Slashdot Mirror
Apple: 75% of Our World Wide Power Needs Now Come From Renewable Power Sources
skade88 writes "Apple now owns and runs enough renewable energy power plants that 75% of their world wide power needs come from renewable sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and hydro. From the Apple Blog Post: 'Our investments are paying off. We've already achieved 100 percent renewable energy at all of our data centers, at our facilities in Austin, Elk Grove, Cork, and Munich, and at our Infinite Loop campus in Cupertino. And for all of Apple's corporate facilities worldwide, we're at 75 percent, and we expect that number to grow as the amount of renewable energy available to us increases. We won't stop working until we achieve 100 percent throughout Apple.'"
Hopefully you're trying to be funny, and failing. All energy in this solar system except the, relatively speaking, small amounts that derive from sources such as nuclear fission of heavy elements in planetary cores, comes from the sun. If one decides that solar energy is not "renewable" based on the stellar lifetime, then fossil fuel cannot be regarded as "renewable" either, as it is stored solar energy.
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
Did they indeed ignore it? I was assuming manufacturing is part of their power needs. Do you have a link showing it's excluded?
Sure: the one from the article.
And for all of Appleâ(TM)s corporate facilities worldwide, weâ(TM)re at 75 percent
The 75% figure doesn't include manufacturing, or Apple stores, or energy costs used shipping iDevices from China. It only refers to "corporate facilities," whatever that means.
It's fairly clear that it doesn't include manufacturing - which is contracted out anyway, remember, so it's not like Apple owns any factories - and it doesn't include retail. And since we're only talking buildings, it clearly doesn't cover energy spent shipping from China, let alone to Apple stores.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Don't blame Apple for the submitter's terrible headline. What Apple actually claims is on their website, and they have a clear breakdown of what they view their footprint to be is here:
http://www.apple.com/environment/our-footprint/
(Broken down b/c nobody actually RTFA)
61% Manufacturing
5% Transportation
30% Product Use
2% Recycling
2% Facilities
The slave labour allegations are bullshit. Ref: The lies of Mike Daisey.
Of course ANY company subcontracting manufacture to China and various other Asian countries is in danger of the subcontracting companies using child labour or sweatshops. And the majority of consumer electronics are manufactured there.
However Apple does more than any of the other companies to ensure this doesn't happen with the companies that they subcontract to.
The continued repeating of these allegations as if Apple were choosing to use child labour is the lowest form of filthy lie, from the dregs of the slashdot membership. To use a serious issue like child labour in order to further their shilling for Android or OSS is the lowest of the low.
Really though, what do they mean? I did not see where they define what they consider renewable.
Apple's definition of renewable is Solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Except that an independent investigation found lots of child labor in factories making Samsung products, more than in similar factories producing Apple products. But that doesn't bring in the clicks, so almost nobody reported it.
"Furthermore, the discovery of these child workers also provides evidence for the ineffectiveness of Samsung’s audit system."
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."