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

[mbh]

If Apple is really convinced of the "greenness" of their data center they should call Greenpeace out and ask them if they can point to another data center that is "greener" per unit of capacity (or whatever measurement they use). If they can't, then they will have, in effect, gotten Greenpeace to say that they have the "greenest" data center on Earth.

However, I doubt that Greenpeace would answer such a query.

 

[faroZ06]

Greenpeace just wants attention and publicity.

Yeah. I saw the title of this article and smiled.

 

[Alameda]

I think it's very good that Greenpeace is drawing attention to power consumption in mega data centers. Apple can afford to be environmentally responsible, and I believe they are. While this episode won't likely affect Apple one bit, it sends a clear warning signal to other corporations planning multi-megawatt data centers: Their power consumption practices will be investigated and publicized.

 

[IJ Reilly]

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.

Greenpeace is accountable to their members and contributors, just as Apple is accountable to their stockholders. Everyone involved has an incentive to tell the story in a way that makes them look like they are doing the right thing.

----------

If Apple is really convinced of the "greenness" of their data center they should call Greenpeace out and ask them if they can point to another data center that is "greener" per unit of capacity (or whatever measurement they use). If they can't, then they will have, in effect, gotten Greenpeace to say that they have the "greenest" data center on Earth.

However, I doubt that Greenpeace would answer such a query.

http://www.greenpeace.org/internati...te/2012/iCoal/Apple_Clean_Energy_Road_Map.pdf

See page 4.

 

[RobQuads]

So I presume all greenpeace offices are 100% renewable energy sites.....oh they aren't :roll eyes:

Is stupid reports like this that show up greenpeace for what they are.

 

[MacinDoc]

Greenpeace is accountable to their members and contributors, just as Apple is accountable to their stockholders. Everyone involved has an incentive to tell the story in a way that makes them look like they are doing the right thing.

Fair enough, but I was referring to accountability to independent third parties, such as government regulatory agencies, which will actually scrutinize the numbers. Apple's shareholders and Greenpeace's contributors are both more likely to drink the Kool-Aid rather than look at the information critically.

I would add that Apple would be less likely to fudge its numbers here, because the power for the data center has to com from somewhere, and if it's coming from a grid that's already overtaxed, and if the draw is really 4-5 times what Apple says it will be, there will be hell to pay.

Most likely, Greenpeace's estimates come from energy drawn by data centers built in the past. What they are unable to take into account is how much more efficient this new data center may be (more powerful equipment drawing less electricity due to technological advances) compared to those built a number of years ago.

 

[medi.freak]

Greenpeace has a waay different agenda. And this clearly shows it again. They are anti-globalization, not pro-planet. Gotta hate those hippies.

I'd say they're both. Which is a perfectly understandable point in my opinion. But it seems the winners of the system never share much agreement with social or solidarity ideas...

- no offense by the way. That's just what I noticed. Since most people of this forum would be counted to the small group of winners of the system, it was pretty predictable how this discussion would go.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Fair enough, but I was referring to accountability to independent third parties, such as government regulatory agencies, which will actually scrutinize the numbers. Apple's shareholders and Greenpeace's contributors are both more likely to drink the Kool-Aid rather than look at the information critically.

I'm not sure that the regulatory authorities get into the kind of issues raised by Greenpeace. They are riding their own renewable energy horse. Some of these issues appear to be proprietary, meaning the corporations are loathe to disclose any more than necessary about what they are doing or not doing. Incidentally I've been an Apple shareholder for 15 years and have never been a member of Greenpeace. And yet I hope it isn't too hard to figure out why I don't totally trust either of them to tell us the whole, unvarnished truth.

 

[Rocketman]

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.

That's thinking like a prosecutor.

A researcher looks at a variety of sources, like we have here. Apple's statement of server farm energy usage, the permits for the electrical equipment installs which on a gross scale are "similar", and industry publications which themselves are not original sources like the first two are, but are educated commentary. It may have factoids from equipment installers included. I guess you might call it expert witness.

But even if you throw out hearsay and look only at original source material from folks with a duty of care of accurate reporting with real consequences, such as Apple and the permit issuers, it all diverges wildly from the crap Greenpeace is spewing. By a factor of 2-5. Even after "corrections", and with no alternate supportive evidence.

Mere blind skepticism, which they are free to keep to themselves rather than say knowingly false stuff and see where that takes them.

Rocketman

 

[Poisednoise]

http://www.greenpeace.org/internati...te/2012/iCoal/Apple_Clean_Energy_Road_Map.pdf

See page 4.

The thing that confuses me here is Akamai: they get an A for transparency, because they're reporting everything, but apparently they're too distributed for figures to be able to calculated by Greenpeace. In which case, how did they get the other grades for Akamai, like that for energy efficiency? More to the point, if the figures can't be used, then it doesn't matter how transparent they are, the whole exercise is pointless... Greenpeace just seem to like to discombobulate.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

GreenPeace is a Non-Profit Organization with a license to BS about everything tech.

 

[IJ Reilly]

That's thinking like a prosecutor.

If you insist on the courtroom analogy, then it's a lot more like thinking like a judge. You start with the very safe assumption that the prosecutor and defense are going to make the best possible cases for their side. The facts and the law will be the same, and yet they will make diametrically opposing arguments about how they apply. The big difference in this instance is that the judge can take the day off since nobody really has to be found guilty or not guilty.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

If Apple is really convinced of the "greenness" of their data center they should call Greenpeace out and ask them if they can point to another data center that is "greener" per unit of capacity (or whatever measurement they use). If they can't, then they will have, in effect, gotten Greenpeace to say that they have the "greenest" data center on Earth.

However, I doubt that Greenpeace would answer such a query.

Greenpeace needs to make the news, otherwise people will forget who they are. And nothing better than go after the most successful and popular company in the world.

Apple is indeed the greenest company in the world, but Greenpeace has definitely decided to be a pain in the butt to them.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The thing that confuses me here is Akamai: they get an A for transparency, because they're reporting everything, but apparently they're too distributed for figures to be able to calculated by Greenpeace. In which case, how did they get the other grades for Akamai, like that for energy efficiency? More to the point, if the figures can't be used, then it doesn't matter how transparent they are, the whole exercise is pointless... Greenpeace just seem to like to discombobulate.

I don't really get the scorecard either, and I lack any enthusiasm for trying to figure it out.

 

[Frobozz]

I really don't know what bug got up Greenpeace's butt, but they just don't know when to let something go, do they? Public sentiment seems to not be on their side, at all. Most people think of Greenpeace as a borderline dangerous fringe group. And I wonder why? Gee, might be the set of horse blinders they have when it comes to their own reality distortion field.

This reminds me of the days when Apple was trying to convince us a G4 PowerBook was faster than comparable hardware by cherry picking and interpreting things under highly contrived scenarios. Actually, I'm not sure we can even give Greenpeace that much credit in this case, because they really don't seem capable of math.

----------

Greenpeace needs to make the news, otherwise people will forget who they are. And nothing better than go after the most successful and popular company in the world.

Apple is indeed the greenest company in the world, but Greenpeace has definitely decided to be a pain in the butt to them.

As a tactic, I agree. But in practice, I think you see a lot of Apple fans completely alienated from Greenpeace's message. Attacking a think you hold sacred, in the face of contract factual evidence, is fairly stupid. Who are they trying to convince? I know a lot of liberals (I am a moderate to liberal) who feel like they should support Greenpeace. It's certainly a lefty organization. But it's SO FAR lefty that hardly anyone in the middle could support the radicalization of this loose set of "facts."

At the end of the day, as an Apple lover and a general supporter of Green living, I find Greenpeace infuriating. They're making the Green cause radical instead of being a common-sense incremental approach like it's Whole-Earth style beginnings in the 60's. When over 90% of people who own an Apple product love their Apple product, does it make sense to attack Apple and call them liars? I just don't get it.

 

[JAT]

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.

There is zero protection under the First Amendment for libel between non-governmental entities.

It is the bold statements claiming Apple will not actually use "green" power that are getting dangerously close to a legal issue, not GP's crazy numbers.

 

[IJ Reilly]

There is zero protection under the First Amendment for libel between non-governmental entities.

It is the bold statements claiming Apple will not actually use "green" power that are getting dangerously close to a legal issue, not GP's crazy numbers.

There's where you are wrong. It is precisely because of the First Amendment that liable is so difficult to prove in a U.S. court (it's a difficult three-step test, you could look it up). In countries without explicit speech protections, such as the UK, you see a lot more of them.

 

[Iconoclysm]

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.

This is a HORRIBLE assumption. Many a company is founded on higher beliefs than making more dollars...some want to make great products, and those few companies in every industry stand out immensely. Your cold war era conventional business wisdom works with oil companies and snake oil salesmen...and that's about it.

I'm not justifying having a bias towards a company, I'm justifying how many companies are different, have different cultures, and different policies. Usually, the standouts are willing to sacrifice profit margins for customer loyalty. To dismiss this is extremely naive.

----------

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.

This isn't the first time I see you completely misspelling libel - are you sure you even know the definition?

 

[kingfish-spl]

greenpeace -

Credibility was lost a long time ago. Morphed into a fringe group. I would no longer allow them a seat at the table.

 

[ReallyBigFeet]

And these corporations always lie because they want to make more money. Weird that you'd err on the side of the money-grubbers and not the people that actually want us to have clean air and water.

Contrary to what some of you are saying, Greenpeace is not interested in eliminating all electricity or whatever other nonsense you people are spouting.

Yes, ipads and ipods are great (I have one of each), but let's not get ridiculous.

Actually, when they state that they are making a stink about something JUST TO RAISE PUBLICITY FOR THEMSELVES, its pretty obvious that they have the same motives as the corporations they rant about. They want mindshare, which for them, equals money.

Greenpeace has jumped the shark years ago. They are dogmatic and anything they say should be considered suspect and self-serving. They have become infatuated with themselves more than the causes they claim to support.

 

[macUser2007]

Shouldn't the title be "Apple Under Fire Again"?

Apple makes certain "green" claims, which provide Apple with both tangible and "goodwill" benefits, which ultimately translate into higher profits.

Greenpeace challenges Apple's claims, based on their own research.

MacRumors is spinning this shamelessly and rather clumsily. It's an unfortunate trend developing over the last couple of years.

 

[jca24]

Screw greenpeace and the rest of the left-wing tree-huging wack jobs!!

 

[macUser2007]

Screw greenpeace and the rest of the left-wing tree-huging wack jobs!!

Wow!!!

Speaking of "wack jobs"....

 

[jca24]

Wow!!!

Speaking of "wack jobs"....

Ah, I see, you must be one of them. You know as well as I do that most of them say one thing and do another!!

 

[applesith]

Greenpeace is a joke. Stop trying to control everything and reduce out living to caves. That's the only time they will ever b happy. It's never good enough.