or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Greenpeace slams Apple's iCloud for relying 'heavily on dirty energy'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Greenpeace slams Apple's iCloud for relying 'heavily on dirty energy' - Page 2

post #41 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by atsysusa View Post

Greenpeace - still smoking pot after all these years.

Nah, if they were still smoking pot, they'd probably be more like they used to be which is honourable, honest, and concerned about the environment.

The new Greenpeace is a dishonest PR machine that only cares about promoting it's own corporate profile in the media. I would bet they gave up the pot, for scotch on the rocks with their lawyers at the club years ago.
post #42 of 112
So let me guess ...

Greenpeace goes 'public' with this chastisement, garnering some publicity among their faithful but uninformed supporters. Then when Apples renewable energy investments (under construction as we speak) come online in the fall or whenever, then Greenpeace makes a proud announcement that their public campaign of shame has worked again. Even though those initiatives (solar and fuel cell) were announced by Apple last year.

I'm all for cleaner energy, but I'm not a big fan of Greenpeace sensationalist tactics. Environmental Defense Fund gets way more done for the donation dollar.
post #43 of 112
Excuse me for being insensitive, but we're all screwed eventually anyway.

Eat, drink and be merry...
post #44 of 112
/careface
post #45 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Beige View Post

I wonder how Greenpeace will rate Apple's new HQ in Cupertino when it opens?

I wonder how 'Green' the Greenpeace hierarchy of "Officers" ie President, VP, Treasurer, etc. are if one was to grade them on the Greenpeace "Green" scale of clean energy and saving the planet choices in products they choose to use such as recyclables, organic foods, cleaning materials, etc.?

I wonder if they are as green as they propose others be? \
/
/
/

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #46 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

If Apple's reputation is tarnished, then so too is the reputation of all of its customers.

I call that personal.

That's pushing the point. Its not just Apple. And it looks like in a year Apple may score some major brownie points and your reputation as an Apple customer will again rise.

What Greenpeace is trying to to, I am sure, is make it so that companies want to be seen to be green.
post #47 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni View Post

Excuse me for being insensitive, but we're all screwed eventually anyway.

Eat, drink and be merry...

No room at that party for a modicum of compassion for your fellow humans?

Sure we are all going to die soon and life is to be lived, but there's no reason to take the earth with us and screw over our children either.
post #48 of 112
Has it occurred to any of you rabid apologists that Apple, and other companies, strive to take the extraordinary measures they do, and are developing, precisely because agencies like Greenpeace keep the issue in the public eye?

Many companies would never have discovered they could "go green" profitably, had they not been nagged into it.

So, nag away - there is plenty more to be done to make the future a sustainable one...

I, for one, would like to see it so.
post #49 of 112
I'm going to go out and shoot some seals today, it's a beautiful day on the Avalon.
post #50 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

Has it occurred to any of you rabid apologists that Apple, and other companies, strive to take the extraordinary measures they do, and are developing, precisely because agencies like Greenpeace keep the issue in the public eye?

That's nonsense.

Apple is already a heavy user of clean energy at existing facilities. Not to mention, of course, that they committed to spending a fortune on solar in NC long before this Greenpeace report came out.

For a more balanced view on what Apple does, try:
http://www.greenchipstocks.com/artic...an-energy/1433
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #51 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Market_Player View Post

I'm going to go out and shoot some seals today, it's a beautiful day on the Avalon.

you don't shoot seals, you beat them with a club.

I wonder if Greenpeace checked with their ISP and/or hosting centers to see if they are all green.
post #52 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's nonsense.

Apple is already a heavy user of clean energy at existing facilities. Not to mention, of course, that they committed to spending a fortune on solar in NC ...
[/url]

Pretty much as I said. Do you ever try to post anything besides reactionary, antagonistic troll-bait?
post #53 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

you don't shoot seals, you beat them with a club.

I wonder if Greenpeace checked with their ISP and/or hosting centers to see if they are all green.

Dispite what you may have been brainwashed with, us Newfoundlanders have not clubbed sealed for many years; they are to be shot according to our department of oceans and fisheries regulations.

Just the same I see green peace has brainwashed you on that subject :-)
I'm still gonnna blast a few !
post #54 of 112
Apple are doing what Apple needs to do in order to stay competitive. It's not their job to save the world. If coal is to be made 'bad' for the production of industry the Greenpeace should get laws passed, not try to pass the buck. Essentially that makes ME bad because I turn on a lightswitch at my house. It's not like I have any choice about where the electricity in the Grid comes from. It's just there.

This sort of stubborn stupidity from the likes of Greenpeace just makes me want to go out and set fire to a tree.
post #55 of 112
Please do not publish any more Greenpeace communications. It just shows how stupid the organization is time after time. Greenpeace, we need ideas and solutions not worthless studies. Be a solver of problems. Think out of the box. Help instead of hinder.
rfrmac
Reply
rfrmac
Reply
post #56 of 112
Well said Greenpeace.

Apple could set many leads via their vast wealth rather than often looking like the Pied Piper of fairyland.
The problem is they are just too good at what they do so 'bottom line' shareholders will certainly prefer them to lumber on.
post #57 of 112
I can tell from these replies that most people posting here don't care about the environment at all.

Yes, the government is at fault because they couldn't pass sensible laws to define the property rights properly. Yes citizens have to take responsibility for demanding all the stuffs that'd cause pollution to produce. Yes, scientists are not doing their job to build a consensus on what's the impact on pollution on the environment. But let's not let all these companies off the hook because of that. A lot of additional rules/policies can be implemented in this companies - THAT DON'T COST A LOT OF MONEY - and can help to build a clearer society. Greenpeace helps to bring more awareness and also publicity to the situation, that's it, it's not about where the details are credible or not. These companies can all do more, they're just not trying hard enough.

And yes, I'm not offering any specific details on what can be done, I'm just saying all these because the views here are way too biased towards 1 side and I want to balance out a bit.
post #58 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

Has it occurred to any of you rabid apologists that Apple, and other companies, strive to take the extraordinary measures they do, and are developing, precisely because agencies like Greenpeace keep the issue in the public eye?

Many companies would never have discovered they could "go green" profitably, had they not been nagged into it.

So, nag away - there is plenty more to be done to make the future a sustainable one...

I, for one, would like to see it so.

Of course all companies are evil, and it is the responsibility of organizations like Greenpeace -who are all honorable and have no agenda - to play judge and jury in the court of public opinion.

And of course, if you are not an evil company, you get a free pass to fly around the world lecturing other ones on their failings, build big, energy consuming houses, and blackmail organizations into buying "carbon credits".

And I have some swamp land in Florida I can sell you. It is a great spot for building a green energy site.

Despite what some people would like to think most companies and their employees do care.
post #59 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Nah, if they were still smoking pot, they'd probably be more like they used to be which is honourable, honest, and concerned about the environment.

The new Greenpeace is a dishonest PR machine that only cares about promoting it's own corporate profile in the media. I would bet they gave up the pot, for scotch on the rocks with their lawyers at the club years ago.

Here, Here! This is so, so true...
post #60 of 112
The earth would be greenest if no human beings are here . Green peace , can u just stop bullshiting ?
post #61 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

Has it occurred to any of you rabid apologists that Apple, and other companies, strive to take the extraordinary measures they do, and are developing, precisely because agencies like Greenpeace keep the issue in the public eye?

Many companies would never have discovered they could "go green" profitably, had they not been nagged into it.

So, nag away - there is plenty more to be done to make the future a sustainable one...

I, for one, would like to see it so.

Conversely, has it occurred to "rabid" Greenpeace supporters (since we are going to throw around disease-attributing epithets), such as yourself, that Greenpeace has only recently in the last couple of years began their condemnation of Apple, corresponding in fact to Apple's rise in popularity and media coverage? And that Greenpeace has not "kept the issue in the public eye": fewer than 10% of the consuming public ever sees or hears these reports, and of those less than half that number actively support Greenpeace.

And your assertion that "Many companies would never have discovered they could "go green" profitably," has no evidence to support it. In fact many companies see lower profits by doing so, but present it as being a balanced response to the shareholders and the general public as a public service.

It's not an apology if the assertions fail fact-checking in the first place. It's called being truthful and honest about your assertions and backing them with facts not made-up claims.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #62 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

Boneheads. There is nothing wrong with burning coal to generate power. It is done extremely clean and safely these days. Coal can help provide energy independence for this country - we have tons of it.

I would like to see the number of coal fired power plants quadruple, and an increase in the production of petroleum by squeezing shale. Greenpeace can kiss my posterior and go crawl back under the rock where they came from.

Apple should build several more data centers and locate them right smack in the center of coal powered areas of the country (where they're also likely to realize the lowest operational costs).

Nothing wrong?

Are you kidding me?

Coal generates the most carbon dioxide among all the power sources, the main culprit to the contribution of greenhouse gases. Not only that, it also contributes a good amount of harmful gases into the atmosphere.

Nuclear, geothermal, hydro, wind and solar is the way to go. It may be more expensive but that is partly due to the strong lobbyist on the part of the coal coalition that is strongholding these alternatives from ever seeing advancement and political support. It's not just simply technical.

Leave coal to the dark ages.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #63 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

Boneheads. There is nothing wrong with burning coal to generate power. It is done extremely clean and safely these days. Coal can help provide energy independence for this country - we have tons of it.

I would like to see the number of coal fired power plants quadruple, and an increase in the production of petroleum by squeezing shale. Greenpeace can kiss my posterior and go crawl back under the rock where they came from.

Apple should build several more data centers and locate them right smack in the center of coal powered areas of the country (where they're also likely to realize the lowest operational costs).

Yes... Boneheads... It's a fantastic idea to level mountain ranges for coal and scrape untold acres of soil up to squeeze oil out of it at 2x the cost of drilling wells. Clean Coal my ass... Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, it isn't renewable.

You are the bonehead. It's too bad there are few alternatives to coal at this juncture though.
post #64 of 112
Apple will eventually do away with text books that our children are carrying around everyday. Can you imagine how many trees that will save? Why not recognize that at the same time?
post #65 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

Has it occurred to any of you rabid apologists that Apple, and other companies, strive to take the extraordinary measures they do, and are developing, precisely because agencies like Greenpeace keep the issue in the public eye?

Many companies would never have discovered they could "go green" profitably, had they not been nagged into it.

So, nag away - there is plenty more to be done to make the future a sustainable one...

I, for one, would like to see it so.

Actually, it occurred to us apologists that activitsts like Greenpeace always credit themselves whenever the target of their protests does something good, because they assume that the target cannot possibly have any social conscience without Greenpeace.

So please, Greenpeace, pat yourselves on the back, take credit for what other people do, and continue to tell yourself that nagging and public shaming solves complex real-world economic issues.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #66 of 112
Ever since the Brent Spar debacle, I take everything that comes out of Greenpeace with a grain of salt...
post #67 of 112
Add Greenpeace to the list of "Enemies."
post #68 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

I can tell from these replies that most people posting here don't care about the environment at all. .

That is, of course, almost as ridiculous as what Greenpeace has to say.

I care very much about the environment. Furthermore, I've put a great deal of my own money to use in improving the environment.

That doesn't require me to accept everything Greenpeace says without reservation. They've shown themselves not to be trustworthy or to place environmental concerns above their own lust for power and influence.

When you look at the facts, Apple has done a great deal to improve the environment - more than most (if not all) of their competition. Have a look at the link I provided for another side of the story.

Furthermore, ask yourself where Greenpeace gets their information. Do you really think that they have access to the company records that would allow them to make statements like that? Furthermore, ask yourself why they're doing it now on the eve of Apple launching the largest solar system in the industry - and failing to mention any of Apple's efforts.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #69 of 112
It's not being 'green' to just build your data center 100 ft closer than your competitors data center to a so-called 'green' power source like a dam.
post #70 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave
Boneheads. There is nothing wrong with burning coal to generate power. It is done extremely clean and safely these days. Coal can help provide energy independence for this country - we have tons of it. ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

This is absolute lies and nonsense. Every word of it.


Actually, it would be nice if either or both of you could cite some references.
post #71 of 112
plenty of things they can focus on... whale hunting, the polar bears, drilling oil, wearing fur (join PETA against Kim Kardashian lol), smoking, cosmetic companies, or something random like a campaign against creamy peanut butter!

crushing peanuts hurts the environment!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CGJ View Post

Why don't they focus on deforestation in Brazil, instead of publishing a bunch of worthless numbers that no one actually pays attention to?
post #72 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Nothing wrong?

Are you kidding me?

Coal generates the most carbon dioxide among all the power sources, the main culprit to the contribution of greenhouse gases. Not only that, it also contributes a good amount of harmful gases into the atmosphere.

Nuclear, geothermal, hydro, wind and solar is the way to go. It may be more expensive but that is partly due to the strong lobbyist on the part of the coal coalition that is strongholding these alternatives from ever seeing advancement and political support. It's not just simply technical.

Leave coal to the dark ages.

Plants love carbon dioxide. Converting it all into oxygen. Feed the plants.

Hydro, wind and solar are simply not economically viable at this time. What is in place now is only due to incredibly high "investment" from taxpayers. I wouldn't count too highly on these technologies any time soon. Meanwhile, coal is here today. In abundance.
post #73 of 112
Umm, Living in the Charlotte Area just south of Maiden, we're fed by 3 Nuclear plants and Hydro Electric? All Duke Energy. Driving up 321 I don't see any Coal Plants (not that they are not there somewhere) but... Could Green Peace be wrong? and just picking on Duke because they own Coal plants elsewhere. Guilt by association?
post #74 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

Plants love carbon dioxide. Converting it all into oxygen. Feed the plants.

Hydro, wind and solar are simply not economically viable at this time. What is in place now is only due to incredibly high "investment" from taxpayers. I wouldn't count too highly on these technologies any time soon. Meanwhile, coal is here today. In abundance.

Your 'facts' are wrong.

Hydro is very economical. Unfortunately, the number of locations where it is available is somewhat limited.

Solar and wind are economical in some situations - frequently remote locations. Even in locations that are near the grid, they can sometimes be economical, depending on the location and your expected return on investment. And the cost of both of them is dropping at double digit rates.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #75 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

Boneheads. There is nothing wrong with burning coal to generate power. It is done extremely clean and safely these days. Coal can help provide energy independence for this country - we have tons of it.

I would like to see the number of coal fired power plants quadruple, and an increase in the production of petroleum by squeezing shale. Greenpeace can kiss my posterior and go crawl back under the rock where they came from.

Apple should build several more data centers and locate them right smack in the center of coal powered areas of the country (where they're also likely to realize the lowest operational costs).

I don't know I'm not siding with Greenpeace, I'm all for energy independence, but I have friend who lives too close for comfort to coal plants and has family that does as well, and I've heard nothing but negative things about quality of living and overall health. Who knows what their electric rate is!? Personally, I wouldn't want to live near one.

I think a general blend of energy options is good for business, why have all your eggs in the coal basket? Besides from the obvious - profit.
post #76 of 112
How many billions of tons of plastic/metal/shipping/fuel is saved by people streaming stuff through iTunes rather than buying physical media in a store?

Apple has done more to save the environment than they get credit for, and Greenpeace deliberately picks on the best to elevate their own agenda.
post #77 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

Boneheads. There is nothing wrong with burning coal to generate power. It is done extremely clean and safely these days. Coal can help provide energy independence for this country - we have tons of it.

I would like to see the number of coal fired power plants quadruple, and an increase in the production of petroleum by squeezing shale. Greenpeace can kiss my posterior and go crawl back under the rock where they came from.

Apple should build several more data centers and locate them right smack in the center of coal powered areas of the country (where they're also likely to realize the lowest operational costs).

I will believe what you say if you live right next to a coal-fired power plant.
post #78 of 112
post #79 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Nah, if they were still smoking pot, they'd probably be more like they used to be which is honourable, honest, and concerned about the environment.

The new Greenpeace is a dishonest PR machine that only cares about promoting it's own corporate profile in the media. I would bet they gave up the pot, for scotch on the rocks with their lawyers at the club years ago.

I believe Greenpeace are rated as being very power efficient... they're so full of shit their recycling digesters are running at full capacity and probably exporting to the grid!
post #80 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGJ View Post

Why don't they focus on deforestation in Brazil, instead of publishing a bunch of worthless numbers that no one actually pays attention to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal View Post

Do you mean the forest that Foxconn cut down to build their ipad assembly plant?
Sorry couldn't resist.

Actually, I was going to include that clear cutting that Apple did next to their new North Carolina plant to install the solar arrays. Kind of ironic that they have to raze down acres of beautiful, green land with ecosystems inside of it, only to replace with "green" solar panels that frankly require some of the nastiest environmentally-damaging chemicals and processes to make.

Just my 2 cents in the cause for portable nuclear power...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Greenpeace slams Apple's iCloud for relying 'heavily on dirty energy'