Greenpeace is almost as big a joke as the now disgraced al gore. If GP really wanted to help the country and the world, they would concentrate their efforts on getting rid of the current crop of weasels pulling the levers in Washington. For God's sakes nancy pelosi's totally fruitless trip to the Copenhagen Climate Summit using 2 military jets for dozens of tag-alongers, spewed more CO2 in the air in a week than all the iPads and iPods will do in a millenium. Did Greenpeace bother to comment on that? The level of ignorance and hypocrisy from these left wing screwballs is breathtaking.
Ignoring the rest of your rant, I do have to agree with one point: The carbon footprint associated with the various heads of state (100+ countries) and their fleets of jets (and each with their dozens-to-hundreds of hangers-on), flying into and out of COP15 for one day, was one of unconscionable, distasteful, and environmentally-unfriendly things I've witnessed.
Everyone know Apple is #1 in green. Apple even have Nobel Peace Prize for Environment winner Al Gore on Board. Apple uses glass and metal - very little plastic. Everyone jealous of Apple.
Greenpeace is taking advantage of a publicity tsunami, and I suppose I can't really blame them. Looks like they're asking people to think about 'cloud' assumptions regarding energy. Don't really see the harm in that.
If so, they should present it in a more intelligent fashion, by also discussing as a baseline what it substitutes for, and what the net effects (relative to 'business as usual') are on the carbon footprint.
at what point did these idiots typo "CO2" instead of CO, and was it the same time the rest of you idiots decided to forget en masse that CARBON DIOXIDE IS WHAT PLANTS NEED TO SURVIVE.
CARBON MONOXIDE IS WHAT COME OUT OF FACTORIES AND ENGINES.
you goddamn socialist greentards aren't even trying anymore, are you?
Please don't display your ignorance of the issues involved in public.
We are not dissing apple, and maybe somone else can figure out how much they pollute? WTF? I am a supporter of green movement, but this sounds like an unfair and outright publicity stunt by greenpeace. They are attacking what is probably the greenest comp manufacturer.
Apple does a remarkable job of its environmental reporting.
The guy was 100% spot-on. Greenpeace is a bunch of insane eco-terrorists with ZERO credibility. Al Gore is the biggest fraud since Jessie Jackson. If you believe otherwise, then YOU are the ignorant one, not him.
Angry much? Eco-terrorists? Really?
It is my impression is that GP is not singling out Apple but rather drawing attention to the fact that huge server farms consume an awful lot of energy. A totally worthwhile point. Its easy to forget that there is a carbon footprint to computer usage.
I have no idea what is being done to conserve energy but I don't see anything wrong with GP or any other eco organization taking steps to raise awareness and exert some pressure on Apple, MS, Google, HP et al.
I understand that people feel really defensive about 'our' Apple and that people disapproves of GP's marketing tactics, but try and step back and get a perspective. I see nothing in the quote below to get my knickers in a twist about.
Quote:
"To be clear: We are not picking on Apple," the group said. "We are not dissing the iPad. But maybe someone can come up with an app that calculates the carbon footprint of using different web sites based on their location and energy deals.
"Apple is the master of promotion, and while we marvel at the sleek unpolluted design of the iPad, we need to think about where this is all leading and how like all good surfers we can make sure our environment stays clean and green."
I'm an environmentalist too, I believe man-made GW is real, and I support Al Gore. I'm also a socialist who thinks we need Kucinich in the Whitehouse. But I think Greenpeace is only one step below PETA at the top of the liberal wacko list.
I am a lifetime member of PETA- People Eating Tasty Animals.
They probably do, but these computers aren't logged in. Since every student has a unique login, these computers just sit there on a pre-login screen and never go to sleep (not even the monitors).
We have 7 Macs in the house and all of them are multi-user with login screens. These all go into sleep mode with the disk spun down and the display off.
In fact, I am remotely accessing the disk/files on my daughter's computer and its screen is completely black (off).
If your lab uses Macs you should suggest to admin/IT that they review the Energy Saver settings in System Preferences. They can set these remotely using Screen Sharing.
Apple has done quite a bit over the years to improve energy efficiency-- Did you know that you can schedule your Mac to power off and power on at given times of day?
Quote:
You can't tell me that a room full of fluorescent lights left on for an entire day uses less power than what they use when they're initially turned on and during that few minutes when they warm up to peak brightness. As for security, these unoccupied classrooms could just be locked.
No, I didn't say that... common sense dictates that when a room is going to be empty for a long time it is more efficient to turn off the lights (but they will, likely, need to be replaced more often due to the power surge).
As for security, locks alone may not provide security. Energy use could be mitigated, without compromising security, by turning banks of lights off. But motion detectors and/or night cameras might help with the lights out.
Most enterprises that use a lot of energy have computers (power shedders) to control lighting, HVAC, etc... so they may be doing things and have considerations that you are not aware of.
Quote:
I obviously realize that if one wanted to, they could really take it to the extreme, but I'm talking about some basic, common sense measures here. There's a difference between being fanatical about power conservation and being just plain wasteful at the opposite end of the spectrum. I'm talking about a more realistic middle-ground here.
I agree, the key is common sense! we have 3 kids and we (try) to get them to follow the rule:
if you're not going to use it for 15 minutes, put it to sleep or turn it off.
Fortunately, Apple allows us to enforce this automatically for its computers.
If Greenpeace sat down and figured out the carbon savings from sending out data electronically instead of through physical means, they might come up with a different perspective.
We know Greenpeace is just hitching a ride on the iPad's coat tails and hitting up Apple for donations for the free advertising it's giving the device.
What Greenpeace should be doing is attacking the rather low, non-upgradable storage capacity of the iPad and the lack of a easily exchangeable battery.
Computers that have easily exchangeable parts last the longest and have the least impact on the environment.
If we could only harness the energy expended in this thread we could run 10M iPads for 10 years.
There is no single solution to this problem. Long term solutions are in designing more efficient server sites that use less power for the electronics and less energy for cooling. Each site can buy power from more green power generating facilities, put solar panels, wind turbine on site--most likely will not generate enough power to sustain their needs, but will supplement their power requirements.
More funding for research for fusion power. Nuclear power may have to be used in short term to supplement power production, but main problem is radioactive waste generated--need to reduce waste and find solution where to store it.
Solar and wind power farms require large expanse of land. Solar power farms would be located in the SW desert regions that are rapidly disappearing and the environmental impacts are not known.
Need to develop technologies to utilize tidal energy along coastal areas. Hydroelectric power by damning rivers has large environmental impact down stream and floods large areas of land--also not good for fly fishing.
at what point did these idiots typo "CO2" instead of CO, and was it the same time the rest of you idiots decided to forget en masse that CARBON DIOXIDE IS WHAT PLANTS NEED TO SURVIVE.
CARBON MONOXIDE IS WHAT COME OUT OF FACTORIES AND ENGINES.
you goddamn socialist greentards aren't even trying anymore, are you?
LOL hilarious - Carbon Monoxide? You really know nothing about exhaust fumes... Funny, you should keep naked flames well away from your car exhaust if it pumps out CO!
Besides CO becomes CO2 rather quickly in well ventilated areas due to, well, er oxygen... You know, why you must ventilate your boiler. Rocket science it ain't.
Well anyone that uses "socialist" or "greentard" as a pejorative is not the sharpest tool in the box it has to be said.
We are not dissing apple, and maybe somone else can figure out how much they pollute? WTF? I am a supporter of green movement, but this sounds like an unfair and outright publicity stunt by greenpeace. They are attacking what is probably the greenest comp manufacturer.
I suspect that Apple pollutes very little.
However, their (and competitors) manufacturing is done in China, which is notorious for its pollution!.
I am all for conservation and preservation of the environment... but realize that there are those that manipulate the issues to their own ends.
Comments
Greenpeace is almost as big a joke as the now disgraced al gore. If GP really wanted to help the country and the world, they would concentrate their efforts on getting rid of the current crop of weasels pulling the levers in Washington. For God's sakes nancy pelosi's totally fruitless trip to the Copenhagen Climate Summit using 2 military jets for dozens of tag-alongers, spewed more CO2 in the air in a week than all the iPads and iPods will do in a millenium. Did Greenpeace bother to comment on that? The level of ignorance and hypocrisy from these left wing screwballs is breathtaking.
Ignoring the rest of your rant, I do have to agree with one point: The carbon footprint associated with the various heads of state (100+ countries) and their fleets of jets (and each with their dozens-to-hundreds of hangers-on), flying into and out of COP15 for one day, was one of unconscionable, distasteful, and environmentally-unfriendly things I've witnessed.
Greenpeace is taking advantage of a publicity tsunami, and I suppose I can't really blame them. Looks like they're asking people to think about 'cloud' assumptions regarding energy. Don't really see the harm in that.
If so, they should present it in a more intelligent fashion, by also discussing as a baseline what it substitutes for, and what the net effects (relative to 'business as usual') are on the carbon footprint.
at what point did these idiots typo "CO2" instead of CO, and was it the same time the rest of you idiots decided to forget en masse that CARBON DIOXIDE IS WHAT PLANTS NEED TO SURVIVE.
CARBON MONOXIDE IS WHAT COME OUT OF FACTORIES AND ENGINES.
you goddamn socialist greentards aren't even trying anymore, are you?
Please don't display your ignorance of the issues involved in public.
Who would have thought a highly publicized Apple product launch would be targeted by grandstanding hucksters.
We are not dissing apple, and maybe somone else can figure out how much they pollute? WTF? I am a supporter of green movement, but this sounds like an unfair and outright publicity stunt by greenpeace. They are attacking what is probably the greenest comp manufacturer.
Apple does a remarkable job of its environmental reporting.
You can find it here: http://www.apple.com/environment/reports/
The guy was 100% spot-on. Greenpeace is a bunch of insane eco-terrorists with ZERO credibility. Al Gore is the biggest fraud since Jessie Jackson. If you believe otherwise, then YOU are the ignorant one, not him.
Angry much? Eco-terrorists? Really?
It is my impression is that GP is not singling out Apple but rather drawing attention to the fact that huge server farms consume an awful lot of energy. A totally worthwhile point. Its easy to forget that there is a carbon footprint to computer usage.
I have no idea what is being done to conserve energy but I don't see anything wrong with GP or any other eco organization taking steps to raise awareness and exert some pressure on Apple, MS, Google, HP et al.
I understand that people feel really defensive about 'our' Apple and that people disapproves of GP's marketing tactics, but try and step back and get a perspective. I see nothing in the quote below to get my knickers in a twist about.
"To be clear: We are not picking on Apple," the group said. "We are not dissing the iPad. But maybe someone can come up with an app that calculates the carbon footprint of using different web sites based on their location and energy deals.
"Apple is the master of promotion, and while we marvel at the sleek unpolluted design of the iPad, we need to think about where this is all leading and how like all good surfers we can make sure our environment stays clean and green."
I'm an environmentalist too, I believe man-made GW is real, and I support Al Gore. I'm also a socialist who thinks we need Kucinich in the Whitehouse. But I think Greenpeace is only one step below PETA at the top of the liberal wacko list.
I am a lifetime member of PETA- People Eating Tasty Animals.
Please don't display your ignorance of the issues involved in public.
Please keep your leftist insanity in the closet where it belongs.
They probably do, but these computers aren't logged in. Since every student has a unique login, these computers just sit there on a pre-login screen and never go to sleep (not even the monitors).
We have 7 Macs in the house and all of them are multi-user with login screens. These all go into sleep mode with the disk spun down and the display off.
In fact, I am remotely accessing the disk/files on my daughter's computer and its screen is completely black (off).
If your lab uses Macs you should suggest to admin/IT that they review the Energy Saver settings in System Preferences. They can set these remotely using Screen Sharing.
Apple has done quite a bit over the years to improve energy efficiency-- Did you know that you can schedule your Mac to power off and power on at given times of day?
You can't tell me that a room full of fluorescent lights left on for an entire day uses less power than what they use when they're initially turned on and during that few minutes when they warm up to peak brightness. As for security, these unoccupied classrooms could just be locked.
No, I didn't say that... common sense dictates that when a room is going to be empty for a long time it is more efficient to turn off the lights (but they will, likely, need to be replaced more often due to the power surge).
As for security, locks alone may not provide security. Energy use could be mitigated, without compromising security, by turning banks of lights off. But motion detectors and/or night cameras might help with the lights out.
Most enterprises that use a lot of energy have computers (power shedders) to control lighting, HVAC, etc... so they may be doing things and have considerations that you are not aware of.
I obviously realize that if one wanted to, they could really take it to the extreme, but I'm talking about some basic, common sense measures here. There's a difference between being fanatical about power conservation and being just plain wasteful at the opposite end of the spectrum. I'm talking about a more realistic middle-ground here.
I agree, the key is common sense! we have 3 kids and we (try) to get them to follow the rule:
if you're not going to use it for 15 minutes, put it to sleep or turn it off.
Fortunately, Apple allows us to enforce this automatically for its computers.
*
Please keep your leftist insanity in the closet where it belongs.
Run along, now. Didn't you hear the bell ring?
I am a lifetime member of PETA- People Eating Tasty Animals.
I guess that would make me a lifetime member of PETP. Make what you want of it.
Please keep your leftist .....
We know Greenpeace is just hitching a ride on the iPad's coat tails and hitting up Apple for donations for the free advertising it's giving the device.
What Greenpeace should be doing is attacking the rather low, non-upgradable storage capacity of the iPad and the lack of a easily exchangeable battery.
Computers that have easily exchangeable parts last the longest and have the least impact on the environment.
There is no single solution to this problem. Long term solutions are in designing more efficient server sites that use less power for the electronics and less energy for cooling. Each site can buy power from more green power generating facilities, put solar panels, wind turbine on site--most likely will not generate enough power to sustain their needs, but will supplement their power requirements.
More funding for research for fusion power. Nuclear power may have to be used in short term to supplement power production, but main problem is radioactive waste generated--need to reduce waste and find solution where to store it.
Solar and wind power farms require large expanse of land. Solar power farms would be located in the SW desert regions that are rapidly disappearing and the environmental impacts are not known.
Need to develop technologies to utilize tidal energy along coastal areas. Hydroelectric power by damning rivers has large environmental impact down stream and floods large areas of land--also not good for fly fishing.
at what point did these idiots typo "CO2" instead of CO, and was it the same time the rest of you idiots decided to forget en masse that CARBON DIOXIDE IS WHAT PLANTS NEED TO SURVIVE.
CARBON MONOXIDE IS WHAT COME OUT OF FACTORIES AND ENGINES.
you goddamn socialist greentards aren't even trying anymore, are you?
LOL hilarious - Carbon Monoxide? You really know nothing about exhaust fumes... Funny, you should keep naked flames well away from your car exhaust if it pumps out CO!
Besides CO becomes CO2 rather quickly in well ventilated areas due to, well, er oxygen... You know, why you must ventilate your boiler. Rocket science it ain't.
Well anyone that uses "socialist" or "greentard" as a pejorative is not the sharpest tool in the box it has to be said.
Please keep your leftist insanity in the closet where it belongs.
Please learn the difference between CO and CO2.
We are not dissing apple, and maybe somone else can figure out how much they pollute? WTF? I am a supporter of green movement, but this sounds like an unfair and outright publicity stunt by greenpeace. They are attacking what is probably the greenest comp manufacturer.
I suspect that Apple pollutes very little.
However, their (and competitors) manufacturing is done in China, which is notorious for its pollution!.
I am all for conservation and preservation of the environment... but realize that there are those that manipulate the issues to their own ends.
*