“Apple has come bottom of the most comprehensive green league table of technology companies because of its heavy reliance on ‘dirty data’ centres,” Felicity Carus reports for The Guardian. “The list, which is compiled by Greenpeace and released in San Francisco on Thursday, shows that the company relies heavily on highly polluting coal power at the sites that house its banks of servers.”
“Greenpeace’s report, How Dirty is Your Data? reveals that the company’s investment in a new North Carolina facility will triple its electricity consumption, equivalent to the electricity demand of 80,000 average US homes,” Carus reports. “The facility’s power will be supplied by Duke Energy, with a mix of 62% coal and 32% nuclear. Gary Cook, Greenpeace’s IT policy analyst and lead author of the report, said: ‘Consumers want to know that when they upload a video or change their Facebook status that they are not contributing to global warming or future Fukushimas.’
Carus reports, “The report estimated dependence on coal for Apple’s data centres at 54.5%, followed by Facebook at 53.2%, IBM at 51.6%, HP at 49.4%, and Twitter at 42.5%. Top marks in Greenpeace’s clean energy index went to Yahoo, followed by Google and Amazon. Greenpeace is also campaigning for Facebook to “unfriend coal” and use cleaner energy to power its servers.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Greenpeace, like Consumer Reports, just can’t help themselves; those huge Apple coattails and the resulting free PR blitzes are obviously just too much to resist.
If Greenpeace wants to affect how electricity is produced, perhaps they should target the power providers? After all, Apple can’t just zap whatever pie-in-the-sky, run-it-on-lima-bean-juice “clean” electricity source Greenpeace pretends is cost-effective all the way from Delusional, Dreamland to Maiden, North Carolina.
Related articles:
Greenpeace drops Apple to 9th as HP, Samsung advance in ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’ – October 26, 2010
Greenpeace spotlights links between Apple’s iPad, the Internet, and climate change – March 31, 2010
William Shatner and Greenpeace leave HP reminders, including ‘Hazardous Products’ painted on roof – July 28, 2009
Greenpeace: Apple fails to meet ‘computer detox’ deadline – January 07, 2009
BusinessWeek: Apple is greener than Greenpeace says – December 08, 2008
Apple’s score plummets as Greenpeace expands ranking criteria in its Guide to Greener Electronics – June 25, 2008
Greenpeace intends to ride Apple’s PR coattails for as long as possible – January 18, 2008
Greenpeace gives Apple improving environmental marks; ranks Microsoft near bottom – November 27, 2007
BusinessWeek: Why Greenpeace repeatedly makes flawed attacks on Apple – October 26, 2007
Chemical Industry Group slams Greenpeace over unfair iPhone criticisms – October 22, 2007
Greenpeace admits that Apple’s iPhone is fully compliant with Euro chemicals rules – October 16, 2007
Apple faces lawsuit based on Greenpeace’s ‘toxic’ iPhone Report – October 15, 2007
Greenpeace attacks Apple over ‘hazardous chemicals’ in iPhone – October 15, 2007
Apple greener than Greenpeace wants you to think – May 03, 2007
Greenpeace ranks Apple dead last in ‘environmental friendliness’ – April 03, 2007
EPA does not support Greenpeace’s charges against Apple Computer – January 07, 2007
Apple places last in Greenpeace ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’ report – December 07, 2006
Mac Expo evicts Greenpeace campaigners – October 26, 2006
Is Greenpeace lying about Apple’s ‘toxic laptops?’ – September 25, 2006
Greenpeace ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’ report called ‘misleading and incompetent’ – September 02, 2006
Greenpeace criticizes Apple over toxic waste – August 29, 2006
ha, the other day in article about Rev. Jackson saying iPad costs jobs I mentioned Greenpeace does the same thing about focusing on Apple to get headlines.
what kind of energy does Greenpeace support for big industry then?
nuclear: re: Japan
oil? : only way to get new oil in U. S is chemical fracturing of shale , oilsands or deep sea drilling
biofuel: turning corn into gasohol has made food prices skyrocket and led to starvation around the world. They are cutting down Amazon and asian rainforests to make gasohol from sugar cane and oil palm.
solar and wind : isn’t big enough now or will be for years
The only reason biofuel has been derided is that sources such as industrial hemp have been ignored as a biofuel source. It can be grown where corn and sugarcane can’t, which would result in a whole new industry with new agricultural jobs, and would stimulate the economy. But so many politicians are against hemp just because of the association with marijuana.
Solar and wind could be a lot bigger than they are if there were the political will to invest in it. There’s a project right now to build enough solar power plants in the Sahara to power all of Europe, so there’s no reason why we couldn’t do the same in the Mojave for North America.
hope that solar thing works out. is it that the Algeria plan I read about?
but still have doubts about biofuels. Been to Asia: entire rainforest mountain ranges (you can drive for hours) have been cleared for biofuel oil palm etc. They also spray tons of herbicides and insecticides on them (the herbicides to kill the secondary forest growth around and under the cultivated plants – workers bathed in clouds of the stuff wear no chem gear) I bet you they would clear it go hemp or whatever if there’s money in it.
I don’t know about the Algeria plan specifically, but you can read about the foundation here: http://www.desertec.org/
Yes, biofuels are only as good as their source. I certainly wouldn’t support palm oil based biofuels. But if you plant industrial hemp in certain desert areas where other crops wouldn’t grow, that would be an effective use of land and a source of jobs as well as an effective energy source.
Reminds me of the joke here in West Virginia, about the new reality series, Survivor WV.
Three eco-activists, in a Vovo stationwagon festooned with banners that say Coal is Evil, are placed in the middle of Mingo County (bloody Mingo, to all us natives) on a Friday night. If they are still alive on Sunday morning, they are winners of Survivor WV and their prize is they get to lead a church service in Jolo, WV.
That’s really, really funny if you are from WV!
if you’re not lucky enough to be from here, you many not get it.
So for all you flatlanders, temporarily be evil, and google, Oh, I don’t know, maybe something, like church and jolo
And here I used to think the “green” in Greenpeace had something to do with the environment. Turns out they’re just trolling for the other kind of green: donation money from people too stupid to know better.
Here we go again… Gaagle got one more news to highlight in coming 10 weeks or so..
Best action Apple could do is simply spend a few bucks and graph out Greenpeaces carbon footprint and energy composition to other environmental groups. Rate them on how dirty they are and suggest for their actions on how to improve.
Green peace is also adding to the energy waste. Maybe they should only use those nasty radioactive plants they so opposed. And go after China that is building a coal plant every five minutes. Go where the puck (pollution) will be or is, China.
Oh, do not notice green peace going after Gore and his black hole of energy consumption at his new house. Green Peace = hypocrite!
Are you KIDDING ME???
How hard does the data have to be manipulated to get an unfavorable rating to Apple?
How about a POSITIVE REPORT telling about the GREENEST manufacturing and reusable aprts?
Oh right. Greenpeace would have to give Apple a GOOD rating… so they won’t print POSITIVES about Apple… because, well as a$$hats that would not garner the media attention.
*sigh* another reason to ignore them (yet again)
From Alaska — no friend of these “posey sniffers”
Green-piece is what they’re called. Apple’s products are the greenest you can get technology wise to date. Now they are complaining about how they get there power? Really?
Stupidity has no ends.
Is there any possible way that Greenpeace could just shut the hell up?
I’m sick of this tiny margin of society making the most ruckus about inconsequential b.s.
Green Peace Server in Netherland
Oil 35%
Gas 45%
Solid (Coal?) 11%
Nuclear 1%
Wind / other graeen 3%
vs. Duke
Gas 4.7%
Coal 62.2%
Nuclear 30.9 %
Hydro 1.7%
Wind 1.0%
Green Peace is not doing that much better with “Green” energy. They should cleanup their house, before blaming others.
Well said, but hypocrisy is GreenPeace’s middle name.
For example, the focus here is on but one single facility in NC … what percentage is that of Apple’s total energy footprint — including their subcontractors doing the actual product manufacturing in China?
-hh
And how much coal generated electricity did Greenpeace use for that press release? Or does each email from them come with it’s own wind turbine?
How funny, this morning a went to the bathroom and had a big greenpeace!
This is stupid. I guess you are only using ‘green’ power if you build next door to a dam or a solar array or wind turbines. Nevermind that if the power generated by that dam wasn’t used by you, it would be used by somebody else.
This is just GreenPeace trying to boost themselves on the back of a company actually making a difference.
I don’t give a single fsck about where my power comes from, as long as it keeps coming. If Greenpeace thinks that most Americans are different, they’re quite delusional.
Yes, I also live in a seismically active region (California). Do we have nuclear plants, sure. Probably not enough. I blame it on Greenpeace, amongst others. I think it’s high time we build some more and better plants.
As I have stated before, a Greenpeace activist I know blatantly stated they USE Apple as a target because they get more bang for their buck on publicity. I told him that was despicable. He didn’t care, said that was how they have to do it. Arguing with him was like talking to a brick wall.
I hate Greenpeace for such unfair tactics.
I don’t understand this when everything they make seems to blend fairly well.
Yeah, why doesn’t Gore earn his keep and issue a statement to set Apple’s excellent green record straight.
Greenpeace is a morally corrupt organization that needs to go away. They do more harm than good.
This is stupid. if people spent as much time about things that really matter rather then junk about how much energy someone uses the world could be a better place.
What about spending money to get us cars that dont use oil and gas or helping people get jobs or something.
Gosh this company does nothing but complain about something that doesnt even exist
‘F’ Greenpeace. it’s a joke that has long been accepted.
I’m surprised and disappointed in Apple. I would have thought they of all companies would source green energy for their data centre.
Poor show Apple.
Greenpeace should:
1. stop using all the technology devices and power sources which are not GREEN.
2. should not have emails, website (www.greenpeace.org) etc as its report, “how dirty is your data?”
3. start to develop the energy source of electricity so other companies and consumers could have the option to be GREEN as what it preaches.
It can talk the talk but can it walk the walk?
Until it proves these, It’s just another political agenda.
You really ought to read the article MDN started with. At the end a researcher who was cited by Greenpeace disagrees with their use of his work. Then just look at the Greenpeace report (you have to search for it since not among the many URLs linked in the original article is the actual Greenpeace report). The cover art is an iPad. Hmm. And from there it gets worse: All estimations and no actual asking either Apple or the energy company if Apple is paying for green energy at their facility.
Think Different; try CoExIsTing with the fact Apple don’t give a poo about the earth.
Apple isn’t all bad though. It is honorable that a large portion of Steve Job’s profits go towards eradicating diseases in 3rd world countries…oh wait, that’s the other guy!
Apple is the very thing it advertises not to be, don’t you people get that!???
I think the fact Apple is the LEAST green tech company by Greenpee’s standards is a compliment. Who wants to be rated by a bunch of terroristic nuveau hippie dippie scumbags who DRIVE their SUVs to protests and critical masses, and pilot FOSSIL FUEL gulping barges to attack evil white capitalists.
ielkvxqmblzy