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 Under Fire Again After Regrading of Apple's Data Center Energy Plans
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Really? Like what? At worst, getting slapped with a fine which is a fraction of the benefits derived by "embellishing"?
Or do you believe that the Data Center deal will be rescinded?
The issue with your logic is that they have the least to fear from any measly fine. There would be MANY legit environmentalist groups out there who'd be perfectly justified jumping on this and giving Apple hell if they were ever caught lying. I just don't think they'd consider all the potential bad press worth the little effort it takes to tell the truth. Sure, they'd still be on Apple if their power usage is high, but nothing like they'd be if they knew they fudged the figures.
Wrong. While libel is not protected speech, by definition, in Times v. Sullivan (1964) the Supreme Court raised the bar substantially over what kinds of speech can be considered libelous. They based their ruling in the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech and press. Often it helps to know more about a topic than what you can glean from a quick reading of a Wikipedia article.
The important take-away point is that Apple could not successfully sue Greenpeace for saying things about Apple that Apple doesn't believe to be accurate. In fact if they even made the attempt, they'd face an array of anti-SLAPP suit laws that are designed to prevent corporations from silencing critics in precisely the way some here have suggested they ought to do. Bad idea, all around. Apple simply has to live with their critics, even if they slice, dice and bend the truth.
The point is, you cannot expect corporations to have a conscience. They are designed to be amoral, with the singular goal of profitability. Vague references to values and underdog status adds up to a pocket full of smoke where corporations are concerned. When Apple was marginalized it wasn't for a lack of moral fibre, it was for a lack of satisfying consumer preferences (and some other factors over which they had little control). Now that they are successful, it's is not because they discovered their moral fibre, but because they are producing products that consumers choose to buy. People do seem to take some comfort from anthropomorphizing the companies whose products they like, but that doesn't mean the company reciprocates your affection. You can be sure that they do not. It helps to understand that the relationship is purely commercial. As the old saying goes, if you want a real friend, get a dog.
----------
Their membership and their donors.
Who voted for Apple?
Their customers and business partners.
The score appears to be nil all.
Not really "masters" if you use the same tied old excuse as everyone else.
Masters of PR actually get things done.
Greenpeace-EPEAT
It's pretty clear that Apple did not throughly consider implications of withdrawing from EPEAT, but equally they are capable of making rapid reversal
of policy when economic backlash requires it.
The same is not true of Greenpeace, an organization that is driven by an emotion-ridden ideology first and marketing second. They have stumbled so frequently over the course of their history that they could not exist without the emotional appeal.
It's pretty clear that Apple did not throughly consider implications of withdrawing from EPEAT, but equally they are capable of making rapid reversal
of policy when economic backlash requires it.
The same is not true of Greenpeace, an organization that is driven by an emotion-ridden ideology first and marketing second. They have stumbled so frequently over the course of their history that they could not exist without the emotional appeal.
Way to go Greenpeace, good job on making yourselves look like foolish butt-wads. I think greenpeace has really become a very irrelevant organization, with little credibility. Too bad. There was a time when they used to do at least some good... now they just make other environmentalists look bad by association...!
52 people (substitute people with something else if you want to) voted this up. I wish there still was downvoting here. In these forums, it's always attack other mode for anyone in disagreement or conflict with apple. Some people don't care that the planet is in the disarray it's in. Apparently only apple and every other multinational should lobby people in power to get their way, just as soon as an environmental organization tries to push for some progress, they are attacked here.
This, it goes without saying, is utterly sad.
----------
Apple ditching an environmental standard (epeat) when it doesn't suit their manufacturing needs but using it only hypocritically to make tons of money via presenting a "greener" profile, and then backflipping and reversing their decision? Who would have thunk that. Probably it's a bad idea that greenpeace is exerting pressure on them, probably if left on their own devices they are going to be super environmentally friendly...
What is Greenpeace thinking?
Here is a company which is spending millions of $$ to try to save energy and these hippies are picking on this company?????!!!!!
Should they not have to make Apple an example to rest of the industrious world? At least Apple is trying to conserve in a big way.
Greenpeace has lost my respect a long time ago by the obnoxious behaviour in stead of promoting conservation and give people and companies examples of how to conserve.
Here is a company which is spending millions of $$ to try to save energy and these hippies are picking on this company?????!!!!!
Should they not have to make Apple an example to rest of the industrious world? At least Apple is trying to conserve in a big way.
Greenpeace has lost my respect a long time ago by the obnoxious behaviour in stead of promoting conservation and give people and companies examples of how to conserve.
Perhaps the push would have more appeal if they attacked the 99% of corporations that are doing NOTHING for the environment rather than attacking the one that is building a solar farm and a biofuel generator, disputing how much difference these efforts will make. The only reason they are attacking Apple is because it gets more public mindspace than attacking HP, Dell, IBM, Microsoft, GM, Ford or Chrysler would.
the reason they are building a solar farm and a biofuel generator is because greenpeace got on their case early enough.
In any case apple isn't doing anything either, they are offloading the environmental burden to component makers and assemblers. The one time they could do something about it, as in this case, it sure took a lot of push to get them to.... And if it suits the bottom line for epeat to go out of the window, out the window it goes.
As far as I can remember greenpeace hasn't appointed anyone to dictate to them what their priorities should be, and isn't it the role of government to refuse the occasional bribe now and then and enforce environmental policy?
I really don't see how greenpeace should be targeted here. Don't we want our grandchildren to have a planet to live in?
You're still not getting it. Greenpeace is picking the wrong target. There are far worse corporate environmental monsters out there than Apple. Greenpeace should focus their efforts on them. The reason they don't is because attacking Apple makes headlines, while attacking companies like IBM, Sun, and Google doesn't, and attacking companies like the Big Three automakers, which are infinitely worse environmental stewards than Apple, offends some of the people who tend to support Greenpeace.
With respect to why Greenpeace should be targeted, I would point to their ludicrous estimates of the power consumption of this data center, four to five times industry estimates (I'm sorry, but no industry can fudge energy utilization estimates by a factor of four to five and still maintain even a scrap of credibility, and credibility is very important to Apple).
In the end, I am a supporter of groups that endeavor to protect the environment from our excesses, but Greenpeace lost my support years ago, and none of their recent stunts have done anything to revive my support for them.
Last edited:
I only looked up wiki articles when you told me to, not for understanding. But way to change the goalposts.
Moving on, if you read THAT case in wiki, you may notice it is a government issue, as Sullivan was a gov't employee, the NYT was originally attacking the police over criminal issues, and later it apparently involved the Governor, too. I'm just assuming wiki is accurate on all that, because I wasn't born, yet, to have attended all the sessions to witness it personally. Anyway, 1st Amendment pretty much applies directly to that, yes. Last I checked Greenpeace was not a govt agency, however.
I just don't understand your argument that the Constitution somehow applies to individuals. (or entities defined as individuals for some legal purposes) Have you read it?
That is total nonsense. I know it, you know it, and Greenpeace knows it as well. Apple doesn't do _anything_ because of Greenpeace. And all the plans for their data centre were done and finished long before Greenpeace opened their mouth.
And how exactly do you suppose would Greenpeace massively overestimating Apple's energy use cause Apple to build a solar farm? If Apple needed 80 Megawatt, why would they even bother to build a 20 Megawatt solar farm? Surely it is much more green to reduce usage from 80 MW to 60 MW without spending on a solar farm than to use 80 MW and build a solar farm?
You don't want a data centre to ever lose power (Amazon, we're looking at you). If I need 20 Megawatt, then I would build a primary source for 20 Megawatt, and two ship diesel engines of 20.5 Megawatt each, so if the primary goes down, and one of the ship diesels doesn't start, your data centre is still fine.
Last edited:
You know what's total nonsense, defending one the most obscenely rich mega corporations in the world over an environmental group that is a force for positive change. That is absolute and total nonsense.
Dream on.
Ah, here comes the "think of the children" argument.
Personally, I don't want my grandchildren to have a planet to live _in_. I want them to have a planet to live _on_. But that's just me, to each his own.
But do you really, really think that Greenpeace is helping? Their interest is getting donations, and that's it. To get donations, they attack the "most obscenely rich mega corporation". But they have been proven wrong when they attacked Apple again and again. I'm not anti-Greenpeace. I'm anti stupid, I'm anti making wild claims based on bad research, and I'm anti being unable to admit mistakes. Oh well, seem's I'm anti-Greenpeace after all.
And it seems that you didn't respond to any of my arguments at all.
Last edited:
They should be targeted because they lie to push their agenda.
Among the things they've done that make no sense
- Taking North Carolina's state energy portfolio and claiming Apple is tied to those percentages. That's nonsense. On the grid level, a state is not an island - electricity crosses state lines and customer portfolios vary based on contracts
- Claiming they were able to derive the datacenter's load based on how much money Apple spent on the building. That's like me saying I can tell how much power your smartphone uses if you tell me how much you paid for it.
- Scolding Apple for purchasing renewable energy credits. In reality there's no practical alternative
- Claiming if Apple buys a REC and later sells a REC of their own, it's double counting. That's a lie
- Scolding Apple for not pressuring Duke Energy to bring their coal plants offline. Apple doesn't have the leverage to tell Duke Energy what to do and even if they did, Duke would need to build replacement capacity which would take 10-20 years.
Just because you have good intentions or a noble cause doesn't mean you're allowed to lie and peddle BS.
They never infernize the communists
They NEVER INFERNIZE the communists. How come the existence of jobs for vagabonds, uh? To pass the life to infernize everything that is from the USA. They criticize Apple, but they don't criticize companies from China, Iran, Russia, Cuba... why?
They NEVER INFERNIZE the communists. How come the existence of jobs for vagabonds, uh? To pass the life to infernize everything that is from the USA. They criticize Apple, but they don't criticize companies from China, Iran, Russia, Cuba... why?