Greenpeace criticizes Apple for carbon footprint of iPad cloud

245678

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 147
    Grrr...

    Just slow down on the breeding you complete morons!

    A couple dozen children will probably use more CO2 in their lifetimes than all the iPads Apple will ever sell.
  • Reply 22 of 147
    This is a freakin joke. These people need to get a real job.
  • Reply 23 of 147
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,258member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by swtchdtomak View Post


    Because Greenpeace needs large entities to be the enemy to a) generate headlines and b) not blame the average Joe, whose donations they live off of.



    that may very well be how they think, but man, you'd think that by now they'd realize how they've damaged their credibility over the years with this kind of an approach. People look for any excuse they can do discredit the message of greater energy efficiency and groups like Greenpeace serve up those excuses by the container ship load.
  • Reply 24 of 147
    mike fixmike fix Posts: 270member
    That's it. No more internets for me.
  • Reply 25 of 147
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Oflife View Post


    (And I don't mean Toshiba!) I'm an avid greeny, but this sort of comment is yet more in the armoury of those who find the movement lacking in credibility. The solution to the world's woes is NOT energy saving (too complicated, impractical and expensive), but in fact to switch to renewable sustainable sources - such as solar, where it doesn't really matter how much we use. The aim should be to source energy that is clean and uncorrupt.



    I shall be ordering our iPad and focusing my energies on promoting solar energy as the way forward by using it to update a forthcoming blog and eShop at LifeMachine.com. No plug intended.



    I don't mean to be attacking you but the "greenies" -- Greenpeace folks are NUTS!



    Are the Apple news events so few that that AI, etc. have to give these nuts print space?
  • Reply 26 of 147
    soskoksoskok Posts: 107member
    Anyone cares?
  • Reply 27 of 147
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Oflife View Post


    (And I don't mean Toshiba!) I'm an avid greeny, but this sort of comment is yet more in the armoury of those who find the movement lacking in credibility. The solution to the world's woes is NOT energy saving (too complicated, impractical and expensive), but in fact to switch to renewable sustainable sources - such as solar, where it doesn't really matter how much we use. The aim should be to source energy that is clean and uncorrupt.



    I shall be ordering our iPad and focusing my energies on promoting solar energy as the way forward by using it to update a forthcoming blog and eShop at LifeMachine.com. No plug intended.



    Actually cutting consumption is part of the solution - look at the energy consumption of houses in Denmark etc. Public transport in Belgium etc.



    Having said that, this is a totally minuscule area to target. Again, greenpeace show they are a bunch of attention seeking morons.
  • Reply 28 of 147
    bwikbwik Posts: 565member
    As an environmentalist, I am amazed by the lame and wholly counterproductive behavior by the children over at Greenpeace.



    Greenpeace could easily be replaced by a more effective, respected environmental lobby. Therefore, Greenpeace is bad for the environment. I can make a diagram.
  • Reply 29 of 147
    rfrmacrfrmac Posts: 89member
    This morning I read this article and shake my head. It is very hard for people like me to take Greenpeace seriously any more when they release statements like these. Does the group's leadership use any logic? Do they expect technology to just stand still? Do they think they have to take a stand on everything? No more money from me.
  • Reply 30 of 147
    ajmasajmas Posts: 597member
    This is why data-centre design needs to improve. Two points I see:

    - reduced energy usage for cooling systems

    - 'smart' servers, where components can be shut down when not in use. For example a graphics card or a processor core can be turned off if it is not being used. When the component is needed the system will then start it up.



    For the smart servers we need a standard in place, or at least a means of labelling computers that can do this, so the buyer is aware of this option. Charging customers for power usage would also encourage them to looks for more energy conservative machines. I realise there is only so much you can do when the computer is at full demand, but when there is no traffic it should be trying to maintain the lowest power usage possible. Software would also need to be looked at, so that it is not busy using the processor for no reason (think endless 'for' loops waiting for something, instead of using an OS trigger).



    For smaller locations, things like "Wake on Demand" could be beneficial since this would mean that a computer can be asleep and only be woken if there is specific traffic for it. This can be done on the Apple side side with the combination of an Apple Airport Extreme and a Mac running Snow Leopard. On the non-Apple side I have not seen solutions in place to allow this, but a more basic version would simply be a router with a IP/MAC address table that wakes up the computer when the IP address is contacted - the Apple implementation does this, but adds a Bonjour based service so the computer can opt-in.



    I must admit that I would have used "Wake on Demand" for my computer, but the lack of DynDNS support in the router means I need to leave my computer on.
  • Reply 31 of 147
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    As an educated person with common sense, I'm amazed at the sheer stupidity of the people on this planet, and I'm disgusted by the people who manipulate others into thinking that Carbon Dioxide is bad for the Earth or Humans.



    This is the most disgraceful, fraudulent scam, ever wrought on the American people, and the world as a whole. It's truly outrageous and needs to stop.



    Al Gore is already exceptionally wealthy, and wants to line his pocets further with your Carbon Taxes. Stop them and him NOW, or basically give up your right to exist freely.
  • Reply 32 of 147
    hardynhhardynh Posts: 20member
    Greenpeace is just fishing for press by linking iPad in a press release unrelated to anything tangible.



    If they were concerned they wouldn't have sent out a press release in the first place. They would have conserved more energy by not creating, not distributing, and not causing this discussion to happen which as the more I type the larger the load put on the servers...yadda, yadda, yadda
  • Reply 33 of 147
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red View Post


    Grrr...

    Just slow down on the breeding you complete morons!

    A couple dozen children will probably use more CO2 in their lifetimes than all the iPads Apple will ever sell.



    Thank you for your entirely false and anti-human sentiment, now please go away and don't ever think out loud ever again.
  • Reply 34 of 147
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post


    Perhaps a more likely substitute is a big screen TV. What uses more power -- me sitting on the couch watching my 50" plasma or me sitting on the couch surfing the web, reading a book, etc on an iPad? Even if you add in the (relatively tiny) power consumption on the server-end, I bet the iPad scenario uses less energy than the plasma TV scenario.



    And actually, i wonder how using an iPad compares to reading a book. Sure, the book doesn't have a battery, but the book had to be physically shipped around the country rather than digitally transmitted, and the book requires paper. I bet that the marginal cost of another book on the iPad is far less than the marginal cost of buying another book from a store.



    I definitely think the mistake that Greenpeace is making here is the mistake of focusing on one big thing that is actually smaller than the summation of all the little things that it replaces. Kind of like how people get all bent out of shape about the big container ships --- yes, they pollute a lot, but not nearly as much as alternative forms of shipping. They're just more visible than those alternatives because they're bigger.



    Excellent points, I was about to say something similar. I would only add, also think of all the PCs used to just do e-mail and surf that might well be replaced by an iPad once people see it does everything they need. That will be a massive savings in power too. All those monitors and Dells turned off can only be a good thing
  • Reply 35 of 147
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post


    Totally agreed here. The university campus where I work routinely leaves hundreds of computers idling away in un-occupied classrooms and labs, oftentimes with the lights on in the room as well.

    In this specific example, a little conservation and efficiency could go a long way. I'm sure I could easily run my entire house with the energy wasted here (and then some).



    Dont most modern computers go into a low-energy-use sleep mode?



    I used to own computer stores and we would leave all our equipment running 24/7 because it was easier on the hardware as opposed to the power surge multiple times a day.



    People more knowledgeable have told me that leaving machines on in sleep mode could consume less power than constantly turning them off and on.



    The same thing goes for lights, especially fluorescent lights (great power consumption at startup). In addition, lights are often left on for security reasons and so rooms can be monitored with security cameras.



    If you want to take this to the extreme, you should not only turn the computers off (at work and at home), but unplug them (and your Stereo, TV, TiVo, Cable Box, etc.) All these devices consume power when off, but plugged in. Don't forget to turn off your wireless kb and mouse (or remove the batteries).



    Another consideration is that turning things off does not necessarily result in conservation. Utilitity companies must generate (or acquire) enough power to cover peak usage at different periods of the day-- the power you avoid using could just be dissapated, rather than conserved,







    My point is that we need to look at the bigger picture.



    If our electrical equipment lasts longer because of continued low-energy-use sleep mode-- would that be better than replacing it with newly-manufactured gear?



    Simple questions, like:



    What's the carbon footprint of running a Mac in sleep mode for n years



    vs



    replacing that Mac every n years with a newly manufactured (and delivered) Mac?



    *
  • Reply 36 of 147
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmz View Post


    As an educated person with common sense, I'm amazed at the sheer stupidity of the people on this planet, and I'm disgusted by the people who manipulate others into thinking that Carbon Dioxide is bad for the Earth or Humans.



    This is the most disgraceful, fraudulent scam, ever wrought on the American people, and the world as a whole. It's truly outrageous and needs to stop.



    Al Gore is already exceptionally wealthy, and wants to line his pocets further with your Carbon Taxes. Stop them and him NOW, or basically give up your right to exist freely.



    Go back to your tea party and stop injecting you ignorance and politics in an Apple forum please.
  • Reply 37 of 147
    This all reeks of April 1st coming early.



    Toxic Cloud Computing?
  • Reply 38 of 147
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmz


    As an educated person with common sense, I'm amazed at the sheer stupidity of the people on this planet, and I'm disgusted by the people who manipulate others into thinking that Carbon Dioxide is bad for the Earth or Humans.



    This is the most disgraceful, fraudulent scam, ever wrought on the American people, and the world as a whole. It's truly outrageous and needs to stop.



    Al Gore is already exceptionally wealthy, and wants to line his pocets further with your Carbon Taxes. Stop them and him NOW, or basically give up your right to exist freely.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Go back to your tea party and stop injecting you ignorance and politics in an Apple forum please.



    Ummm... IMO, pmz's post added more information related to the thread discussion than yours.



    *
  • Reply 39 of 147
    soskoksoskok Posts: 107member
    Energy is a constant production form of business operation, if you don't use it its just being wasted .... so really, anyone cares?
  • Reply 40 of 147
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,291member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Dont most modern computers go into a low-energy-use sleep mode?



    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).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    The same thing goes for lights, especially fluorescent lights (great power consumption at startup). In addition, lights are often left on for security reasons and so rooms can be monitored with security cameras.



    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.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    If you want to take this to the extreme, you should not only turn the computers off (at work and at home), but unplug them (and your Stereo, TV, TiVo, Cable Box, etc.) All these devices consume power when off, but plugged in. Don't forget to turn off your wireless kb and mouse (or remove the batteries).



    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.