Slashdot Mirror


Apple: Greenpeace's Cloud Critique Driven By Bogus Numbers

miller60 writes "Apple says Greenpeace has wildly overestimated the amount of power it uses in its data center in North Carolina, and used that bad math to give the company a low grade on sustainability. Apple says it uses 20 megawatts of power at its iDataCenter, a fraction of Greenpeace's estimate of 100 megawatts in a new report on energy use by cloud computing providers. Apple says that its huge solar array and biogas-powered fuel cell will supply 60 percent of the facility's power, not the 10 percent claimed by Greenpeace."

16 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. What it really means: by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Greenpeace: blah blah blah blah bad bad bad

    Apple: blah blah blah blah good good good

    The truth? Probably somewhere in the middle.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:What it really means: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Greenpeace is more than happy to distort the truth for propaganda purposes. They've said in the past that the whole reason they single out Apple is because it makes good news. And they are right.

    2. Re:What it really means: by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Distort" the truth? Hell, they just made up some numbers and went with that as the "reasoning" for their rant.

      But as usual with Greenpeace, it's 99% bullshit believed by no one except the Greenpeace faithful.

      And from what I see, the Greenpeace faithful do definitely qualify as a cult, complete with wingnut behaviour.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    3. Re:What it really means: by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, actually, Greenpeace can pull numbers out of their ass all day long, and few people challenge them on it, because "it's for a good cause", and "they're just trying to save the planet", etc. The whole "somewhere in the middle" has more relevance when you're talking about arguments with lots of grey areas. We're talking about simple numbers here. Greenpeace made a bunch of guesses on the numbers involved, and they've been called out on their very bad estimates and incorrect assumptions.

      Apple has all the number they need for a very accurate reading on power usage. Unless you're going to accuse Apple of out and out falsifying those numbers (it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do, as one whistleblower would blow the lid on this), then I'm going to have to side with Apple here as being closer to "the truth".

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re:What it really means: by FridgeFreezer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most environmentalists != scientists, it's about time journalists & politicians realised this before bending over to support whatever they dream up this week. How many times have Greenpeace bullied the world into things only to change their minds? Biofuel was the last one that springs to mind - "It's the future, we should all do it!" then just as the world starts to do it "It's destroying the rainforests, don't do it!" Unfortunately they will just shrug and play their "get out of jail free" card that lying about stuff is justified by "drawing attention to the issue". The sad thing is all this just gets in the way of people understanding/caring about/acting on the real issues which might actually benefit the planet.

      --
      There is no music - home taping killed it.
    5. Re:What it really means: by Tharsman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I love the Greenpeace "response to the response" where they doubt the numbers Apple bring forth:

      While Apple is well known for making more expensive consumer products, if Apple’s plans for the $ 1Billion investment only generates 20MW in power demand, that would be taking the “Apple premium” to a whole new level.

      So first "we want them to stop cutting corners and spend money to make green energy"

      Now: "darn, these fools seem to be spending too much money to save up energy, must mean they are lying!"

    6. Re:What it really means: by Dishevel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fuck. I hate agreeing with Apple.
      Now I hate Greenpeace even more for making me side with Apple.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    7. Re:What it really means: by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Someone once gave me a piece of advice many, many times.
      At the time I hated him for telling me this in the end though I understood and am a better person for it.
      "It doesn't fucking matter how you feel."
      "It doesn't fucking matter what you think."
      "It only matters what you do."

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    8. Re:What it really means: by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why? Are you so emotionally tied up into a belief pattern that it actually bothers you to look at data and come to the same conclusion as Apple?

      Maybe you should reflect on that.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  2. Re:Greenpeace is not credible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Absolutely true. The real intelligent green thinkers are working with the system to make things better in baby steps - the only way things can change. We don't generally notice these people, but they do make a difference.

    Greenpeace is anti-system and falls into tired false extremist eco groupthink, which obviously isn't very productive.

  3. Why does anyone listen to Greenpeace anymore? by SirWinston · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These Greenpeace types are the same people who've prevented us from developing and deploying newer, safer nuclear power plants to replace the less safe older ones which are forced to keep running--and which could replace polluting coal plants and help us immensely in the transition away from the fossil fuels they themselves also decry. They're the same folks who stirred up opposition to Yucca Mountain, yet use the lack of such a facility as a talking point against nuclear. They're the same folks who also fight hydro and anything else with "environmental impact" (i.e., changing anything at all about a local environment). Until they're willing to back some realistic alternatives to current power generation--other than living like Luddite hippies--I tune these idiots out. Solar and wind currently supply only about 1% of our national power generation needs, and there's no chance they'll ever supply it all. Until the Greenpeace types back something useful to our situation, they're the same ones keeping us stuck on fossil fuels. Fuck 'em.

    --
    "It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."--Andrew Jackson
  4. Re:Greenpeace is not credible by mekkab · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why did I join Greenpeace in college? well, it's the same reason why I joined the vegetarian club in college. And the same reason I participated in the Occupy Wall Street protests.

    To meet girls with "evolved" morality. Who would let me touch them, without clothing. Basically, for tail.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  5. Re:Excellent... by Turken · · Score: 5, Insightful

    too true. What would be really shocking news is if we found that for once greenpeace was NOT lying to get attention. And it's not just Apple. Basic M.O. for these schmucks is to simply pick whatever company is big in the news at the moment and then give that company a bad "rating" based on some imaginary numbers on some arbitrary scale.

    For several years in a row when the Wii was at it's popularity peak, the greenpeace "report card" gave Nintendo a failing grade -- for the sole reason that Nintendo had the common sense to ignore them, and refused to give any detailed information about their business operations. Thus, in the mind of the eco-nuts the company *had* to be hiding something horrible, and thus was *clearly* an eco-failure.

  6. Re:Greenpeace is not credible by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could've saved yourself a lot of aggregation by just throwing a keg party.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  7. Re:Excellent... by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is sad is that all these groups..PETA, Greenpeace, MAD, all started out with good intentions and goals, Greenpeace to stop whalers and those breaking treaties and polluting our oceans, MAD to stop drunk driving, PETA to insure the ethical treatment of food animals, but somewhere along the way the batshit fringes took over and frankly they are all loony tunes, PETA with the "sea kittens", the new head of MAD saying their goal is now prohibition (like we haven't seen what a failure THAT was) and Greenpeace with the constant lies.

    Man its just a shame that you can't have an org that does good things hardly anymore without the batshit coming along and mucking everything up. All three originally had goals we could all stand behind, I mean nobody wants to see animals tortured, our oceans destroyed, or drunks plowing down families on the highway, but having sensible goals looks to be a thing of the past, its all loony tunes all the way down and i think that's a damned shame.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  8. Re:Excellent... by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But then they become worse than nothing! the guys from South Park nailed it when they had the Klan who wanted to keep the SP flag come out against the flag because the knee jerk reaction would be to automatically vote the opposite of what the Klan wanted. in this case they have gone so far out of mainstream when anybody sees their name they think "total whackos" and this automatically gains sympathy for the ones they are against!

    Frankly PETA, MAD, and Greenpeace would be more helpful to their causes if they didn't exist at all because they have pissed away any credibility they once had. damned shame as all three were originally worthy causes but now I'd probably buy any product made by a company opposed by them simply because i see them as self righteous whackjobs that just like on SP if they are against it then its probably something I'd support simply because they are so far from mainstream anymore. I mean you have blatant lies, Sea kittens (look it up if you haven't I swear its not a parody, they honestly think at PETA calling all fish sea kittens will keep people from eating fish) and prohibition...yep I'd buy anything they're against.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.