Greenpeace 'dirty data' report criticizes Apple's NC data center

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by magicj View Post


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d24b56MmIts



    Includes references at the end of the video. Would suggest you read those references as well. They're all from "green" sources.



    If your best example is a YouTube video of dubious nature, I think you may need to rethink your position.



    Regarding biofuels, you won't find a single educated environmentalist who believes palm oil (or using corn for ethanol) is "green." The environmental movement didn't cause the palm oil issue, a country trying to make money from one of its commodity crops caused it (this applies to the Bush-era corn ethanol policy as well).
  • Reply 42 of 102
    magicjmagicj Posts: 406member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    Having read the entire thread up to here, I come away not a whit more enlightened than when I started.



    God Father III was a terrible movie, but had a great scene in it. The Pope picks a rock from the water and cracks it in half. He shows that while the outside of the rock is wet, the inside is dry. He compares this to Christianity, saying that Christ surrounds Christians, but does not penetrate them.



    Enlightenment isn't going to come from a web post, no matter how many references are presented. If you want the knowledge to penetrate, you'll have to do some work on your own.
  • Reply 43 of 102
    magicjmagicj Posts: 406member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Planet Blue View Post


    Not a hard concept to grasp.



    No, it's a very easy concept to grasp, which is why environmentalist cling to it.



    Harder to grasp (for environmentalists) is it has nothing to do with reality. CFLs are mandatory in several countries. No where did it lead to less coal being burned.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Planet Blue View Post


    If your best example is a YouTube video of dubious nature, I think you may need to rethink your position.



    When you have no facts to back you up, I suppose shooting the messenger is the best you can do. The video is simply a presentation of information from the U.N., the New York Times, animal rights groups, and so on. Again, look up the references for yourself.



    And please, bio-fuels where a huge part of the green movement. Yes, that's changing now because people can see for themselves the damage caused by them. That doesn't change the fact that the green movement championed them and their use lead to environmental disaster.



    Edit:

    But at least we can agree they are a disaster, and that's the key part.
  • Reply 44 of 102
    x38x38 Posts: 97member
    So the big news here is that Apple located their big new power using site in a location that is 31% supplied by nuclear energy? That's pretty cool - I think I'll buy more stuff from iTunes to support their choice of data center location.

    Good job Apple & thanks Greenpeace for passing on the info that Apple is making good choices about energy usage.
  • Reply 45 of 102
    dickprinterdickprinter Posts: 1,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Planet Blue View Post


    In case you were wondering, many people do this everyday. A good portion of this country actually cares about our current problems and future generations. But yes, go ahead and stick your nose up at anything related to "green." Those in the middle east will love you for it.



    Of all the problems and causes to hate, I will never understand how people demonize the environmental movement.





    I wasn't wondering, I make conscious green choices everyday, also. My point is, sometimes it doesn't make a lot of economic sense to make green a priority above all else.
  • Reply 46 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by magicj View Post


    Harder to grasp (for environmentalists) is it has nothing to do with reality. CFLs are mandatory in several countries. No where did it lead to less coal being burned.



    You do realize there are other factors to energy demand beyond lighting, right?



    Quote:

    When you have no facts to back you up, I suppose shooting the messenger is the best you can do. The video is simply a presentation of information from the U.N., the New York Times, animal rights groups, and so on. Again, look up the references for yourself.



    So why not present the sources themselves? The video didn't cite what information came from where.



    And what facts do you have to back yourself up? I have presented many facts, including completely debunking your assertion that CFLs result in more mercury than incandescents. You seem to be the one full of hyperbole.



    Quote:

    And please, bio-fuels where a huge part of the green movement. Yes, that's changing now because people can see for themselves the damage caused by them. That doesn't change the fact that the green movement championed them and their use lead to environmental disaster.



    Biofuels is a general term. Biofuels from switchgrass, used cooking oil, or algae are fine. Biofuels from corn or palm oil are not. Again, the environmental movement rarely pushed for corn-based ethanol, conservatives and the farm lobby did.



    In addition, trying to discredit an entire cause with an isolated example is a weak argument.



    And really, I think the environmental damage done by "green hating" groups (for lack of a better term) such as oil companies is far greater than anything you have presented. I believe there was an incident in the Gulf of Mexico a year ago. And policies of de-regulation to increase pollution and CO2 obviously don't help things either.



    Quote:

    Edit:

    But at least we can agree they are a disaster, and that's the key part.



    Yes. Poor public policy at its finest.
  • Reply 47 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post


    I wasn't wondering, I make conscious green choices everyday, also. My point is, sometimes it doesn't make a lot of economic sense to make green a priority above all else.



    I completely agree with you. It's a fine balance many companies have to make. In this case, especially considering how much revenue Apple generates, they probably could have made it a slightly higher priority and come away fine.
  • Reply 48 of 102
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post


    I wasn't wondering, I make conscious green choices everyday, also.



    Me too. Tonight?s green choice was to not get the steamed broccoli but instead that loaded baked potato with dinner.
  • Reply 49 of 102
    Apple also got a 'C' for kicking a puppy. That made PeTA mad.
  • Reply 50 of 102
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    Apple also got a 'C' for kicking a puppy. That made PeTA mad.



    I think Steve Jobs volunteers at an abortion clinic on weekends.
  • Reply 51 of 102
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post


    I wasn't wondering, I make conscious green choices everyday, also. My point is, sometimes it doesn't make a lot of economic sense to make green a priority above all else.



    Right. Let's wait until five minutes before the Earth becomes uninhabitable.
  • Reply 52 of 102
    I'm right there with you, paxman. I had no idea there were so many crazy people on the AI forums.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paxman View Post






    Holy shit! I'm in fruit cake land!



  • Reply 53 of 102
    pdwmpdwm Posts: 8member
    Dickprinter

    "How often to you voluntarily choose a more costly product or service in the interest of being green?"[/QUOTE]



    I do. It?s called Apple (more cost effective in the long term). By the way, nothing wrong with skating to where the ?puck? is going to be. Oh.. I think that someone?s already said that. Sometimes even the best of us need a little kick up the ass. Apple does not need to race to the bottom.



    PS: this is my first post, so I may have made a few errors.
  • Reply 54 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    I think the point is Greenpeace would have preferred Apple located the datacenter somewhere else where there is hydroelectric or other green energy rather than in a part of the country filled with coal mines.



    Apparently Iceland is a really good place for data centers as it is close to both Europe and the US, has clean/cheap geothermal energy and the climate is cold which cuts down on the cooling bill.



    Yeah... Iceland... Seismic instability on the Northern end of the mid-Atlantic ridge, riddled with volcanic activity... a perfect place for a data center! Grow up, you earth-people!
  • Reply 55 of 102
    ckh1272ckh1272 Posts: 107member
    This is what that little report does not tell you. That data center is within earshot of two nuclear facilities. In fact, there is one not even 20 miles from the facility (with another less than 40 miles form it). Also, one of the main reasons for choosing NC is that the state has a huge fiber optic setup. Of course, Greenpeace ignores that info. by glossing over the coal to nuclear ratio. Please Greenpeace, how about telling us what the data center is powered from? Giving stats of an entire state does give even the slightest indication of what the data center is powered from. The fact they don't mention this shows an automatic bias on Greenpeace's part but that's not surprising. Here is a little info. on the McGuire nuclear facility that supplies half of Duke Energy's power to NC and is close to the Apple facility.

    http://www.duke-energy.com/power-pla...ar/mcguire.asp
  • Reply 56 of 102
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by magicj View Post


    The Republicans could put a dead pig's brain in a jar and run it as their candidate in 2012 and I would vote for it.



    Assuming the pig was born in America!



    Sarah Palin gets your vote then...interesting...
  • Reply 57 of 102
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by planet blue View Post


    in case you were wondering, many people do this everyday. A good portion of this country actually cares about our current problems and future generations. But yes, go ahead and stick your nose up at anything related to "green." those in the middle east will love you for it.



    Of all the problems and causes to hate, i will never understand how people demonize the environmental movement.



    +1...
  • Reply 58 of 102
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 2,005member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ckh1272 View Post


    Greenpeace cherry picking fools



    I don't think that this site is as full of intentionally polluting, earth hating wackos as it always seems after one of these reports comes out. But people around here get defensive when Apple gets singled out...



    OF COURSE Greenpeace are "cherry picking fools." OF COURSE they massage how they tabulate their report card so that Apple ends up as the "worst." But it is not because they are unethical idiots.



    Greenpeace's whole operating philosophy has always been to get attention where attention can be got. If there are two environmental problems of equal concern (or even unequal concern), they will put pressure where people will see it--the environmental movement doesn't have billions for advertising and education, they need publicity to exist.

    But that publicity is not their point (as some here think), instead it creates a space for dialogue and policy making in much less heated forms (often spearheaded by more "staid" environmental groups like EDF).



    So, if y'all want to dismiss Greenpeace for being loudmouthed and unreasonable, that is fine. But if you then turn around and pledge to pour your car's oil into the storm drain and tweak your Mac so the fan runs all night just to "show them," well then you are just being a reactionary idiot...
  • Reply 59 of 102
    ckh1272ckh1272 Posts: 107member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post


    I don't think that this site is as full of intentionally polluting, earth hating wackos as it always seems after one of these reports comes out. But people around here get defensive when Apple gets singled out...



    OF COURSE Greenpeace are "cherry picking fools." OF COURSE they massage how they tabulate their report card so that Apple ends up as the "worst." But it is not because they are unethical idiots.



    Greenpeace's whole operating philosophy has always been to get attention where attention can be got. If there are two environmental problems of equal concern (or even unequal concern), they will put pressure where people will see it--the environmental movement doesn't have billions for advertising and education, they need publicity to exist.

    But that publicity is not their point (as some here think), instead it creates a space for dialogue and policy making in much less heated forms (often spearheaded by more "staid" environmental groups like EDF).



    So, if y'all want to dismiss Greenpeace for being loudmouthed and unreasonable, that is fine. But if you then turn around and pledge to pour your car's oil into the storm drain and tweak your Mac so the fan runs all night just to "show them," well then you are just being a reactionary idiot...



    That was not the point. The point is they are pushing propaganda by glossing over the issue, like pointing out that NC is still heavily coal burning while ignoring the fact that the data center is close to two nuclear power plants that supply a ton of power to that same area. Nobody is advocating the things that you are suggesting. We are saying that Greenpeace should tell The WHOLE story. By omitting the things I mentioned, they are spreading nothing more than pure propaganda, plain and simple. They are not creating "dialogue" by omitting all the facts. They are feeding the machine that does not give a crap what they think when they only present PART of the story.
  • Reply 60 of 102
    I bet this has nothing to do with actual policies and everything to do with not disclosing info about their future environmental plans again. About a server apple hasn't even opened publicly yet. Basically green race is very opposed to apples privacy.
Sign In or Register to comment.