Greenpeace criticizes Apple for carbon footprint of iPad cloud - Page 4

Originally Posted by Cory Bauer

True, except there aren't any new or additional server farms being built for the iPad; it uses the same internets that exists today, and doesn't make use of any cloud computing options that aren't already up and running. They need to be targeting Google and Microsoft, the biggest proponents of moving everything to the cloud.

Originally Posted by Blastdoor

Hmm... I almost agree with you. I think the problem with groups like Greenpeace is that they appear to be suggesting that they would prefer that economic growth be halted or reversed. Whenever they complain about any specific economic activity, it always sounds like they just want the activity stopped, not that they want it to be done more efficiently or using greener energy sources. That line of argument is anti-progress, anti-human, and isn't going to convince anyone.

But I don't agree that making efforts to save energy are too complicated, expensive, or impractical. In fact, in many cases, saving energy is less complicated, less expensive, and more practical than alternative energy sources. For example, there are a lot of drafty houses out there that could save a lot of energy through adding better windows or insulation. I'm all for alternative energy sources, but energy efficiency is also important and useful.

Originally Posted by FineTunes

errr did you mean Japanese whaling ships instead of Chinese wailing ships?

Originally Posted by Blastdoor

And actually, i wonder how using an iPad compares to reading a book. Sure, the book doesn't have a battery, but the book had to be physically shipped around the country rather than digitally transmitted, and the book requires paper.

Originally Posted by Blastdoor

I think the right way to look at this is to see the emergence of "the cloud" as a great opportunity to improve the environmental impact of computing relative to a model in which all of the computing power lies with the client. Far easier to influence how power is generated for a single, centrally located server than to influence how power is generated for a million geographically dispersed clients. For example, it's easier to get google to install solar panels on the roof of their giant data center than to get every individual who uses that data center to install solar panels.

Originally Posted by Rob55

These are PCs idling on the pre-login screens. And yes, we're off of CRTs already.



It's already been suggested. No action yet.



Already been mentioned to the appropriate depts. So no, I'm not just sitting here complaining about it expecting someone else to fix it. I'd do it myself, but technically, I'm not permitted to.

Originally Posted by mavfan1

If every one of greenpeace's demands were fulfilled they'd simply come up with more extreme demands, until we're all living on self sustaining farms or in communes spending our days churning butter and knitting socks.

Originally Posted by mavfan1

I was all for some of the global eco treaties if their aim was truly to clean up our skies and our water, but now we're hearing the aim of the carbon credits and some of the new plans out of Copenhagen is that what wealthy countries really should do is pay $ to the poorer countries as a sort of tax for basically doing well and using resources and that immediately told me that what was really going on was another attempt at a global redistribution of wealth. No thanks.

Originally Posted by Smallwheels

There are many groups that get my support. GREENPEACE is one of them. I even worked as a fundraiser for GREENPEACE a few years ago.

To me such reports are short sighted. Having extremely capable machines like the iPad getting smaller and smaller is saving energy over the continued manufacturing of larger desk top computers. How much energy is saved by using an iPad instead of a 200-300 watt desktop? I'm sure it is plenty. The savings is in the amount of raw materials needed to make the computers, the energy used in construction and transportation to market, and in daily usage.

Cloud computing is happening whether one uses a desktop or an iPad. The servers will be running no matter which device one is using, therefore; GREENPEACE should be encouraging people to use such devices as iPads instead of full size computers.

Apple's large iMacs run very hot according to many users. Even if they are made in really environmental ways they still use energy. Perhaps GREENPEACE could switch its point of view on cloud computing and embrace it while promoting tiny computers for the masses. IPads do most of what ordinary users need in a tiny package. In a year they probably will do nearly everything to one degree or another.

Cloud computing will eventually be considered a great innovation for conserving energy.

Perhaps GREENPEACE should also do a report about cable TV usage. Those converter boxes all generate way to much heat and more people have those than computers.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

These are very good points!

Originally Posted by Blastdoor

Perhaps a more likely substitute is a big screen TV. What uses more power -- me sitting on the couch watching my 50" plasma or me sitting on the couch surfing the web, reading a book, etc on an iPad? Even if you add in the (relatively tiny) power consumption on the server-end, I bet the iPad scenario uses less energy than the plasma TV scenario.

Originally Posted by myapplelove

Do they have a solution on how to power the server farms with solar panels? I didn't think so. The tec just isn't there yet.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Some very good posts above. Greenpeace has totally lost it here. They understand neither basic economics nor how to measure the impact of carbon footprints.

Originally Posted by BallmerSteve

Apple is already a MAJOR polluter!
This will make it that much worse!

Originally Posted by paxman

Yes, but aren't they? They aren't 'targeting' the iPad per se. They are using the iPad as an example of increased cloud computing which makes sense. The iPad is high profile and so are using it to draw attention. I think that's pretty legit. They go out of their way to explain that they are not attacking Apple or any of the others, they are just raising awareness of the amount of energy used to run huge server farms.
...
It may not always be what we want to hear but I don't get all this ferocious defensiveness.

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Try discussing "I'm disgusted by the people who manipulate others into thinking that Carbon Dioxide is bad for the Earth or Humans." with a scientist (other than one looking for grants from oil or coal companies etc.). It is too silly to even respond to as the subject is so vast. I was at a lecture a few days ago given by Dr. Richard Komp, one of the world's leading experts on solar energy and his words were fresh in my mind when I read pmz's twaddle. I shouldn't have even responded, my bad.

Originally Posted by Smallwheels

There are many groups that get my support. GREENPEACE is one of them. I even worked as a fundraiser for GREENPEACE a few years ago.

To me such reports are short sighted. Having extremely capable machines like the iPad getting smaller and smaller is saving energy over the continued manufacturing of larger desk top computers. How much energy is saved by using an iPad instead of a 200-300 watt desktop? I'm sure it is plenty. The savings is in the amount of raw materials needed to make the computers, the energy used in construction and transportation to market, and in daily usage.

Cloud computing is happening whether one uses a desktop or an iPad. The servers will be running no matter which device one is using, therefore; GREENPEACE should be encouraging people to use such devices as iPads instead of full size computers.

Apple's large iMacs run very hot according to many users. Even if they are made in really environmental ways they still use energy. Perhaps GREENPEACE could switch its point of view on cloud computing and embrace it while promoting tiny computers for the masses. IPads do most of what ordinary users need in a tiny package. In a year they probably will do nearly everything to one degree or another.

Cloud computing will eventually be considered a great innovation for conserving energy.

Perhaps GREENPEACE should also do a report about cable TV usage. Those converter boxes all generate way to much heat and more people have those than computers.

Originally Posted by Rob55

I just wish I could siphon off the electricity they waste, store it and run my house with it.

No offense though, just wasn't sure how you meant it.

I'll be implementing a global schedule for the A/V systems I administer so that they do pretty much the same as your PCs. BTW, what do you use to globally shut down your PCs?