 

[carlgo]

Greenpeace, like PETA, hurts itself with extremism and it makes it harder for them to carry on their good works.

 

[whitesand]

Greenpeace...Bad science and is anything but "green"...Junk science claiming carbon dioxide is harmful...If they really were "green" they would want MORE carbon dioxide because extra CO2 INCREASES plant growth...The irony of the "green" movement.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Of course they are there to make money. Still doesn't change the fact that people are loyal because of what they get and how they are treated for the money they fork over.

The message here is, they exist for no other purpose than making money. The bargain between you and a corporation is based an economic transaction, and nothing else as far as they are concerned, so it's a mistake on a customer's part to make it more than that. You should not assume that they are always speaking the absolute truth; they will only do that to the extent that it benefits them financially. They perfectly capable of defending their interests, and don't need their customers running interference for them. What I am saying here in a nutshell is that you should not love corporations, because they will never love you back.

 

[Rocketman]

The message here is, they exist for no other purpose than making money. The bargain between you and a corporation is based an economic transaction, and nothing else as far as they are concerned, so it's a mistake on a customer's part to make it more than that.

Stating the obvious Greenpeace is a corporation too. What one corporation calls profit, another calls retained earnings or endowment. What one corporation calls cost of operations and goods, another calls cost of outreach, fund raising and service delivery. There really is very little difference.

Rocketman

Here's the 501(c)(4) IRS filing.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...Gbu3-X&sig=AHIEtbROHPNT-mXB8HXfxmZtG2VU-TTyNw

 

[IJ Reilly]

Stating the obvious Greenpeace is a corporation too. What one corporation calls profit, another calls retained earnings or endowment. What one corporation calls cost of operations and goods, another calls cost of outreach, fund raising and service delivery. There really is very little difference.

Rocketman

If you read my other posts on this topic you will see that I am not taking sides. Far from it. I don't know who is right on this issue, and frankly I don't care. I am commenting on the tendency for people to believe that they know who is right strictly on the foundation of their bias, and to be sure that one party must be right and the other wrong, when in reality both are making the case that works for them. Accordingly I don't trust Apple or Greenpeace to be unbiased and I don't get why anyone would.

 

[macnerd93]

If Apples data centre was as Eco friendly as possible I'm sure Greenpeace would still come up with complete bull in terms of energy usage data. Rather pathetic frankly that our governments and world corporations are constantly being bombarded by them.

They hate human revolution and would much rather us being back in the stone age

 

[petsounds]

It's hard to even read these threads sometimes, so many people here just take a kneejerk stance against anyone who has less-than-kind words about Apple.

I have no deep problems with Greenpeace. They do a lot of good. Who else is out there trying to stop whaling operations? They do a lot of work trying to stop deforestation of the rainforests. All positive things that any sensible person would approve of.

On this Apple thing, I can't really say what their intentions are. Maybe they just lack the technical knowledge to really understand how modern data centers operate. Perhaps Apple is low-balling the estimated power usage. Or perhaps this part of the Greenpeace organization is overstating their case for PR purposes. None of us know, so let's stop jumping to conclusions.

 

[hickabob]

Hippies...

 

[pubwvj]

Greenpeace lost credibility a long time ago. Wait, they never even had much to begin with. They're extremists and attention getters. Ignore them. Don't give them column inches.

 

[topmounter]

It's sad that Greanpeace's only and best PR stunt / strategy is whining endlessly about Apple no matter what they do (good, bad or indifferent).

 

[gnasher729]

So Greenpeace environmental experts know how much power data centers consume?

This is funny. In reality, the number probably lies somewhere in the middle, closer to Apple's side.

Environmental crazies will always overstate in an effort to hang onto an extra bargaining chip when they're pushing for even more environmentally friendly systems.

What makes you think the number would lie somewhere in the middle? Do you think Apple is lying?

I trust Greenpeace way more than I trust Apple

I might have trusted Greenpeace twenty years ago, but not today.

What Greenpeace produces are estimates, but estimates designed to fit Greenpeaces goal. On Apple's side, there are plenty of people who _know_ definitely how much power this data centre will be using. After all, they are building it. Do you think all these people are lying? If you think they are lying because they are Apple employees, consider that any employee will be an ex-employee one day, and ex employees talk. This is something that a company _can't_ lie about.

 

[Glideslope]

GreenPeace, get over it. You are dying. Treehugger is the future baby!!

 

[Rocketman]

If you read my other posts on this topic you will see that I am not taking sides. Far from it. I don't know who is right on this issue, and frankly I don't care. I am commenting on the tendency for people to believe that they know who is right strictly on the foundation of their bias, and to be sure that one party must be right and the other wrong, when in reality both are making the case that works for them. Accordingly I don't trust Apple or Greenpeace to be unbiased and I don't get why anyone would.

I was not implying your views which tend to be neutral. I was posting to the group. However unlike you I do have a view. Greenpeace lied. It's totally obvious from their two positions over time, the public record, the statements by their subject, and the stated corporate policy of the subject to try to be green to a relatively extreme degree.

Greenpeace made knowingly false statements. That's a lie. It's is probably also fraud but I do not know the specific elements for that. It was also libel, perhaps trade libel.

Rocketman

 

[Poisednoise]

Greenpeace...Bad science and is anything but "green"...Junk science claiming carbon dioxide is harmful...If they really were "green" they would want MORE carbon dioxide because extra CO2 INCREASES plant growth...The irony of the "green" movement.

I really hope there was meant to be a /joke or something in there... I don't agree with Greenpeace's tactics, but to accuse them of bad science and then... Wow.

 

[blackpond]

Greenpeace is confused that any company could be environmentally responsible and capitalistic at the same time.

It makes no sense to them.

 

[MacinDoc]

So we are expected to believe either (A) a group of rabid activists, or (B) a huge corporation. Can we have another choice, please?

In order to get its permits approved, Apple had to provide a reasonable estimate and to show how it arrived at its estimate. Its numbers are subject to scrutiny by the agencies involved.

Greenpeace is just pulling numbers out of a hat and is accountable to no one.

 

[MacinDoc]

It's hard to even read these threads sometimes, so many people here just take a kneejerk stance against anyone who has less-than-kind words about Apple.

I have no deep problems with Greenpeace. They do a lot of good. Who else is out there trying to stop whaling operations? They do a lot of work trying to stop deforestation of the rainforests. All positive things that any sensible person would approve of.

These groups, and many others, oppose the hunting of whales and work to provide the public with accurate information without sensationalizing to put themselves in the spotlight. How about this group for the protection of the rain forests? It seems to me that they are actually doing more about the environment while making less noise.

This isn't to say that Greenpeace hasn't done things for the benefit of the environment, but the group has evolved into a monster that's far from what I believe its founders envisioned.

Greenpeace seems to be to have evolved into an organization that seeks attention for itself more than it seeks to actually make a difference. Hence the attempts at attention-grabbing, skewed reports, because that's what fuels its publicity and, by extension, its income.

 

[SimonMW]

Hug a tree Greenpeace

More like hug a statue of Stalin...

 

[IJ Reilly]

I was not implying your views which tend to be neutral. I was posting to the group. However unlike you I do have a view. Greenpeace lied. It's totally obvious from their two positions over time, the public record, the statements by their subject, and the stated corporate policy of the subject to try to be green to a relatively extreme degree.

Greenpeace made knowingly false statements. That's a lie. It's is probably also fraud but I do not know the specific elements for that. It was also libel, perhaps trade libel.

Rocketman

I'm afraid your knee is jerking now too. It is very is unlikely to be fraud, and almost certainly not liable. This is a technical issue, which as you know can be viewed and interpreted in a variety of ways, not a binary one that lends itself to only one right answer. Greenpeace has as much right to express their views as anyone else. That right is protected under the First Amendment, last I checked.

This article was heavily spun towards Apple, and you will note that the source for the backup of Apple's position is an online trade journal for the data center industry. Yet another unbiased source? What you have here is a bunch of groups spinning the facts to favor their positions. Maybe I am just a born skeptic, but my first impulse it to not assume that any of them are telling the entire story. It's also my second and third impulse. I don't feel any need to decide who's story is more believable.

 

[ScottishDuck]

Yeah **** greenpeace.

We should burn polar bears in honour of out corporate masters Apple.

 

[darkplanets]

Greenpeace...Bad science and is anything but "green"...Junk science claiming carbon dioxide is harmful...If they really were "green" they would want MORE carbon dioxide because extra CO2 INCREASES plant growth...The irony of the "green" movement.

You almost got it right. Extra CO2 doesn't increase plant growth per se -- it's more so an environmental correlation than a causality. In practicality, increased CO2 means an elevated average temperature with more extreme environments, which is exactly what occurred during the Jurassic era. These environmental stimuli were probably what caused the plants to enlarge to such sizes, but without a living specimen we can't be sure since it could have just been a factor of breeding and genetics.

What's more so amusing is that most people forget that the CO2 cycle appears to be cyclic in nature from geology (as is the temperature) -- we haven't seen a recorded history of such a cycle with civilized man yet due the relatively infant age of modern society. Are we adding CO2? Undoubtedly. Are we making that big of a difference on the natural CO2 fluctuations? Who knows.