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

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mytdave View Post


    Waaah, waaah, waaah! What a bunch of whiners. Unfortunately this group of 'tards has no credibility. They lost any credibility they might once have had by pulling stupid stunts and criticizing organization that were clearly making good efforts to improve their environmental footprints.



    All the companies shown in that little chart should continuously work to improve materials, recycle-ability, and reduce power consumption - because it's the right thing to do, but also it's in their best interests to conserve as doing so reduces their costs. But at the same time they should also collectively (or individually) tell Greenpeace to fcuk off.



    Yeah, that's because they don't actually DO anything except complain. It's not like they make windmills or solar panels or solve the economic disincentives of going green. They just goad everyone else for not being environazis like them
  • Reply 82 of 102
    My last paying job was about ten years ago at a very big network gear firm that has this huge campus near San Jose. Just prior to every three-day weekend I'd send out emails to various internal distribution lists begging people to turn off their computers, or at least their monitors (big CRTs in those days) to cut down on power usage. I'm talking about tens of thousands because there were not only computers at each person's desk, but many, many running in labs.



    And each time I'd get a note from some VP or IT exec asking me to knock it off as it costs more (more - can you believe it?) to cycle the power on all those PCs than it does to run them for 85+ hours* when nobody is using them.



    I could only surmise that this outfit had a "minimum usage" agreement with PG&E that would give them a discount if they reached so many megawatts per month, and that turning off unused equipment would jeopardize that agreement.



    Greenpeace would have had a field day with this outfit.



    *6pm Thursday to 7am Monday
  • Reply 83 of 102
    buzdotsbuzdots Posts: 452member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quandar View Post


    North Carolina is a "Right To Work" State. The unions are going after Boeing for they're plant in N.C. and now this. The current administrations two favorite special interest groups. Is there a link between Green Peaces effort and the Boeing lawsuits?



    "Right to Work" is always trumped by "Employment at Will" - North Carolina is both - Thank God!



    And no Solipsism, there are no coal mines in that area. You may be thinking about Kentucky - and a few in Virginia.
  • Reply 84 of 102
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    I have a different take on this global warming issue. It's clear the earth go through stages of severe and even rapid, in geologic terms, climate change. It's also clear humans have an impact. What isn't clear is how much that impact is.



    But I think it's irrelevant in and of itself. I don't think we should focus on limiting our impact, but instead focus on keeping the Earth's climate, water levels, seasons, storms, etc. at a level that best suits our needs. A homseostases that best suits our lobal needs.



    Environmentalists only look at one side of the issue. They want humans to stop affecting the world in an adverse way. But what if that isn't enough? What if any changes by human are like an electron addition of weight to an atom? What if the change will happen whether we are here or not? Shouldn't we at least try to domestic the Earth or should we simply follow its geologic pattern like early man simply followed the herds? I say we own this bitch!





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    Yeah, that's because they don't actually DO anything except complain. It's not like they make windmills or solar panels or solve the economic disincentives of going green. They just goad everyone else for not being environazis like them



    I keep telling environmentalist the best way to lower their carbon footprint is to kill themselves. They never listen to reason.
  • Reply 85 of 102
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BuzDots View Post


    And no Solipsism, there are no coal mines in that area. You may be thinking about Kentucky - and a few in Virginia.



    Sorry. I naturally assume that any states with rednecks has coal mines. j/k
  • Reply 86 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    IA homseostasis that best suits our lobal needs.



    I'll bet my lobal needs are not as homseostatic as yours!
  • Reply 87 of 102
    buzdotsbuzdots Posts: 452member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Sorry. I naturally assume that any states with rednecks has coal mines. j/k



    Kinda like all limey's have bad teeth?
  • Reply 88 of 102
    strobestrobe Posts: 369member
    I don't understand how people get duped into voting for evil fucks like Bush or Obama (or McCain). Obama voted for the USA PATRIOT Act as Senator. Obama said he wanted to intensify the AfPak war, and had bellicose words for Iran during his campaign. He paused his campaign, like McCain, and rushed to DC to pass TARP. He is exactly what was advertised. The only lie told was the one his supporters told themselves.



    At least when Bush first campaigned, he did so on a humble foreign policy (to distance himself from the Balkan war and Clinton's world police...HA!) so maybe one could argue he duped voters. Of course those of us actually paying attention knew he was packing his advisory roles/cabinet with neo-cons and various MIC revolving door types.



    I swear, too many people vote.



    On the plus side, after watching a Duckman marathon, all online rants sound like Jason Alexander.
  • Reply 89 of 102
    sensisensi Posts: 346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kenwk View Post


    so do you want wind power to power up the data center? or solar power? or nuclear? Come on.



    Well there is nothing worse than coal. Nonetheless Fukushima, nuclear power is currently the only proper way on the large scale, on the condition it is maintained by the right guys, putting security first and closely monitored by a public authority, being as reminded again by a Lancet study one of the safest, then completed with hydroelectricity and green(er) techs wherever possible.
  • Reply 90 of 102
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,228member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by magicj View Post


    Doesn't work. You still have to keep the coal plant running at 100% for when it's needed. You can't just flip a switch and turn coal power on and off.



    The same basic flaw applies to solar power as well. Neither does anything at all to reduce coal consumption.



    Well its works great with hydro-electric because they can quickly change the water flow of the trubines to match demand. They should be able to do that with coal to some degree.
  • Reply 91 of 102
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Wow that's a lot of hubris Sol. All through out history every man whose ever had the audacity to think he could tame the power of the elements has been shown exactly his place is the full scheme of things.



    The Earth itself is in constant change. The tectonic plate movements, the great swirling currents of the Atlantic and Pacific, the destruction and formation of land, earth quakes, tsunamis, hurricanes. All of these forces play a direct role in our survival. We have absolutely no direct control over any of the forces of our planet. We are not supposed to have any control over them.



    "Save The Earth" is the wrong slogan. The Earth is going to be here indifferent to us. The Earth is always working to balance itself indifferent to us. The effort is to work in harmony with the Earth to maintain an environment that is sustainable for us. A life sustaining environment is not automatically assured.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Environmentalists only look at one side of the issue. They want humans to stop affecting the world in an adverse way. But what if that isn't enough? What if any changes by human are like an electron addition of weight to an atom? What if the change will happen whether we are here or not? Shouldn't we at least try to domestic the Earth or should we simply follow its geologic pattern like early man simply followed the herds? I say we own this bitch!



  • Reply 92 of 102
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    "Save The Earth" is the wrong slogan. The Earth is going to be here indifferent to us. The Earth is always working to balance itself indifferent to us. The effort is to work in harmony with the Earth to maintain an environment that is sustainable for us. A life sustaining environment is not automatically assured.



    That is what I?m saying. And we do have an effect, we just don?t know to what extent that effect is. I?m just saying we should try to make as ideal for us as possible to maximize our longevity.



    That isn?t to say that we would be or could be successful at every needed endeavor but we should try. Note that we?ve done it already with the agriculture and animal husbandry and all the good and bad that has come from those first changes. My point was not to simply exploit certain resources (as we do) for positive gain without looking at the negative results, but to learn to exploit all of them in such a way that we?re ultimately better off for it as a species.



    Maybe my wording was poor as I seem to be unable to express this thought clearly, but I?ll try again. It?s not enough to simply sit back and simply react to the world, we need to be proactive. We need to learn to anticipate our actions and the everything beyond us as best we can to help ensure our survival.



    Take threats from asteroids into consideration. The universe is our environment by virtue of the Earth residing in it. NASA apparently has a plan to protect the planet in case of an asteroid. That is humanity proactively taking steps to prevent something that would dramatically change our planet in ways that would create another mass extinction. Should we ignore that even if our chance for success is slim? I don?t think so.
  • Reply 93 of 102
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by magicj View Post


    Mostly because of their poor reasoning abilities, their tendency to use statistics without an understanding of the context, and their complete lack of understanding of the incredible damage their movement is doing to both the economy _and_ the environment.



    Most scientists consider it valuable to be environmentally conscious. Logic and statistics are on the side of environmental science.



    You've fallen into the trap of thinking that the crazy extremists involved with a cause are the definition of that cause.
  • Reply 94 of 102
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    The only I way I can see to accomplish that is to try to have as minimal impact on things as possible. If the Earth were to make a dramatic shift that rendered inhabitability for us - there really is nothing we can do about it.



    The problem with us is that our thinking is so small in scope. We are just trying to survive day by day. While the Earth is working on a multi-milenial time frame. The grand picture is on a scale that we really cannot comprehend.



    Our tinkering around with things that we really don't fully understand could be the very action that leads to our premature existence.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    That is what I?m saying. And we do have an effect, we just don?t know to what extent that effect is. I?m just saying we should try to make as ideal for us as possible to maximize our longevity.



  • Reply 95 of 102
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    The only I way I can see to accomplish that is to try to have as minimal impact on things as possible. If the Earth were to make a dramatic shift that rendered inhabitability for us - there really is nothing we can do about it.



    The problem with us is that our thinking is so small in scope. We are just trying to survive day by day. While the Earth is working on a multi-milenial time frame. The grand picture is on a scale that we really cannot comprehend.



    Our tinkering around with things that we really don't fully understand could be the very action that leads to our premature existence.



    That?s true. Our time here has been minuscule compared to other species. As I recall, even Neanderthal reigned for 300,000 years. Our science may indeed do us in, but it also gives us the best chance of survival against an unknown and unforgiven universe.
  • Reply 96 of 102
    ckh1272ckh1272 Posts: 107member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post


    OK, I was referring to the comments made by a known troll--not useful. But you have to admit, there is an undercurrent of anti-environmentalism running through the comments on this thread as if environmental concerns are the problem...

    Seriously? You are missing the forrest for the trees here! (sorry for the Green cliche.)

    Are we not talking energy use on an Apple fan/rumor site? Is this not some sort of dialogue? Is it not possible that Apple will be looking into some way to offset their dependency on coal power in NC. Might not other companies building future server farms consider their power sources as part of the equation?

    Again, Greenpeace's publicity stunts are not the end--if so, they would be nothing more than noisy propaganda as you complain. Instead, this is more likely the beginning. You will see much more discussion in the future about the environmental footprint of enormous data centers as well as initiatives that mitigate their environmental impacts. This all takes time, and in the end most people will have forgotten that Greenpeace put the issue on the map...





    I'm not sure what machine you are referring to here, so I cannot comment on that. But I think it is obvious that in any public discussion of heated issues, each party talks about the points they want to emphasize. Do you really think that Greenpeace is unique on this account?



    Greenpeace threw in Apple's name to garner attention to themselves, not in bringing attention to Apple being more "green". They do not mention what kind of power Apple is using in NC which is why I provided the nuclear examples that I did. All they had to do was look on a map to see these plants and then they could have asked Apple about their power plans for the data center based on said info. That was not mentioned though so instead they throw out those coal plant to "green" plant numbers to hype their cause. They either did not do their research or they chose to leave parts out to make their point thus feeding the "machine" of ignorance.
  • Reply 97 of 102
    buzdotsbuzdots Posts: 452member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    "Save The Earth" is the wrong slogan. The Earth is going to be here indifferent to us. The Earth is always working to balance itself indifferent to us. The effort is to work in harmony with the Earth to maintain an environment that is sustainable for us. A life sustaining environment is not automatically assured.





    Hear, Hear!!



    Nor is a life sustaining environment guaranteed even if we do everything in our power assure it.
  • Reply 98 of 102
    That's only for data centres though. For device manufacturing, Apple's pretty average: http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...r-Electronics/
  • Reply 99 of 102
    bongobongo Posts: 158member
    That's the sad thing about eco-weenies -- giving them any appeasement at all just encourages them to bite you harder in the future. Apple even has Al Gore on their board? why do you think that is? Hint: it isn't because he invented the internet.
  • Reply 100 of 102
    strobestrobe Posts: 369member
    Al Gore is no friend of non-moronic environmentalists. He's polluted more than his fair share with mining operations, and the only reason he's a proponent of cap & trade is he personally stands to profit from the scheme.



    Anyway, if Greenpeace really wanted to draw attention to the greatest environmental impact, they would be protesting DRAM manufacturers.
Sign In or Register to comment.