or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Greenpeace says Apple's clean energy policies are 'significantly improved'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Greenpeace says Apple's clean energy policies are 'significantly improved'

post #1 of 61
Thread Starter 
Greenpeace admitted on Thursday that Apple's clean energy policies have "significantly improved," though the environmental activist organization still takes issue with Apple's reliance on coal power for iCloud services.

The organization made a post on its official blog to highlight the release of a new Greenpeace International analysis, which found that Apple "lacks a plan that outlines a realistic path to eliminate its reliance on coal." The report is entitled, "A Clean Energy Road Map for Apple."

Greenpeace opted to re-score Apple because of what the group called "ambitious and public commitments to clean energy."

In the "Road Map," Greenpeace now gives Apple a score of 22.6 percent on its "Clean Energy Index," up from April's score of 15.3 percent. Apple's grades went from 'F' to 'D' in "Infrastructure Sitting," and 'D' to 'C' in "Energy Efficiency & GHG Mitigation," as well as "Renewables & Advocacy." Apple's grade of 'D' remained unchanged in "Energy Transparency."

In its report, Greenpeace offered a list of steps that the organization believes would "indicate if (Apple) is truly on the path to meet its ambitious goals." They are:
  • Choose a renewable-powered local utility for its Oregon data centre, not buy renewable energy credits from coal-powered Pacific Power.
  • Use renewable electricity from onsite generation to directly power its North Carolina facility, and use grid power solely for backup, rather than selling its renewable electricity to Duke Energy.

Greenpeace

  • Secure a sustainable source of biogas to directly power its fuel cells for North Carolina.
  • Retire renewable energy credits from electricity generated onsite in North Carolina
  • Invest directly in new renewable energy generation in North Carolina rather than buying renewable credits to "green" Duke Energy;s dirty electricity.
  • Demand Duke Energy eliminate its mountaintop coal removal operations from Apple?s electricity supply chain, and demand that Duke invest in new renewable energy generation capacity, not retrofitting and extending the lifetime of dirty coal plants.
  • Adopt a data center siting policy that prioritizes access to renewable energy for any future iCloud data centers.

Greenpeace's reassessment of Apple was prompted by the company's announcement in May that its iCloud data center in Maiden, N.C., will be powered entirely by renewable energy by the end of 2012. The feat will be accomplished with the construction of two new solar array installations around the existing facility, as well as high-energy cells and an advanced solar tracking system.

Greenpeace's initial "How Clean is Your Cloud?" report, issued in April, accused Apple of lagging behind other technology companies like Facebook and Google in utilizing environmentally friendly power for its cloud-based services. Apple, however, rejected the estimates in Greenpeace's study, and provided its own figures, which claimed that renewable energy would provide more than 50 percent of the center's power needs than was originally projected, even before Apple announced its plans to rely entirely on renewable energy at its Maiden facility.

The updated report issued by Greenpeace on Thursday was Apple-specific, as no other technology companies saw their grades or key sustainability criteria changed. The organization said it plans to re-evaluate Microsoft and Amazon in light of any action or inaction in a subsequent report later this year.
post #2 of 61
Wow Greenpeace. Way to go. You certainly showed them. /s
post #3 of 61
When Greenpeace gives the most environmentally friendly tech company a "D" it tells me that they are crying wolf.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #4 of 61

I know with all the news coming across the AppleInsider editorial desk, it is hard to figure out what is worthy of being posted on the site. To help you out, I have developed a clever filter. When applied to any story, it will let you know if it is worth mentioning.

 

If you see the words "Greenpeace says" in the article title or body copy, it can safely be ignored as it will contain nothing of value.

 

Oh, and "your welcome".

 

-kpluck

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply
post #5 of 61
Screw 'em. Who cares about Greenpeace when they've lied about and ignored the things Apple has done for the environment in the past?

Not to mention the breaking and entering.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #6 of 61

The "Coal" plant in that image is a Nuclear power plant, and the massive amounts of "smoke" going into the air? That's water vapor.

post #7 of 61
**** off.
The U.S. uses coal for about 20-25% of its energy use. Solar is around 1%. Apple is far above the national average for renewables (with their new data center in North Carolina) and should be celebrated as a huge success story. Apple has always been a progressive company in practice and philosophy. It's those wonderful San Francisco values.
post #8 of 61

So much vitriol against Greenpeace.  You'd think Apple fanboys would be more forgiving of the occasional bit of hyperbole, exaggeration and truth stretching giving some of the nonsense that gets spouted during Apple launch events.

 

 

Greenpeace aren't claiming that renewable energy is magical, they're just trying to effect change, and they do that by putting pressure on the most high profile targets.  No one at Apple is in pain or suffering because of Greenpeace's actions, and if Apple is "the most environmentally friendly tech company" then they should be reading Greenpeace's publications with interest, as they're clearly on the same side.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #9 of 61
Yeah, what we really need is for everyone to stop asking questions, stop asking for accountabity, stop caring about things and proceed through life as half-witted slaves to the labor lords that command there every action. That would be just GRAND.

Green Peace is far from perfect, but they're about the only counter ballast we have going, and they're a big step up from the terrorists at the Sierra Club. Only a complete fool would think Green Peace were the bad guys, with some evil, hidden agenda. You Glenn Beck hystericals make me cringe.
post #10 of 61

And who is auditing Greenpeace?

post #11 of 61

Yes we all understand GreenPeace hates Duke Energy and Apple is in the middle.... Lets import more photovoltaics from China ASAP.

post #12 of 61

We need to be aware that Greenpeace won't be satisfied until we are all back in mud huts tilling the soil to eek out a meager existence. Nothing any company or any government does will ever be good enough for them. They are left wing extremists in every sense of the word. They are quintessential environmental wackos who believe human beings are a cancer on Gaia that needs to be excised. They constantly lash out at Apple but you can bet your paycheck they all have iPhones, iPads

post #13 of 61

Would Apple be as environmentally conscious today if not for Greenpeace? Hard to say.

 

I can say with confidence, though, that Greenpeace has shone a light into some very dark places over the years and has helped considerably in cleaning up this planet.

 

Apple is a big boy, it can take the criticism. There is always room for improvement.


Edited by island hermit - 7/12/12 at 11:32am
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #14 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm7Cadd9 View Post

The "Coal" plant in that image is a Nuclear power plant, and the massive amounts of "smoke" going into the air? That's water vapor.

Greenpeace is a joke. These morons will never understand that "renewable" fuel will never match the amount of output from a traditional coal/nuke plant. They're clueless, and you just proved it. 

post #15 of 61

nothing is clean in this industrialized world. what energy are used to make wind turbo equipments? Can you trace down the dirty behind?

post #16 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by xZu View Post

Lets import more photovoltaics from China ASAP.

Made via unregulated industrialized practices… lol.gif

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #17 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm7Cadd9 View Post

The "Coal" plant in that image is a Nuclear power plant, and the massive amounts of "smoke" going into the air? That's water vapor.

Excellent point. Don't rely on Greenpeace for technical information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkerst View Post

Greenpeace is a joke. These morons will never understand that "renewable" fuel will never match the amount of output from a traditional coal/nuke plant. They're clueless, and you just proved it. 

You might want to check your facts before throwing darts.

Hydro (well regarded as a renewable energy source) already accounts for a significant percentage of our energy - certainly many times a traditional coal or nuke plant.

Even renewables like wind and solar are generating more power than a traditional coal or nuke plant.

Now, it's true that it's unlikely that renewables are unlikely to replace a large portion of coal or nuclear power any time soon, but don't understate their value.
"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 #18 of 61
In reply to the nuclear power plant comment



Very true.
You should teach a class for them. May take them months to understand.
post #19 of 61

Last time I check nuclear power plants (shown in the Greenpeace ad) do not generate grey clouds of smoke only water vapor clouds. Oh I get it, they can not tell the difference between a smoke stack of a coal plant to a cooling tower of a nuclear plant.

 

In addition most coal fire power plans do not generate gray clouds of smoke either, they clean all that out before they come out of the stack, it the more invisible gases that come out that are of concerns 


Edited by Maestro64 - 7/12/12 at 2:04pm
post #20 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by chudq View Post

nothing is clean in this industrialized world. what energy are used to make wind turbo equipments? Can you trace down the dirty behind?

 

Errrr, yeah people can and have traced down the dirty:

 

 

"These calculations show that, during its lifetime, the wind turbine allows us to recover nearly 31 times the environmental contamination caused by its manufacture, start-up, operation and decommissioning"
 
- A quote from this paper.
post #21 of 61

Is it me or it's a bit harsh to take issue with Apple using electricity from coal? 

What is Apple suppose to do? Build their own power grid from Solar and Wind? Really Greenpeace?

post #22 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post

Is it me or it's a bit harsh to take issue with Apple using electricity from coal? 

What is Apple suppose to do? Build their own power grid from Solar and Wind? Really Greenpeace?


Greenpeace has bad blood with Duke Energy which operates the power grid for the area of North Carolina where the data center is located.  That's one of Greenpeace's main beefs, that Apple chose to locate their data center in a place where the grid was so "dirty" because a lot of Duke's plants are coal fired.

post #23 of 61

Of course North Carolina has the Appalachians and plenty of coal.  Greenpeace would spaz out if they chose to build a nuclear plant, NC isn't exactly a state known for being well setup for wind generation.  Solar can be done, but it still doesn't generate enough.  How else are they supposed to power the state?

post #24 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanSolecki View Post

Yeah, what we really need is for everyone to stop asking questions, stop asking for accountabity, stop caring about things and proceed through life as half-witted slaves to the labor lords that command there every action. That would be just GRAND.
Green Peace is far from perfect, but they're about the only counter ballast we have going, and they're a big step up from the terrorists at the Sierra Club. Only a complete fool would think Green Peace were the bad guys, with some evil, hidden agenda. You Glenn Beck hystericals make me cringe.

I have to agree. The Green Peace hatred in this forum is very unlike the generally intelligent tone here. It is like the Juvenile Microsoft and Apple bashing that goes on over at Cnet. Apple and the rest of the big cloud service providers, and people generally will only benefit from Greenpeace making a fuss about this. I don't understand why people here are defensive to the point of infantile belligerence. So what if Greenpeace is not all wonderful, their point is still valid.

post #25 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

So much vitriol against Greenpeace.  You'd think Apple fanboys would be more forgiving of the occasional bit of hyperbole, exaggeration and truth stretching giving some of the nonsense that gets spouted during Apple launch events.

 

 

Greenpeace aren't claiming that renewable energy is magical, they're just trying to effect change, and they do that by putting pressure on the most high profile targets.  No one at Apple is in pain or suffering because of Greenpeace's actions, and if Apple is "the most environmentally friendly tech company" then they should be reading Greenpeace's publications with interest, as they're clearly on the same side.

And yet Green Peace gets around in fossil fuel ships, cars, and planes.



Hypocrites are the bottom rung for me.

post #26 of 61
Greenpeace can start preaching to Apple about the coal fired cloud as soon as they stop using thousands of tons of carcinogenic diesel in their ships.
post #27 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Greenpeace offered a list of steps that the organization believes would "indicate if (Apple) is truly on the path to meet its ambitious goals." They are:
  • Choose a renewable-powered local utility for its Oregon data centre, not buy renewable energy credits from coal-powered Pacific Power.
  • Use renewable electricity from onsite generation to directly power its North Carolina facility, and use grid power solely for backup, rather than selling its renewable electricity to Duke Energy.
  • Secure a sustainable source of biogas to directly power its fuel cells for North Carolina.
  • Retire renewable energy credits from electricity generated onsite in North Carolina
  • Invest directly in new renewable energy generation in North Carolina rather than buying renewable credits to "green" Duke Energy;s dirty electricity.
  • Demand Duke Energy eliminate its mountaintop coal removal operations from Apple?s electricity supply chain, and demand that Duke invest in new renewable energy generation capacity, not retrofitting and extending the lifetime of dirty coal plants.
  • Adopt a data center siting policy that prioritizes access to renewable energy for any future iCloud data centers.

 

In what world do these steps indicate if Apple is on a path to meet it's ambitious goals?  Why on earth shouldn't Apple sell it's renewable electricity to Duke Energy?  Wouldn't that actually make Duke Energy less "dirty?"  It sounds like Greenpeace doesn't want to lose its "Great Satan" energy company punching bag.  Why shouldn't Apple buy renewable credits?  Isn't that what Al Gore does to offset his huge electric bills in his giant Tennessee mansion?  Why should Apple retire renewable energy credits from electricity generated onsite in North Carolina?  How is that more green?  Shouldn't they benefit from having the solar farm? 

 

This whole report is a flaming pile of BS.

post #28 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

I have to agree. The Green Peace hatred in this forum is very unlike the generally intelligent tone here. It is like the Juvenile Microsoft and Apple bashing that goes on over at Cnet. Apple and the rest of the big cloud service providers, and people generally will only benefit from Greenpeace making a fuss about this. I don't understand why people here are defensive to the point of infantile belligerence. So what if Greenpeace is not all wonderful, their point is still valid.


If their point is valid please help me with a few answers to my questions in post #27.  Thanks!

post #29 of 61

Greenpeace still sucks. Who cares about what they say?

 

Hopefully the next time that they decide to illegally occupy and invade Apple's roof, a few of them slip and fall off. Now that would be a real feel good news story of the day.

post #30 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Greenpeace still sucks. Who cares about what they say?

 

Hopefully the next time that they decide to illegally occupy and invade Apple's roof, a few of them slip and fall off. Now that would be a real feel good news story of the day.


Then Apple would get sued and have huge liability lawsuits.  Is that really what you want?  Doesn't matter if they were there illegally, Apple could still easily be found liable in court.

post #31 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

When Greenpeace gives the most environmentally friendly tech company a "D" it tells me that they are crying wolf.

 

Yeah I can't help wondering if they got so much flack for dissing Apple over not fitting some very specific condition so they are basically recanting by saying "well they are improving a little" so they don't look bad. 

 

Not unlike EPEAT or the 'sources' that come up with some supply issue etc to explain why something isn't happening that they said was a done deal

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 #32 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post


Then Apple would get sued and have huge liability lawsuits.  Is that really what you want?  Doesn't matter if they were there illegally, Apple could still easily be found liable in court.

Maybe you're right, but that sounds outrageous. Imagine somebody getting sued because a criminal got injured during the process of committing a crime on your property.

 

And even though I hold a microscopic stake in Apple as a tiny shareholder, I would say that even if Apple were to get sued and they lost, then I'd almost say that the satisfaction would be worth it. Money isn't everything in life, though it's quite important of course.

post #33 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm7Cadd9 View Post

The "Coal" plant in that image is a Nuclear power plant, and the massive amounts of "smoke" going into the air? That's water vapor.

I could be wrong, but I think you are mistaking the shape of those smoke stacks with those of a nuclear power plant. Many coal and natural gas powered power plants use a similar smoke stack. I've driven by one many a time in Michigan City and it's a very cool water scrubber stack that looks just like a nuclear stack.266
post #34 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post


Then Apple would get sued and have huge liability lawsuits.  Is that really what you want?  Doesn't matter if they were there illegally, Apple could still easily be found liable in court.

 

"Your honor it was ALL APPLE'S FAULT!!  There I was, minding my own business scaling this 50 foot ladder on their property, when I slipt and fell.  Apple should not have built their buildings so high so I had to climb them to properly protest them.  I want money"

 

Any sane judge would throw that shit out and demand the Greenpeace member pay Apple's attorney fees :)  Also, is Apple's campus public property?  I don't think so.  Anyone injured in a protest in their campus would be injured while trespassing.

 

BTW, still amazed no response from Greenpeace over EPEAT and APple.

post #35 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

 

  Why on earth shouldn't Apple sell it's renewable electricity to Duke Energy? 

 

 

 

 

A couple of reasons.  Distributed Generation is a worthy goal for a number of reason - grid stabilization, fault tolerance, and many more.  Likely Greenpeace is a fan, just as many others are.

 

There is less transmission loss when the electricity is used "behind the fence".  transforming it to grid voltage alone results in increased losses, much less wheeling it long distances.

post #36 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Excellent point. Don't rely on Greenpeace for technical information.
You might want to check your facts before throwing darts.
Hydro (well regarded as a renewable energy source) already accounts for a significant percentage of our energy - certainly many times a traditional coal or nuke plant.
Even renewables like wind and solar are generating more power than a traditional coal or nuke plant.
Now, it's true that it's unlikely that renewables are unlikely to replace a large portion of coal or nuclear power any time soon, but don't understate their value.
 
Maybe wrong adjective. Of course Hydro produces a ton of power without waste. Look at Hoover Dam's output. There would be no Las Vegas without it. On the other hand, these eco nerds have no idea what they are talking about. 
"Even renewables like wind and solar are generating more power than a traditional coal or nuke plant." 
 Huh? No way this is true. Show me data and then I'll change my mind.
 
post #37 of 61

In other news, Greenpeace still hasn't removed the polluting diesel engines powering its boat fleet.

post #38 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

In other news, Greenpeace still hasn't removed the polluting diesel engines powering its boat fleet.

Ecohypocrites. That is all. Most of them don't have jobs. They're essentially homeless. 

post #39 of 61

Wow, I can sleep now /rollseyes

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #40 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

 

"Your honor it was ALL APPLE'S FAULT!!  There I was, minding my own business scaling this 50 foot ladder on their property, when I slipt and fell.  Apple should not have built their buildings so high so I had to climb them to properly protest them.  I want money"

 

Any sane judge would throw that shit out and demand the Greenpeace member pay Apple's attorney fees :)  Also, is Apple's campus public property?  I don't think so.  Anyone injured in a protest in their campus would be injured while trespassing.

 

BTW, still amazed no response from Greenpeace over EPEAT and APple.

From a law firms webpage

TRESPASSER INJURIES: Would I be legally responsible if a trespasser were injured (premise liability) on my San Diego county property? I am talking about a slip or trip and fall injury, or any injury for that matter?

A:

It depends.  Under California law, your generally are not liable for any injury to a trespasser on your property. Suppose, however, that you know certain people continually trespass on your property, perhaps using it as a shortcut; then a court might find that you should have notified these regular trespassers about any hidden artificial conditions of which you were aware that could seriously injure them.  It is all about whether or not you had prior knowledge of the trespassing going on - if not, then you generally risk no legal responsibility.

 

So, if Greenpeace is consistently going on their roof and Apple doesn't say 'It's dangerous up there, you could fall" and someone fell then it's possible that they could be found liable.  I don't agree with it, but I was just pointing out to Apple ][ that he probably doesn't want to wish that situation upon the company.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Greenpeace says Apple's clean energy policies are 'significantly improved'