or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Greepeace stages protest on roof of Apple's European HQ in Ireland
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Greepeace stages protest on roof of Apple's European HQ in Ireland

post #1 of 123
Thread Starter 
Protesters with the environmental organization Greenpeace staged an hourlong demonstration atop Apple's European headquarters in Ireland on Wednesday, opposing the use of coal-powered electricity to power the iCloud service.

The demonstrators scaled the top of the Apple building in Cork about 7 a.m. local time and voluntarily came down after about an hour, according to the Irish Examiner. Local police and firefighters arrived on the scene after the protest began, and Greenpeace members passed out pamphlets to Apple employees at the company's European headquarters.

The protestors placed signs on the building with letters spelling out the words "clean our cloud." Strangely, though, Greenpeace praised Apple's energy policy in Ireland, where the protest was staged, noting that the iPhone maker's Cork headquarters relies on renewable energy sources.

Similar demonstrations were also said to have been staged at Apple-run facilities in Turkey and Luxembourg. The protests were coordinated to bring attention to a study released by Greenpeace on Tuesday entitled "How Clean is Your Cloud?," which panned Apple's iCloud service and massive data center in Maiden, N.C., for relying largely on coal-based power.

But Apple was quick to refute those claims only hours after the Greenpeace report was made public. For its part, Apple said that renewable energy will provide 50 percent more of the power needs of its North Carolina data center than Greenpeace projected.

"Our data center in North Carolina will draw about 20 megawatts at full capacity, and we are on track to supply more than 60 percent of that power on-site from renewable sources including a solar farm and fuel cell installation which will each be the largest of their kind in the country," spokeswoman Kristin Huguet said. " We believe this industry leading project will make Maiden the greenest data center ever built, and it will be joined next year by our new facility in Oregon running on 100 percent renewable energy."


Protestors displayed signs at Apple's building in Ireland, via Corkipedia.


Wednesday's demonstrations are only the latest by members of Greenpeace against Apple. The Cupertino, Calif., company has pushed the environmentally friendly aspects of its products for years, following a dispute that began in August of 2006, when Greenpeace condemned Apple for the use of toxic chemicals in its devices.

Previous publicity generating demonstrations by Greenpeace include a "Green My Apple" campaign conducted at the MacExpo show in London in October of 2006, where the environmental advocacy group was forced to shut down its booth. Members of Greenpeace also took part in a "greening" of Apple's Fifth Avenue store in New York City in January of 2007, where protestors shone green floodlights into the locations 32-foot glass cube.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 123
Apple should buy a few Hyperion reactors from Gen4Energy while alternative energy development progresses in its development. We are a long way off yet so an interim solution is required and the Hyperion looks pretty sweet as an alternative to fossil fuels IMHO.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #3 of 123
Are we supposed to take them seriously when they target a single company out of the entire IT industry?
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
post #4 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightlie View Post

Are we supposed to take them seriously when they target a single company out of the entire IT industry?

Greenleace use Network Solutions as their hosting service, just curious of NetSol is greener than Apple?
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #5 of 123
Greenpeace who????

Wonder how efficient their operation is...anyone care to investigate?
post #6 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post

Greenpeace who????

Wonder how efficient their operation is...anyone care to investigate?

I assume their ship is made of recycled panty hose and runs on solar and wind?

Who watches the watchers?
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #7 of 123
Greenpeace seems to be the red-headed stepchild of the environmental movement, causing more backwards movement than anything else.

Given that modern coal plants are among the cleanest energy sources after nuclear, I'm not clear on what non-renewable resource they expect Apple to use, or why they think that burning coal in the middle of the coal belt is somehow worse than transporting oil or LNG into the region.

don't they understand the idea of "Buy Local?"
post #8 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I assume their ship is made of recycled panty hose and runs on solar and wind?

NOPE, made of extruded bullshit and powered by hot air emanating from the anal cavity of idiots.
OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
post #9 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightlie View Post

Are we supposed to take them seriously when they target a single company out of the entire IT industry?

Yes, because that single company is the industry leader. And Noblesse Oblige.
If Apple can't take the heat it should get out of the kitchen.
Apple wants to be industry leader so it, and its fanbois, shouldn't whine like kindergarten kids.
post #10 of 123
They're sacrificing their integrity by singling out Apple. Seems like GP smears Apple for the funds raised with their linkbait antics.

Tim Cook will respond to GP's provocative attacks with accurate information and action. GP always downgrades Apple on 'visibility', never noticing that the 'visible' companies' deeds don't match their words.

Someone ought to write this article:

Greenpeace: Which is More Effective? LinkBait Fund Raising or Telling it Straight?
post #11 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightlie View Post

Are we supposed to take them seriously when they target a single company out of the entire IT industry?

Apple is a high profile company and Greenpeace will always find the most high profile targets in order to get the most bang for its 'marketing' bucks. Don't take it personally, guys. I can't believe so many apparently smart people get so hot under the collar over this.

Not that I support misrepresentation of facts, in fact, if Greenpeace fails in their research they are definitely shooting themselves in the foot, and they should be taken to task.
post #12 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"Our data center in North Carolina will draw about 20 megawatts at full capacity, and we are on track to supply more than 60 percent of that power on-site from renewable sources including a solar farm and fuel cell installation which will each be the largest of their kind in the country," spokeswoman Kristin Huguet said. "


It looks like Apple is playing fast and loose with their numbers.

The fuel cells are NOT "renewable energy". They burn fossil fuels.

They are good for many reasons, but calling them "renewable energy" is just plain lying.
post #13 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

It looks like Apple is playing fast and loose with their numbers.

The fuel cells are NOT "renewable energy". They burn fossil fuels.

They are good for many reasons, but calling them "renewable energy" is just plain lying.

And if Apple so easily lies about something like this it is a given that they lie about whatever they deem convenient.

So what else is new?
post #14 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCarbon View Post

Greenpeace seems to be the red-headed stepchild of the environmental movement, causing more backwards movement than anything else.

Given that modern coal plants are among the cleanest energy sources after nuclear, I'm not clear on what non-renewable resource they expect Apple to use, or why they think that burning coal in the middle of the coal belt is somehow worse than transporting oil or LNG into the region.

don't they understand the idea of "Buy Local?"


I attended a neo-hippie college a decade ago. Greenpeace reminds me of the sophomoric attitude of most of the student body who assumed being provocative was equivalent to being progressive. I was embarrassed (and still am) to claim I graduated from that school, even though it is considered a "good" liberal arts school. I didn't even walk. It's a little disheartening to have grown up and into a world where entire movements are dictated by what is very obviously an ego drive. As much as they try to distance themselves from the "herd," their reactions are grand scale juvenile efforts (intentional provocation and disruption) targeting the most trendy and well known sources - meaning they're no better than those who are ruled by trends precisely because their guiding principle is to deny trends. Do I want to protect the planet? Yes. Do I think Greenpeace's efforts at visibility are comparable to seventh grade initiatives organized by adults? Yes.
post #15 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

It looks like Apple is playing fast and loose with their numbers.

The fuel cells are NOT "renewable energy". They burn fossil fuels.

They are good for many reasons, but calling them "renewable energy" is just plain lying.

We all know you don't actually do research because it would always prove you to be the liar.

http://www.bloomenergy.com/fuel-cell/energy-server/

Check out point 3...
post #16 of 123
I disagree with Apple's choice in situating a data center in the coal belt, but that decision is long gone. Besides, 20MW is chump change today.

How about Bank of America? They easily have 20MW of demand that is supplied by coal. AOL is/was even higher.

The situation arose because of the environmental policies that Greenpeace pushed for the last two decades though. It made energy too expensive in places like California, so energy costs became a significant portion of total operating costs for data centers. That pushed the majority of new facilities from 2002 to 2010 into locations with cheap power. The trend is reversing slightly now, as areas like Los Angeles became under-served.
post #17 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlvarezLuis View Post

Yes, because that single company is the industry leader. And Noblesse Oblige.
If Apple can't take the heat it should get out of the kitchen.
Apple wants to be industry leader so it, and its fanbois, shouldn't whine like kindergarten kids.

I think invoking the word "fanbois" should automatically discredit one's arguments.
post #18 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol77 View Post

It's a little disheartening to have grown up and into a world where entire movements are dictated by what is very obviously an ego drive.

Apparently you need to finish growing up first.
It's a lot more disheartening to have grown up in a world where entire countries are dictated by what is very obviously an egotistic shareholder drive.
post #19 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

It looks like Apple is playing fast and loose with their numbers.

The fuel cells are NOT "renewable energy". They burn fossil fuels.

They are good for many reasons, but calling them "renewable energy" is just plain lying.

Fuel Cells are a means of converting hydrogen into electricity (and water). It tells you nothing about where the fuel comes from. You can generate hydrogen using a variety of means, from burning coal and oil, to geothermal, and harnessing tidal waves.
post #20 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlvarezLuis View Post

Yes, because that single company is the industry leader. And Noblesse Oblige.
If Apple can't take the heat it should get out of the kitchen.
Apple wants to be industry leader so it, and its fanbois, shouldn't whine like kindergarten kids.

What whining has Apple done. None. Refuting incorrect facts like how much energy the data center needs is not whining.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #21 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

It looks like Apple is playing fast and loose with their numbers.
The fuel cells are NOT "renewable energy". They burn fossil fuels.
They are good for many reasons, but calling them "renewable energy" is just plain lying.

Not strictly true, so maybe I should accuse you of "lying".

1. A fuel cell isn't a kind of energy, renewable or otherwise; it's a machine.
2. A fuel cell is about the cleanest possible way to burn fuel.
3. The fuel itself can be renewable.
4. If the fuel itself is renewable, then the energy produced by the fuel cell is in fact "renewable energy".

For whatever reason, various people have decided to attack Apple from the left. None of those reasons hold any water. The left needs to stop these attacks because it's just making itself look childish and snarky.
post #22 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

We all know you don't actually do research because it would always prove you to be the liar.

http://www.bloomenergy.com/fuel-cell/energy-server/

Check out point 3...

Yes, they are capable of running on stuff like cowshit-generated methane.

But Apple is going to be using natural gas, which is not a renewable, but is instead a fossil fuel.

My point stands. Apple's fuel cells are not "renewable energy". They run on fossil fuels.

There are many good reaons to use them. But they do not include their being renewable energy.
post #23 of 123
"If Apple can't take the heat it should get out of the kitchen.
Apple wants to be industry leader so it, and its fanbois, shouldn't whine like kindergarten kids.
I think invoking the word "fanbois" should automatically discredit one's arguments."

Quote:
Originally Posted by wakko View Post

I think invoking the word "fanbois" should automatically discredit one's arguments.

It does.
post #24 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post

Greenpeace who????

Wonder how efficient their operation is...anyone care to investigate?

I wonder how much coal power their headquarters in Amsterdam uses? What about the ships they use, are they modern fuel efficient ships or old clunkers?
post #25 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakko View Post

Fuel Cells are a means of converting hydrogen into electricity (and water). It tells you nothing about where the fuel comes from. You can generate hydrogen using a variety of means, from burning coal and oil, to geothermal, and harnessing tidal waves.

And Apple will generate it using fossil fuel.
post #26 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

Not strictly true, so maybe I should accuse you of "lying".

1. A fuel cell isn't a kind of energy, renewable or otherwise; it's a machine.
2. A fuel cell is about the cleanest possible way to burn fuel.
3. The fuel itself can be renewable.
4. If the fuel itself is renewable, then the energy produced by the fuel cell is in fact "renewable energy".

For whatever reason, various people have decided to attack Apple from the left. None of those reasons hold any water. The left needs to stop these attacks because it's just making itself look childish and snarky.

Your point no. 4 is true. But given that Apple will NOT use renewable fuel, it is moot.
post #27 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

...Apple's fuel cells are not "renewable energy". They run on fossil fuels.

There are many good reaons to use them. But they do not include their being renewable energy.

Also, some methods of hydrogen generation use coal as well. Producing batteries can also generate significant pollution. You really need to take it all the way back if you're really serious.
post #28 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlvarezLuis View Post

Apparently you need to finish growing up first.
It's a lot more disheartening to have grown up in a world where entire countries are dictated by what is very obviously an egotistic shareholder drive.

Concerning what I wrote, you might be encouraged about my opinion a bit if you read it more literally. I'm probably on your side. Aside from that, I'm fairly confident in my level of maturity, an attribute of which is not resorting to personal attacks...I wasn't trying to provoke your indignation, though I understand it. On the other hand, it is not my political understanding that greed is "evil," as wealth is the fuel of life, whether you're trading in dollars or services, or deeds. Maybe we disagree, but I think you're overreacting a bit (or misunderstanding my intention). Anyway, don't see me as a proponent of abusing the earth. I'm on your team.
post #29 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacekid View Post

Also, some methods of hydrogen generation use coal as well. Producing batteries can also generate significant pollution. You really need to take it all the way back if you're really serious.


If I'm really serious about what?

That Apple should not call its natural gas burning fuel cells "renewable energy? That was my point.

I think that these fuel cells are great. They have many benefits. I am in favor of distributed generation, and fuel cells are a good means to accomplish that. They are efficient and quiet and generate relatively little pollution compared to certain alternatives. If their use was expaned, we would realize many benefits, including a huge reduction in transmission losses.

But they do not produce "renewable energy" in most cases, and certainly not in Apple's case.
post #30 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Yes, they are capable of running on stuff like cowshit-generated methane.

But Apple is going to be using natural gas, which is not a renewable, but is instead a fossil fuel.

My point stands. Apple's fuel cells are not "renewable energy". They run on fossil fuels.

There are many good reaons to use them. But they do not include their being renewable energy.

Apple is going to be using natural gas, but it isn't limited to natural gas. Also, our civilization can't instantaneously drop its reliance on fossil fuels - not does it have to. In order to halt global warming, it is not necessary to completely ban CO2 production. It is, however, necessary to move as quickly as practicable in that direction. Moving away from coal to natural gas is definitely a way to reduce the production of CO2.

Besides that, nothing precludes a future move towards using methane produced from "recyclables", although even here the issue is still not uncomplicated. The use of grain alcohol as a fuel is not going anywhere because it relies heavily on the use of non-renewable energy for production and distribution.

Even solar cells take energy to produce, construct, and distribute. So the bottom line is, there are no 100% truly renewable power plants. They ALL uses non- renewables in one form or another.
post #31 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

Apple is going to be using natural gas,

Then they should not call the fuel cells a source of "renewable energy", because they are not. Instead, they use fossil fuel.
post #32 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Your point no. 4 is true. But given that Apple will NOT use renewable fuel, it is moot.

All my points are true, not just Point 4. And it isn't moot. See my Post before this one.
post #33 of 123
I can't stand Greenpeace. They are just looking for some media time. Don't donate to them.
post #34 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

All my points are true, not just Point 4. And it isn't moot. See my Post before this one.

Yes, all your points are true. Point 3 too is moot, as it is inapplicable to Apple's natural gas powered fuel cells.

Apple seems to be lumping its natural gas powered generation into "renewable energy", but clearly it is not.
post #35 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightlie View Post

Are we supposed to take them seriously when they target a single company out of the entire IT industry?

Nope. I certainly don't see them consistently targeting Amazon or any of the other manufacturers and service providers on the list.

I'm a pretty green-leaning individual, but even I see Greenpeace as nonsensical bunch of loons. They do FAR more harm than good.
post #36 of 123
Arc reactor anyone?
post #37 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Then they should not call the fuel cells a source of "renewable energy", because they are not. Instead, they use fossil fuel.

You're splitting hairs. If the source of fuel is renewable then the fuel cells make renewable energy. You don't know that their plans don't include making the source of fuel renewable.
post #38 of 123
People of Greenpeace's slanted focus I have lost all faith in them.

Justice should be blind. When GP targets Apple it's clear they are doing it to
gain notoriety and that to me sullies their goal.

Plus the concept of using nutjob protesters went out over a decade ago as an effective strategy.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #39 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

You're splitting hairs. If the source of fuel is renewable then the fuel cells make renewable energy. You don't know that their plans don't include making the source of fuel renewable.

You yourself claimed that the fuel cells would run on natural gas. If Apple will be using cowshit gas, or landfill gas, or some other type of gas, then you might be wrong about what you claimed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe
Apple is going to be using natural gas,
post #40 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Yes, all your points are true. Point 3 too is moot, as it is inapplicable to Apple's natural gas powered fuel cells.

Apple seems to be lumping its natural gas powered generation into "renewable energy", but clearly it is not.

Seems to be is not the same as clearly not. If the fuel comes from renewable sources then the fuel cells make renewable energy. And you have no proof that the fuels won't eventually be from renewables.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Greepeace stages protest on roof of Apple's European HQ in Ireland