Greenpeace's renewable energy report praises Apple, slams Amazon

[Justin Kahn]

Apple is getting a pat on the back from Greenpeace for its environmentally conscious power consumption at its datacenters. Greenpeace called Apple the most innovative and aggressive silicon valley company when in comes to its use of clean, renewable energy.

After it was heavily criticized by the environmental group some two years ago, Apple's 2012 commitment to use renewable energy has paid off, garnering a score of 100 for 2013 on Greenpeace's clean energy index. The index measures how much clean energy a company uses and, in this case, Apple's datacenters used no power from coal, nuclear, or natural gas in 2013. The datacenters run on a combination of wind energy, local renewable power and from the solar array and fuel cell systems it has built in North Carolina, and other places.

Generally speaking, Greenpeace ranks companies in four general categories including energy transparency, deployment and advocacy, commitment, and efficiency. Apple, along with Facebook scored top marks in all categories except for efficiency with a B rating, but still maintains a much higher clean energy index than Facebook's 49%. This is a significant improvement for Apple compared to the Ds and Fs it landed in 2012.

Microsoft earned itself Cs in all four categories with an even lower index rating of 29%, and Amazon reportedly disputed its ranking having scored even lower marks across the board.

While Apple is certainly being praised by Greenpeace and will likely continue to do so after it announced that the company's entire operation was already running on 75% renewable energy back in May of last year, the environmental group doesn't like how secretive the company is with its green technology. Greenpeace called for Apple to share more details about its internal energy efficient designs in order for the entire IT sector to take advantage of them, which is, needless to say, not something Apple commonly practices in general.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/56252-greenpeaces-renewable-energy-report-praises-apple-slams-amazon.html

 

[mgwerner]

Greenpeace - Piss Off.

 

[Guest]

Yeah, piss off, let humanity suffocate in its own fumes already!

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

I wonder how much Apple donated to Greenpeace...

 

[wastedkill]

I do admire apple when it comes to their renewable/green energy usage and trying to get 100% green/renewable energy but I do admit as well that they need to give more transparity and help others get to where they are in terms of renewable/green energy.

 

[distantreality]

Umm did they take into account that the majority of apples parts are made in countries overseas and how those factories and manufactures run?

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Yeah, piss off, let humanity suffocate in its own fumes already!

Here's why Greenpeace is annoying.... They have no alternative solution to their problems. They tell us to use clean energy (wind, solar, fuel cells etc) but just leave out the fact that only the richest people and companies (like Apple) can afford them. They also don't tell us where we would get he rest of the energy we need as clean energy could never even come close to satisfy the needs of the world.

Take the Keystone pipeline for example. Greenpeace is against it because it's going to ship oil from Canada to refineries in the US. They completely ignore the fact at A) the reports from experts say there's little environmental impact and B) The way they transport oil right now is by train and trains crash. More often than we'd think.

Greenpeace ignores the fact that we need a TON of energy in this country and the only solutions they offer aren't affordable and are terribly insufficient. It's why the cover of WIRED magazine this month tells us that renewable won't work and we need to clean up *gasp* coal.

I think it's good that Apple is using clean energy... that's great. But it's unrealistic for most of us. As for Greenpeace, they can stop talking until they're ready to step into reality with the rest of us and have a real conversation about the environment.
They're so crazy, even their founder left because of it.

 

[Guest]

Umm did they take into account that the majority of apples parts are made in countries overseas and how those factories and manufactures run?

^The factories that create these parts have children working over 12 hours a day for next to nothing. As long as we supply these kind of jobs to that kind of country they will pollute the air enough to eradicate any sort of "Apple praising" that is being done.

 

[Guest]

Agreed, windmills, solar, etc. have many issues still: they take up considerably more space for less output, the change the habitat, they kill wildlife, expensive. Energy, cheap energy, drives economy which drives innovation. It makes much more sense to me to clean up and secure what we have and use it as efficiently as possible until a REAL, viable option comes along: Clean coal, clean refineries (which we haven't build for 30 years), gas, and nuclear.

 

[Guest]

Yeah I know we need to aware with our own environmental.. But, here in my country, Greenpeace is just a bunch of annoying people, forcing us using an outrageous-priced-technology that we can't afford without giving alternative solution who will stand/take a side for the life of trees and birds, rather than humans.. I guess they are what we called bioterrorist

 

[spectrenad]

Yeah, piss off, let humanity suffocate in its own fumes already!

Here's why Greenpeace is annoying.... They have no alternative solution to their problems. They tell us to use clean energy (wind, solar, fuel cells etc) but just leave out the fact that only the richest people and companies (like Apple) can afford them. They also don't tell us where we would get he rest of the energy we need as clean energy could never even come close to satisfy the needs of the world.

Take the Keystone pipeline for example. Greenpeace is against it because it's going to ship oil from Canada to refineries in the US. They completely ignore the fact at A) the reports from experts say there's little environmental impact and B) The way they transport oil right now is by train and trains crash. More often than we'd think.

Greenpeace ignores the fact that we need a TON of energy in this country and the only solutions they offer aren't affordable and are terribly insufficient. It's why the cover of WIRED magazine this month tells us that renewable won't work and we need to clean up *gasp* coal.

I think it's good that Apple is using clean energy... that's great. But it's unrealistic for most of us. As for Greenpeace, they can stop talking until they're ready to step into reality with the rest of us and have a real conversation about the environment.
They're so crazy, even their founder left because of it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...assive-growth-of-oil-by-rail/article15721749/

here's another pertinent video about train crashes :/

 

[Guest]

There is no such thing as clean coal. That is a lie sold to you by the likes of **** Cheney and his drinking buddies. Solar power has made giant leaps in terms of affordability and efficiency over the last 10 years. Within the next 20 years expect advancements that will allow solar power to meet all the energy needs of the USA. Wind power is also advancing at an efficient clip however it is much more detrimental to wildlife than solar. There is no reason to think that the future of power in the US is tied to dirty coal. Burning coal is terribly inefficient. You have to dig it from the ground creating environmental issues then burn it which creates even more. Not good.

 

[Razer]

Umm did they take into account that the majority of apples parts are made in countries overseas and how those factories and manufactures run?

that is the first thing crossed my mind after I read this article

 

[Razer]

I wonder how much Apple donated to Greenpeace...

..umm, about 1 million of trees?

 

[Guest]

The real sin of greenpeace is that they are on this crusade against nuclear when it is one of the cleanest and safest energy sources available. If anything, they actually make our current nuclear reactors more dangerous because we can't replace them with more current designs. Additionally that we could be reburning the waste from reactors made in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

Not to mention the fact that you can't replace coal, or gas, which provides are reliable base load to the power system with something like solar or wind (unless you have one heck of a global power distribution system which doesn't exist--and at our current level of technology absurdly costly). It kills me that these loonies are shutting down nuclear plants in Germany. I guess they will just have to buy their base load from France! (Which is 80%+ nuclear).