“Apple is the tech company leading the way towards a greener, more sustainable internet, according to a new report from Greenpeace,” Rhiannon Williams reports for The Telegraph.
“The California-based company was the first to use 100 percent renewable energy to power the iCloud, and also operates the largest privately owned solar installation in the US at its North Carolina data centre,” Williams reports. “Greenpeace evaluated the energy choices of 19 leading internet companies for its Clicking Clean report, surveying their electricity supply chains of over 300 data centres. The report concluded Apple was ‘the most innovative and most aggressive’ in achieving the goal of 100 per cent renewable energy, and declared the company had ‘helped set a new bar for the industry.'”
“Gary Cook, Senior IT Analyst at Greenpeace, said the company’s rapid shift to renewable energy over the past 24 months ‘made it clear why it’s one of the world’s most innovative and popular companies,'” Williams reports. “A spokesperson for Apple said: ‘We believe that actions speak louder than words, especially when it comes to issues as important as climate change, and Apple is proud to lead the industry by powering our data centers with 100% renewable energy for more than a year now. We’ve built the country’s largest private solar array and fuel cell installations at our site in North Carolina, and innovative clean energy projects are in the works for our data centres in Nevada and Oregon.'”
Read more in the full article here.
Related articles:
Apple plans Nevada solar farm to generate clean power for data center – July 2, 2013
Apple now gets 75 percent of its total power needs from renewable energy – March 21, 2013
Apple’s NC and Oregon data centers to use 100 percent renewable energy – May 17, 2012
Bloom Energy confirms they will supply fuel cells for Apple’s North Carolina data center – April 30, 2012
New aerial images of Apple’s planned NC fuel cell, solar farms published – April 7, 2012
Apple’s massive fuel cell energy project to be largest in the U.S. – April 4, 2012
Apple plans USA’s largest private fuel cell energy project in North Carolina – April 1, 2012
How Apple took the lead on the environment – February 22, 2012
Apple patent application reveals next-gen fuel cell powered Macs and iOS devices – December 22, 2011
Apple’s Mothership campus solar roof will be among biggest in U.S. – December 7, 2011
Apple working with US company, Leaf Solar Power, on North Carolina solar farm – November 8, 2011
Apple patent app details highly-advanced hydrogen fuel cells to power portable devices – October 20, 2011
Apple building huge solar farm around its billion-dollar North Carolina data center – October 26, 2011
Now, maybe someone will tell us how much it is costing consumers to implement the mystifying Al Gore agenda that has won the company this entirely useless and meaningless tribute from the wackos at greenpeace.
Have you ever considered NOT being an anonymous coward Apple hater? Like, maybe you could get an account here and be accountable for the rubbish you post?
No?
I wonder why.
Who the hell appointed you the authority to judge the opinions of those of us who don’t come here for the sole purpose of praising the every word, accomplishment, and event of a once unique and exceptional tech company that has fallen into abject mediocrity? My contribution to the discussion may piss you off but why should I or anyone else – including the countless lemmings among whom you reside – give a damn about a narcissist such as you?
And, I have a news flash for you – fossil fuels are the wave of the future – just ask the current occupant of the White House. So called “sustainable energy” will do little for you or anyone for generations to come. Look it up. Moron.
Your mindless rant is not sustainable.
LORD JAY!
Worthless Posts Meister.
Blahblahblah <- I don't care what you have to say about anything, anonymous coward hater. Just blahblahblah to yourself.
“My contribution to the discussion …”
Ah yes, kinda like when one vomits in the toilet, it’s a “contribution”. Very impressive Jay.
It’s time for a parade. Greenpeace noticed, after years of Apple bashing.
Sustainable energy is the future. Any words to the opposite are mere deceitful lies from mere fossil fuel money grubbers, whose time has passed. The future is here. Let’s go there…
Greenpeace’s approach is still wrong; there is no difference in Apple’s approach to the issue, the only change was that Apple openly has said that their goal is going to be 100% renewal energy.
Before, Apple went the same route, but did PR any promises, just delivered what was actually done. And because others like HP and Dell HAVE made those promises (even though they failed from time to time and postponed their goals), Greenpeace bashed Apple and praised HP and Dell.
Sorry, correction: ” … but did not PR any promises ..”
Greenpeace are expert at bad approaches. I chalk it up to the usual Loon Level Liberal militant attitude. They have gotten so many things wrong and done things wrong and made fools of themselves, on and on, like they’re their own worst enemy. No argument there.
Agreed, ‘their earnestness betrays an untoward zeal for fulfillment of their phantasies’
It’s time for a parade.
No, it’s not. Greenpeace is still a pack of publicity-whoring shitheads.
-jcr
I was being facetious and cynical. I agree with you.
There are profound issues to solve if miracle planet Earth, our only home, is going to survive we humans. Greenpeace is NOT the spokesman for the cause, just as Gore has turned out to be a lousy spokesman for the Greenhouse Effect (the actual name of the problem).
Earth will survive just fine. We humans don’t even amount to a blip on its past and future existence. To act as if we are “saving the earth” is the greatest of conceits. We’re really just talking about saving us. The earth certainly doesn’t require us to survive.
WE are what is “unsustainable.” We will find this to be true because we need certain things to live, and those things are scarce. Unfortunately, in spite scarcity we just keep making more and more of us, which is the real problem, not the Greenhouse Effect. The greenhouse effect is a symptom.
Contained within the religion of environmentalism is the patently absurd notion that we humans constitute at least as large an effect on the planet as all the other natural forces combined. We are a factor, however I do not believe we are the be all end all of climate change. It does fit certain political narratives to demand that it is true, and always remember, politics is not about science, it’s about who gets what. This is why when you give in to the voices of alarm, the solution always starts with taking money from one group of people and giving it to another, whilst the CO2 output remains the same.
Recently even the scientist who created the Gaia movement has backed away from his alarmism and stated that environmentalism has become a religion. James Lovelock has stated that he was overzealous in his warnings of climate catastrophe. In his words, “I was a little too certain in that book. You just can’t tell what’s going to happen.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-environmentalism-religion
Not only this, but he is a supporter of fracking. OMG! A rational voice.
When politics and religion meet, science suffers. In addition, when politics and religion combine, you often wind up with fascism. Certain groups of people believe they have somehow been appointed shepherds of the planet and whatever cockamamie notion they come up with should be taken as the word of god and that anyone who questions them should be regarded as heretic, infidel, dissenter, or ***denier***. The only thing they’re missing is robes. They say things like “all scientists agree.” They make proclamations like “the debate is over,” and so on with regard to climate change. No one else need speak or question. If they could they’d burn anyone who questions them at the stake.
Well sorry. Such people have taken on the mantle of kooks, once again.
There are inconvenient truths like the fact that comparatively simple weather models are highly inaccurate and that depending on machine models of extremely non-determanistic systems like climates makes no rational sense, or that we’ve gone more than a decade without global warming even though the amount of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere has increased.
Still, for the sake of argument, let us assume that the alarmists are right. Obliterating anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere can’t hurt (or can it?). Then what more can we do?
#1 Do not give those who put major amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere an out through taxes. That totally makes the argument look disingenuous. Say that for the sake of humankind, CO2 amounts must be cut by 75% within the next X years. Give such people a tax break based on the percentage they cut CO2. If you fine them, you’re just fining normal people because that’s where the costs will be passed.
#2 Quit acting like nothing is being done. Automobile companies are doing their damnedest to put the best electric cars on the road they can, but you can’t flip a nationwide infrastructure to electric and or gas over night.
#3 This is not just some problem caused by some corporate smokestack. We individuals have to do our part and suffer as well. If the alarmists wish to put THEIR money where THEIR mouths are, let’s force gas burning cars off the road one day a week. You pick your day, and that day you don’t drive. (Open to modification to make it workable).
#4 Convert all city vehicles to natural gas.
And so on.
#5, and this is the most important, SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH THE DENIER crap because you just look like an idiot, piss people off, and gum up the works.
I agree except the parallel to religion. The environmentalist wackos do not believe in a God or intelligent designer. They are the religion and God and government is the altar where they worship.
I am all for doing things cleaner whenever possible and being a good steward of the earth, but the 97% of scientists crap is getting old. That is taken from a push poll sent out where a very small percentage of scientists responded. The poll was written in such a way that anyone who did not wholeheartedly agree would toss it in the trash. Just like what a conservative would do with a poll asking if you either 1. Love Obama’s policies or 2. Very much like Obama and his polices.
The same people who expect America to save the planet from global warming have no answer when you point out that if all Americans left earth tomorrow and took all their toys – we would still have the output of India, China and lots of other developing countries who don’t give a rats a$$ about cleaning things up.
Ask the same people why tornadoes are at a twenty year low (despite some spectacular and deadly ones hitting Oklahoma metro areas last year) and the earth’s temp has been cooling for fifteen years now. They then claim any change at all is man made. Same people that were warning of global cooling thirty years ago. Ask the same people about the freaking incredible amounts of sulfur and other greenhouse gases that get sent into the upper atmosphere in astounding quantities from volcanic eruptions and they change the subject.
I am all for living like a Boy Scout and leaving places nicer than you found them. The hysterical nonsense of Al Gore and his minions are simply idiot plying bad science.
Agreed, ‘their earnestness betrays an untoward zeal for fulfillment of their phantasies’
This just in. The continued use of the word “sustainable,” particularly where such use has no meaning, is unsustainable. SERIOUSLY RECOMMEND finding new environmentalist buzzword for 2015 forward.
It does have meaning. Don’t know if you trolling or if you really don’t understand. Sustainability is real and matters long term.
“Sustainable Internet?” Oh please.
Garbage concept. Overuse of dumb term.
You know, that two-word quote was originally part of a complete sentence, in a full article, about the use of renewable energy to power Apple’s online services, right?
I guess you’re somewhat right – they could have used different words – but that point seems very moot, given that most words can be made meaningless by ignoring the context of their use.
f Greenpeace.
Good for Apple. A full year running on only renewable energy is a very impressive and timely achievement.
What a bunch of BS. Greenpeace’s Cook was just on NPR interviewed about his ‘report’. He was asked by the correspondent who some of the worst companies were for their energy use – he said Amazon and in the same breath explained that they had no real data on Amazon. They just must be one of the worst offenders since they didn’t waste the time and money talking to a political hack from Greenpeace.
Cook is absurd and his ‘report’ is political BS for people who believe every change in storm cycles or temperature is man made and evil. Read the articles from the cofounder of
Greenpeace and why he left many years ago when they went off the deep end into political BS and away from real science.
If a company wants to pander to all sorts of nonsense for political correctness they are free to do so. Apple can do whatever the hell they wish and that is how it should be. If they want to add bathrooms for transexuals, bathrooms for homosexuals, bathrooms for pedophiles and bathrooms for racists – more power to them. They can power their whole company on the treadmills in the employee gym if that is what they want. As long as the nonsense doesn’t spill over into public policy forcing every company to cater to every idiot who wants to force their agenda.