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

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 111
    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.
  • Reply 42 of 111
    enjournienjourni Posts: 254member
    Excuse me for being insensitive, but we're all screwed eventually anyway.



    Eat, drink and be merry...
  • Reply 43 of 111
    irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,591member
    /careface
  • Reply 44 of 111
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    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? \

    /

    /

    /
  • Reply 45 of 111
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,616member
    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.
  • Reply 46 of 111
    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.
  • Reply 47 of 111
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,417member
    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.
  • Reply 48 of 111
    I'm going to go out and shoot some seals today, it's a beautiful day on the Avalon.
  • Reply 49 of 111
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    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
  • Reply 50 of 111
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,719member
    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.
  • Reply 51 of 111
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,417member
    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?
  • Reply 52 of 111
    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 !
  • Reply 53 of 111
    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.
  • Reply 54 of 111
    rfrmacrfrmac Posts: 88member
    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.
  • Reply 55 of 111
    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.
  • Reply 56 of 111
    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.
  • Reply 57 of 111
    msimpsonmsimpson Posts: 452member
    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.
  • Reply 58 of 111
    argonautargonaut Posts: 124member
    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...
  • Reply 59 of 111
    The earth would be greenest if no human beings are here . Green peace , can u just stop bullshiting ?
  • Reply 60 of 111
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.