We need a group to go project a giant middle finger onto the Greenpeace headquarters.
No, no, that's tasteless.
Let's use a standard household coal-fired furnace (we'll just borrow one from some local Amish), hook it up to a generator, plug a projector into that generator, and project "We're frauds." onto the side of the Greenpeace building.
For Greenpeace? No one. They've lost their credibility and proven to be nothing more than greedy media-wh0re$.
For other environmental groups? Start by collecting data. Apple provides plenty of data on its web site and some other companies do, as well. Without making accusations, highlight the companies that are doing well (such as Apple) and ask the other companies for their comparative data. And when you have valid comparative data (not the made-up crap that Greenpeace uses), work with the companies to address the issue rather than making a media circus.
If companies absolutely refuse to publish environmental data, you can point out that fact in a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal if you wish. Or, you can file a freedom of information request with the US and state EPAs.
I went to Greenpeace's site and don't see statements about their carbon footprint or how they are getting their energy or their 'green' initiatives. So I wonder: How green is Greenpeace?
I'm a huge Apple fan for 20+ years now... and you know what... I don't have a problem with this. Apple is a big target. I'm sure they do everything they can but you know... you have to expect this kind of stuff when you get to be the size they are now... and if you're Greenpeace trying to get your message out... you're naturally going to go after the highest profile target. Apple is fair game. And it's only a light. It's not like they committed trespassing or vandalism or violence. And it certainly won't hurt Apple. Greenpeace going after Apple is like a flee attacking an elephant. It may be an annoyance to the elephant... but that's all it is. Seriously... no big deal. Let them have their demonstration. They're not hurting anyone.
I support Greenpeace’s cause 100%, so I REALLY wish they’d stop using bad facts. It hurts their own cause and drives supporters away. These issues are too important.
Publicity stunts? Fine. Fact is, those work. Singling out Apple because it gets the most press? Hard to argue with the effectiveness of that, and Apple’s “feelings” can survive it. Using bad information and letting other companies off the hook? Now there we’ve crossed a line. A line Greenpeace has crossed again and again. They are harming environmental efforts more than they are harming Apple.
So while I support their cause far more than I support Apple, I just can’t support Greenpeace.
Greenpeace Strategy Manager: We've been losing mainstream publicity traction for our green energy initiatives and we need to gain it back with minimal expense.
Greenpeace PR Head: The fastest means to get publicity with little expense is to highlight and demonize Apple energy use since the tech media pundits are desperate to publish any and all morsels of news related to Apple.
Greenpeace Strategy Manager: Sounds like a great plan.
I've been a Greenpeace member on and off, but they need to aim their grief at the party that is not only blocking the President's Green Energy Initiatives, but the whole of the recovery effort.
Greenpeace may be radical, but they get attention that does produce an effect that is better for all of us, even if you don't like the tactics or targets. They are targeting Apple because it gets press, and they want other companies to take note. Radicals usually go to far, but by doing this, they are eventually met in the middle, to the betterment of all.
I'm a huge Apple fan for 20+ years now... and you know what... I don't have a problem with this. Apple is a big target. I'm sure they do everything they can but you know... you have to expect this kind of stuff when you get to be the size they are now... and if you're Greenpeace trying to get your message out... you're naturally going to go after the highest profile target. Apple is fair game. And it's only a light. It's not like they committed trespassing or vandalism or violence. And it certainly won't hurt Apple. Greenpeace going after Apple is like a flee attacking an elephant. It may be an annoyance to the elephant... but that's all it is. Seriously... no big deal. Let them have their demonstration. They're not hurting anyone.
You're misguided in a lot of ways:
They're not hurting anyone? You think the bad publicity doesn't hurt Apple and its shareholders? You don't think Apple had to spend money refuting Greenpeace's lies? You don't think that they've scared at least some customers away? You don't think that Apple had to spend money on hiring security to get Greenpeace away from the buildings they climbed all over?
And I do have a problem with it - a major problem. If they're going to accuse someone of being environmentally unfriendly, it's stupid to choose someone just because they're large. Apple has a solid history and should be praised for what they've done rather than attacked. If Greenpeace wants to actually be a force for good, they should be basing their actions on FACTS, not lies.
If they want to tie into Apple's mindshare, the correct way to do it would have been to point out all the positive things Apple was doing and challenge their competitors to do as much. Then work with Apple to see if you can get them to do more. By attacking the best country in the business, they're simply telling the world that nothing will ever make them happy, so why bother even trying?
Greenpeace may be radical, but they get attention that does produce an effect that is better for all of us, even if you don't like the tactics or targets. They are targeting Apple because it gets press, and they want other companies to take note. Radicals usually go to far, but by doing this, they are eventually met in the middle, to the betterment of all.
See above. There is a good way to tie into Apple's mindshare and a bad way. All Greenpeace is doing is sending the following messages to the world:
1. Don't bother spending money on being green, because no matter how much you do, it will never be enough for us and we'll attack you.
2. Don't worry about how much you spend or how green you are because we're going to make up numbers and present them as if they're factual. So there's no point in having good numbers since we prefer fiction.
That is NOT going to help the environmental movement over the long run.
Protests of every sort is getting quite old. The issue is solutions.
A protest and rally is not an unreasonable start to pulling together people to recognize issues that should be dealt with, but resources primarily need to go into solving the problems, not protesting.
My sense is GP folks, especially those protesting, don't have the knowledge to offer specific solutions to making the iCloud greener. That requires engineering type experts, and scientists. It take experts on government policy and how government policy subsidizes dirty, and forces green into niches. Emotions are a great motivator to getting out of bed in the morning to solve important problems, but is worthless if not counterproductive if that is all you can offer.
Caring about the environment isn't an all or nothing decision. There of those of us that care with out having to drive a Prius. Apple do more than most companies and these tactics simply turn people against all those that care about the environment. This stupidity plays into the hands of those that think reducing pollution or having clean drinking water is a an infringement of our civil liberties. If the world had been this polarized back when CFCs were discovered to be so damaging to the environment I am quite sure we'd never have achieved such a worldwide consensus on banning them. If it were today, CFC gasses would be welcomed as freedom by many and those against as delusional! Green Peace need to re think their strategies and stop making things worse.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUnfetteredMind
We need a group to go project a giant middle finger onto the Greenpeace headquarters.
No, no, that's tasteless.
Let's use a standard household coal-fired furnace (we'll just borrow one from some local Amish), hook it up to a generator, plug a projector into that generator, and project "We're frauds." onto the side of the Greenpeace building.
For Greenpeace? No one. They've lost their credibility and proven to be nothing more than greedy media-wh0re$.
For other environmental groups? Start by collecting data. Apple provides plenty of data on its web site and some other companies do, as well. Without making accusations, highlight the companies that are doing well (such as Apple) and ask the other companies for their comparative data. And when you have valid comparative data (not the made-up crap that Greenpeace uses), work with the companies to address the issue rather than making a media circus.
If companies absolutely refuse to publish environmental data, you can point out that fact in a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal if you wish. Or, you can file a freedom of information request with the US and state EPAs.
Greenpeace cares about the environment like PETA cares about animals:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/5106600/Peta-under-fire-over-claim-that-it-kills-most-animals-left-at-its-US-headquarters.html
If you really think that Greenpeace has any legitimacy, try reading this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Greenpeace-Dropout-Sensible-Environmentalist/dp/0986480827/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337099263&sr=8-1
These Greenpeace demonstrators fail to understand the fact that the message they're sending is not the message being received by the public.
Message sent: Apple's iCloud uses dirty electricity
Message Received: Greenpeace demonstrators are a bunch of whackos.
I went to Greenpeace's site and don't see statements about their carbon footprint or how they are getting their energy or their 'green' initiatives. So I wonder: How green is Greenpeace?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbonner
Wonder if this is legal
I doubt it, Apple's campus is private property. They have warning signage everywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
That's because most environmental groups care about money, far more than they care about the environment.
Winner!
The thread may end now.
-kpluck
I'm a huge Apple fan for 20+ years now... and you know what... I don't have a problem with this. Apple is a big target. I'm sure they do everything they can but you know... you have to expect this kind of stuff when you get to be the size they are now... and if you're Greenpeace trying to get your message out... you're naturally going to go after the highest profile target. Apple is fair game. And it's only a light. It's not like they committed trespassing or vandalism or violence. And it certainly won't hurt Apple. Greenpeace going after Apple is like a flee attacking an elephant. It may be an annoyance to the elephant... but that's all it is. Seriously... no big deal. Let them have their demonstration. They're not hurting anyone.
I support Greenpeace’s cause 100%, so I REALLY wish they’d stop using bad facts. It hurts their own cause and drives supporters away. These issues are too important.
Publicity stunts? Fine. Fact is, those work. Singling out Apple because it gets the most press? Hard to argue with the effectiveness of that, and Apple’s “feelings” can survive it. Using bad information and letting other companies off the hook? Now there we’ve crossed a line. A line Greenpeace has crossed again and again. They are harming environmental efforts more than they are harming Apple.
So while I support their cause far more than I support Apple, I just can’t support Greenpeace.
Greenpeace Strategy Manager: We've been losing mainstream publicity traction for our green energy initiatives and we need to gain it back with minimal expense.
Greenpeace PR Head: The fastest means to get publicity with little expense is to highlight and demonize Apple energy use since the tech media pundits are desperate to publish any and all morsels of news related to Apple.
Greenpeace Strategy Manager: Sounds like a great plan.
I would pay more attention to Greenpeace's shenanigans if it involved lots of hot naked women.
I've been a Greenpeace member on and off, but they need to aim their grief at the party that is not only blocking the President's Green Energy Initiatives, but the whole of the recovery effort.
Greenpeace may be radical, but they get attention that does produce an effect that is better for all of us, even if you don't like the tactics or targets. They are targeting Apple because it gets press, and they want other companies to take note. Radicals usually go to far, but by doing this, they are eventually met in the middle, to the betterment of all.
You're misguided in a lot of ways:
They're not hurting anyone? You think the bad publicity doesn't hurt Apple and its shareholders? You don't think Apple had to spend money refuting Greenpeace's lies? You don't think that they've scared at least some customers away? You don't think that Apple had to spend money on hiring security to get Greenpeace away from the buildings they climbed all over?
And I do have a problem with it - a major problem. If they're going to accuse someone of being environmentally unfriendly, it's stupid to choose someone just because they're large. Apple has a solid history and should be praised for what they've done rather than attacked. If Greenpeace wants to actually be a force for good, they should be basing their actions on FACTS, not lies.
If they want to tie into Apple's mindshare, the correct way to do it would have been to point out all the positive things Apple was doing and challenge their competitors to do as much. Then work with Apple to see if you can get them to do more. By attacking the best country in the business, they're simply telling the world that nothing will ever make them happy, so why bother even trying?
See above. There is a good way to tie into Apple's mindshare and a bad way. All Greenpeace is doing is sending the following messages to the world:
1. Don't bother spending money on being green, because no matter how much you do, it will never be enough for us and we'll attack you.
2. Don't worry about how much you spend or how green you are because we're going to make up numbers and present them as if they're factual. So there's no point in having good numbers since we prefer fiction.
That is NOT going to help the environmental movement over the long run.
Protests of every sort is getting quite old. The issue is solutions.
A protest and rally is not an unreasonable start to pulling together people to recognize issues that should be dealt with, but resources primarily need to go into solving the problems, not protesting.
My sense is GP folks, especially those protesting, don't have the knowledge to offer specific solutions to making the iCloud greener. That requires engineering type experts, and scientists. It take experts on government policy and how government policy subsidizes dirty, and forces green into niches. Emotions are a great motivator to getting out of bed in the morning to solve important problems, but is worthless if not counterproductive if that is all you can offer.
Or someone with a mirror to go sit in front of their projector
Whatever. Greenpeace is protesting itself into irrelevancy.
Caring about the environment isn't an all or nothing decision. There of those of us that care with out having to drive a Prius. Apple do more than most companies and these tactics simply turn people against all those that care about the environment. This stupidity plays into the hands of those that think reducing pollution or having clean drinking water is a an infringement of our civil liberties. If the world had been this polarized back when CFCs were discovered to be so damaging to the environment I am quite sure we'd never have achieved such a worldwide consensus on banning them. If it were today, CFC gasses would be welcomed as freedom by many and those against as delusional! Green Peace need to re think their strategies and stop making things worse.