Agree, but people that try to live in an ecologic way are not only doing it because they think it helps to change the world, they also do it because it does help change the world.
Ideally, yes, but typically I see people focus on aspect without any perception of other areas, or worse, knowledge of but a lack of concern for other areas for whatever reason. The latter surely makes one a hypocrite.
That said, the world isn't run by everyone doing the same thing and having the same interests. Diversity is part of the formula for a community. For instance, I enjoy art but I am not an artist. I leave that for those with the passion to devote their lives to creating things that have an indirect benefit to the world and yet are beneficial.
I have no problem with you being a member of Greenpeace or with the organization itself. We need these organizations (and more) in the world, but they do along track record of hypocrisy and not seeing the trash heap for the trash (variance on forest for the trees metaphor).
My biggest issue with these organizations is they use emotion and deception to make a point which might work in the short run but ultimately it tends to back fire. Just look at Mike Daisey's efforts. Now one could argue that Apple has done more in a shorter time because of his lies but does that make it right? Is that the end or just a victory of a small skirmish that will ultimately do more harm than good?
Greenpeace is not a science-based organization. I am a scientist, in the loosest term. I try to take systematic approach to anything dealing with the physical and natural world. I've never seen Greenpeace do that. Have they done some good in the world or made choices that ended up being pragmatic? The odds are heavily in their favour that they have, but do they understand the issues that are affecting the world or just going through motions to make it appear they are doing something the way a child might pretend to have tea party.
PS: The best way to lower your impact on the world really is not have children and not live in the world. You can crunch the numbers in your head. If you're actively not adding to the population you are increasing the resources for everyone else.
My biggest issue with these organizations is they use emotion and deception to make a point which might work in the short run but ultimately it tends to back fire.
You just need to see the chart above. They can rate you on "advocacy", which has the same weight in an overall score as actually DOING something. So companies that do everything but don't brag about it would actually be rated badly (partly for this metric, partly because Greenpeace, as with Apple here, wouldn't have a clue what they're actually doing).
And with Greenpeace doing this, I don't see why anyone would want to be open and advocate. You're more prone to getting burned that way that if you stay shut. Other companies are rated better by essentially making big hooplas about small actions (the "fill the garbage cans with recyclable disposable dishes" point).
What is the point of this post? I'm part of Greenpeace. Do you imply that I don't really try to consume less in my everyday life? ....
Even by consuming "less," living/eating/working in the US you're consuming many dozens of multiples of resources that, say, an average Indian or Kenyan does.
If you really do not want to be a hypocrite, for starters, stop using a computer. Then go live in Kenya. Send us a message in a bottle about how it's working out for you.
Ideally, yes, but typically I see people focus on aspect without any perception of other areas, or worse, knowledge of but a lack of concern for other areas for whatever reason. The latter surely makes one a hypocrite.
That said, the world isn't run by everyone doing the same thing and having the same interests. Diversity is part of the formula for a community. For instance, I enjoy art but I am not an artist. I leave that for those with the passion to devote their lives to creating things that have an indirect benefit to the world and yet are beneficial.
I have no problem with you being a member of Greenpeace or with the organization itself. We need these organizations (and more) in the world, but they do along track record of hypocrisy and not seeing the trash heap for the trash (variance on forest for the trees metaphor).
My biggest issue with these organizations is they use emotion and deception to make a point which might work in the short run but ultimately it tends to back fire. Just look at Mike Daisey's efforts. Now one could argue that Apple has done more in a shorter time because of his lies but does that make it right? Is that the end or just a victory of a small skirmish that will ultimately do more harm than good?
Greenpeace is not a science-based organization. I am a scientist, in the loosest term. I try to take systematic approach to anything dealing with the physical and natural world. I've never seen Greenpeace do that. Have they done some good in the world or made choices that ended up being pragmatic? The odds are heavily in their favour that they have, but do they understand the issues that are affecting the world or just going through motions to make it appear they are doing something the way a child might pretend to have tea party.
PS: The best way to lower your impact on the world really is not have children and not live in the world. You can crunch the numbers in your head. If you're actively not adding to the population you are increasing the resources for everyone else.
Agree with everything. Greenpeace is not perfect but we have uncovered many illegal activities throughout the world (japanese illegal whale hunting and french nuclear waste rejections in the Atlantic come into my mind), things people would have never heard of. People need to realize that when you see Greenpeace activists trying to stop a ship for example, they often are the ones trying to impose respect of international regulations. France secret services sank the Rainbow Warrior in '89 killing one person. That shows that we disturb. Well, I may seem to be doing propaganda but I'm not. If people don't like us, fine. Just try not to forget most countries' interests often come into conflict with those of the planet, and so they don't like us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Even by consuming "less," living/eating/working in the US you're consuming many dozens of multiples of resources that, say, an average Indian or Kenyan does.
If you really do not want to be a hypocrite, for starters, stop using a computer. Then go live in Kenya. Send us a message in a bottle about how it's working out for you.
No, I live in France, so I should already emit three time less CO2 than an average american.
But I still emit 6 times more than an indian and 20 times more than a kenyan (I checked).
A non profit organization vs a high tech monster company. Of course you are going to believe the big one and say the small one lies. How american. Bravi.
When your science and the math are demonstrably erroneous, based on pure speculation as what the actual energy usage of the Maiden facility is what credibility can be claimed? According to the previous reports used to drive this little debacle of yours, which incidentally were singled out by both academic and industry experts as being wildly inaccurate and based on 20 year old data *estimates* (not actual metered usage), the figures used to demonstrate Apple's heinous use of energy were simply wrong, by nearly an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.
None of the figures being used to generate these reports are in fact accurate, the rates and area measures speculative, since not one of these datacenters is going to compromise security to allow you into them to measure equipment distribution or energy consumption. As a technologist for a Fortune 50 company I know for a fact that even our own datacenters are constantly changing out older less power efficient units for more efficient and cooler running units, it naturally lowers our cost of operations AND allows us to use less energy. One of my datacenter managers laughed when he saw the GP numbers. He said that those numbers may have been somewhat close back in the 80s or 90s when machines were much less efficient, but he would have lost his job if his datacenter was running on those numbers now.
So both anecdotally and factually the GP report is a major fail, the charges trumped up media spewage designed to rally the troops and attempt to buy GP more contributions. Fortunately the average consumer is largely inured to these media antics in this age of flash mobs youtube and reality TV.
Agree with everything. Greenpeace is not perfect but we have uncovered many illegal activities throughout the world (japanese illegal whale hunting and french nuclear waste rejections in the Atlantic come into my mind), things people would have never heard of. People need to realize that when you see Greenpeace activists trying to stop a ship for example, they often are the ones trying to impose respect of international regulations. France secret services sank the Rainbow Warrior in '89 killing one person. That shows that we disturb. Well, I may seem to be doing propaganda but I'm not. If people don't like us, fine. Just try not to forget most countries' interests often come into conflict with those of the planet, and so they don't like us.
The problem isn't that greenpeace isn't perfect, it's that they attack the companies they should be praising. Apple is making a huge effort to build a solar farm and a fuel cell system to support this data center. This is the sort of thing greenpeace should embrace, instead the put out a report attacking Apple because they know it will generate publicity. It shouldn't be too hard to find someone with the expertise of fecklesstechguy who just posted to get reasonable estimates. But a report like that isn't going to generate the headlines that this report has.
If you're part of greenpeace, you should hold them accountable for this sort of nonsense that makes the organization look bad.
Comments
Agree, but people that try to live in an ecologic way are not only doing it because they think it helps to change the world, they also do it because it does help change the world.
Ideally, yes, but typically I see people focus on aspect without any perception of other areas, or worse, knowledge of but a lack of concern for other areas for whatever reason. The latter surely makes one a hypocrite.
That said, the world isn't run by everyone doing the same thing and having the same interests. Diversity is part of the formula for a community. For instance, I enjoy art but I am not an artist. I leave that for those with the passion to devote their lives to creating things that have an indirect benefit to the world and yet are beneficial.
I have no problem with you being a member of Greenpeace or with the organization itself. We need these organizations (and more) in the world, but they do along track record of hypocrisy and not seeing the trash heap for the trash (variance on forest for the trees metaphor).
My biggest issue with these organizations is they use emotion and deception to make a point which might work in the short run but ultimately it tends to back fire. Just look at Mike Daisey's efforts. Now one could argue that Apple has done more in a shorter time because of his lies but does that make it right? Is that the end or just a victory of a small skirmish that will ultimately do more harm than good?
Greenpeace is not a science-based organization. I am a scientist, in the loosest term. I try to take systematic approach to anything dealing with the physical and natural world. I've never seen Greenpeace do that. Have they done some good in the world or made choices that ended up being pragmatic? The odds are heavily in their favour that they have, but do they understand the issues that are affecting the world or just going through motions to make it appear they are doing something the way a child might pretend to have tea party.
PS: The best way to lower your impact on the world really is not have children and not live in the world. You can crunch the numbers in your head. If you're actively not adding to the population you are increasing the resources for everyone else.
My biggest issue with these organizations is they use emotion and deception to make a point which might work in the short run but ultimately it tends to back fire.
There's a word for this:
http://ninjawords.com/demagogue
You just need to see the chart above. They can rate you on "advocacy", which has the same weight in an overall score as actually DOING something. So companies that do everything but don't brag about it would actually be rated badly (partly for this metric, partly because Greenpeace, as with Apple here, wouldn't have a clue what they're actually doing).
And with Greenpeace doing this, I don't see why anyone would want to be open and advocate. You're more prone to getting burned that way that if you stay shut. Other companies are rated better by essentially making big hooplas about small actions (the "fill the garbage cans with recyclable disposable dishes" point).
What is the point of this post? I'm part of Greenpeace. Do you imply that I don't really try to consume less in my everyday life? ....
Even by consuming "less," living/eating/working in the US you're consuming many dozens of multiples of resources that, say, an average Indian or Kenyan does.
If you really do not want to be a hypocrite, for starters, stop using a computer. Then go live in Kenya. Send us a message in a bottle about how it's working out for you.
Ideally, yes, but typically I see people focus on aspect without any perception of other areas, or worse, knowledge of but a lack of concern for other areas for whatever reason. The latter surely makes one a hypocrite.
That said, the world isn't run by everyone doing the same thing and having the same interests. Diversity is part of the formula for a community. For instance, I enjoy art but I am not an artist. I leave that for those with the passion to devote their lives to creating things that have an indirect benefit to the world and yet are beneficial.
I have no problem with you being a member of Greenpeace or with the organization itself. We need these organizations (and more) in the world, but they do along track record of hypocrisy and not seeing the trash heap for the trash (variance on forest for the trees metaphor).
My biggest issue with these organizations is they use emotion and deception to make a point which might work in the short run but ultimately it tends to back fire. Just look at Mike Daisey's efforts. Now one could argue that Apple has done more in a shorter time because of his lies but does that make it right? Is that the end or just a victory of a small skirmish that will ultimately do more harm than good?
Greenpeace is not a science-based organization. I am a scientist, in the loosest term. I try to take systematic approach to anything dealing with the physical and natural world. I've never seen Greenpeace do that. Have they done some good in the world or made choices that ended up being pragmatic? The odds are heavily in their favour that they have, but do they understand the issues that are affecting the world or just going through motions to make it appear they are doing something the way a child might pretend to have tea party.
PS: The best way to lower your impact on the world really is not have children and not live in the world. You can crunch the numbers in your head. If you're actively not adding to the population you are increasing the resources for everyone else.
Agree with everything. Greenpeace is not perfect but we have uncovered many illegal activities throughout the world (japanese illegal whale hunting and french nuclear waste rejections in the Atlantic come into my mind), things people would have never heard of. People need to realize that when you see Greenpeace activists trying to stop a ship for example, they often are the ones trying to impose respect of international regulations. France secret services sank the Rainbow Warrior in '89 killing one person. That shows that we disturb. Well, I may seem to be doing propaganda but I'm not. If people don't like us, fine. Just try not to forget most countries' interests often come into conflict with those of the planet, and so they don't like us.
Even by consuming "less," living/eating/working in the US you're consuming many dozens of multiples of resources that, say, an average Indian or Kenyan does.
If you really do not want to be a hypocrite, for starters, stop using a computer. Then go live in Kenya. Send us a message in a bottle about how it's working out for you.
No, I live in France, so I should already emit three time less CO2 than an average american.
But I still emit 6 times more than an indian and 20 times more than a kenyan (I checked).
I'm done, promise!
No, I live in France, so I should already emit three time less CO2 than an average american.
But I still emit 6 times more than an indian and 20 times more than a kenyan (I checked).
That's very cute.
But you surely know you emit so little per-capita compared to the US, right?
Go, nuclear! (Glad to hear you think it's a good idea).
A non profit organization vs a high tech monster company. Of course you are going to believe the big one and say the small one lies. How american. Bravi.
When your science and the math are demonstrably erroneous, based on pure speculation as what the actual energy usage of the Maiden facility is what credibility can be claimed? According to the previous reports used to drive this little debacle of yours, which incidentally were singled out by both academic and industry experts as being wildly inaccurate and based on 20 year old data *estimates* (not actual metered usage), the figures used to demonstrate Apple's heinous use of energy were simply wrong, by nearly an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.
None of the figures being used to generate these reports are in fact accurate, the rates and area measures speculative, since not one of these datacenters is going to compromise security to allow you into them to measure equipment distribution or energy consumption. As a technologist for a Fortune 50 company I know for a fact that even our own datacenters are constantly changing out older less power efficient units for more efficient and cooler running units, it naturally lowers our cost of operations AND allows us to use less energy. One of my datacenter managers laughed when he saw the GP numbers. He said that those numbers may have been somewhat close back in the 80s or 90s when machines were much less efficient, but he would have lost his job if his datacenter was running on those numbers now.
So both anecdotally and factually the GP report is a major fail, the charges trumped up media spewage designed to rally the troops and attempt to buy GP more contributions. Fortunately the average consumer is largely inured to these media antics in this age of flash mobs youtube and reality TV.
Agree with everything. Greenpeace is not perfect but we have uncovered many illegal activities throughout the world (japanese illegal whale hunting and french nuclear waste rejections in the Atlantic come into my mind), things people would have never heard of. People need to realize that when you see Greenpeace activists trying to stop a ship for example, they often are the ones trying to impose respect of international regulations. France secret services sank the Rainbow Warrior in '89 killing one person. That shows that we disturb. Well, I may seem to be doing propaganda but I'm not. If people don't like us, fine. Just try not to forget most countries' interests often come into conflict with those of the planet, and so they don't like us.
The problem isn't that greenpeace isn't perfect, it's that they attack the companies they should be praising. Apple is making a huge effort to build a solar farm and a fuel cell system to support this data center. This is the sort of thing greenpeace should embrace, instead the put out a report attacking Apple because they know it will generate publicity. It shouldn't be too hard to find someone with the expertise of fecklesstechguy who just posted to get reasonable estimates. But a report like that isn't going to generate the headlines that this report has.
If you're part of greenpeace, you should hold them accountable for this sort of nonsense that makes the organization look bad.