Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.
iPad Newsforums, a part of the
Numerous factors have been blamed for what many believe is the growing and pervasive threat of global climate change. Somehow the iPad just joined the list. Greenpeace, the environmental organization...
04-01-2010, 01:05 AM #1
Will The iPad's Carbon Footprint Dissuade Buyers?
Numerous factors have been blamed for what many believe is the growing and pervasive threat of global climate change. Somehow the iPad just joined the list.
Greenpeace, the environmental organization that strives to "ensure the ability of the earth to nurture life in all its diversity" is taking aim at the iPad. And while the organization isn't exactly saying the iPad will bring about the collapse of our environment and exacerbate global warming, the group says the iPad certainly won't help matters.
In a freshly published report by Greenpeace that is highly-critical of Apple (but in a highly-friendly manner), Greenpeace says Cupertino's tablet will have a "much larger carbon footprint than previously estimated." The report in question is titled: "Make IT Green: Cloud Computing and its Contribution to Climate Change." The conclusion reached is that internet-connected mobile devices used for social networks and video streaming are ultimately bad for the environment. How so? A great many data centers, for example, required to make such technology feasible run on coal. Examples of such facilities are noted.
By choosing energy company PacifiCorp, a utility that sources the majority of its power from coal-fired power stations, Facebook missed a chance to promote the use of renewable energy and instead reinforced the coal industry's grip on the United Sates power grid.
Greenpeace is clearly making an effort to cool the momentum of the iPad ahead of its launch this weekend by raising environmental concerns that, while not strictly limited to the iPad, certainly take aim at mobile devices and the carbon footprint their usage leaves behind. And although Greenpeace makes a compelling case, does anyone think it will actually achieve its unspoken but obviously intended objective of dissuading people from embracing cloud computing and new tablet technologies?
04-01-2010, 01:16 AM #2
No.He who asks a question looks foolish for 5 minutes. He who doesn't ask a question remains foolish forever.
04-01-2010, 01:19 AM #3
NegativeStealthBravo is my Hero!!!!!
04-01-2010, 01:21 AM #4
What power type is Apple going to use for the new building they are building?
It could be very well like Google and be powered by various things, a chunck of it solar power.
No matter what data centers are only going to keep coming and only get bigger because the sheer amount of use that companies and people have on the internet.
Google has been cleared to be classified as a power company too because they are going to try to make a great majority of their own power; even more so have the option of selling of the extra power that they create.
04-01-2010, 05:33 AM #5
Humans nowadays don't give a shitaki mushrooms about the environment. If thy cared sooo much they'd be using Hybrids
04-01-2010, 05:57 AM #6
i think they r just jealous that their enviroment iPad app failedName? whereswaldo
iDevice + Firmware? 32GB Black iPhone 4 iOS 5.0
Computer + OS? Dell Inspiron 15R 2nd Gen i5, 2.3 Ghz, 750GB HDD, 8GB RAM Windows 7 HP
Found yet? No
04-01-2010, 06:06 AM #7
No. I prefer a big carbon foot print. This last winter sucked. Need global warming to hurry the eff up.
04-01-2010, 06:25 AM #8
There is a term for what greenpeace is doing and this is rent-seeking.
1 result found for rent seeking
Cutting yourself a bigger slice of the cake rather than making the cake bigger. Trying to make more money without producing more for customers. Classic examples of rent-seeking, a phrase coined by an economist, Gordon Tullock, include:
• a protection racket, in which the gang takes a cut from the shopkeeper’s PROFIT;
• a CARTEL of FIRMS agreeing to raise PRICES;
• a UNION demanding higher WAGES without offering any increase in PRODUCTIVITY;
• lobbying the GOVERNMENT for tax, spending or regulatory policies that benefit the lobbyists at the expense of taxpayers or consumers or some other rivals.
Whether legal or illegal, as they do not create any value, rent-seeking activities can impose large costs on an economy.
Last edited by panos0310; 04-01-2010 at 06:36 AM.
04-01-2010, 06:55 AM #9
Apple is kinda annoying me with all this 'go green' stuff. Most of us reeeeeeeally don't care.
The Following User Says Thank You to zoso10 For This Useful Post:
04-01-2010, 07:13 AM #10
Not good news for the planet.
04-01-2010, 07:29 AM #11
I think I'll buy 2.
04-01-2010, 08:06 AM #12
Last edited by adp; 04-01-2010 at 08:31 AM.If I helped you out, please use the Thanks button ------------------------->
04-01-2010, 08:34 AM #13
Greenpeace, who is that?
04-01-2010, 08:48 AM #14
I don't understand the logic. I buy an iPad... I use it here in Austin, TX. For argument's sake lets say my grid and local data center runs on nuclear or solar power. This doesn't fit into their carbon/coal theory right? Not all data centers around the world run on coal power so how can they judge the end product?
04-01-2010, 08:51 AM #15
04-01-2010, 09:05 AM #16
Who really cares about 'green" it's just a new way of selling things making it look enviroment friendly. But who really cares like seriosly if you do care about enviroment then don't drive.
04-01-2010, 09:55 AM #17
i thought it was brushed aluminium ?
(thanks i'm going to be here all week)
04-01-2010, 10:25 AM #18
Actually, compare Data Centers to individual systems that they replace, generally data centers are more effective, ultimately reducing the amount of power needed to do the same job. Most areas are powered by coal, so if y switching to cloud computing we reduce power consumption by about 30%, then they are good for the environment.
Now if the data center uses part solar, and other renewable resources for it's power, even better.
Also, I have to say that they need to get off this Global Climate Change business, it's pathetic and science doesn't back it up. That being said, I do think that we need to use our resources wisely, if that means we can do something to reduce power consumption while not negatively impacting our lives, we should do so. There are a lot of options out there and they are becoming cheaper than the non-environmentally friendly alternatives as well.
Last edited by cmwade77; 04-01-2010 at 10:27 AM.
04-01-2010, 10:26 AM #19
Seriously, give me a fricking break! If all these Greenpeace people REALLY want to have an impact on the planet, they should stop all of their blabbing and actually go get a real job as an engineer and work towards powering cars by water or build a more efficient solar cell or wind technology. These are the TRUE environmentalists of our world, not a bunch of self-important "green wanabes". All they do is get in the way of economic growth based on some VERY questionable scientific evidence.
I'm not anti-environment in ANY WAY, I have a 2 year old and want him to have a planet to grow old on, but it's gotta be based on more intelligent ideas than the crap that most environmentalists are spouting today.
**hops off his soapbox** sorry bout that..... just had to.
04-01-2010, 11:16 AM #20
All Greenpeace does is talk.
Does anyone even care anyway? Hasn't the world realized that global warming is just politically driven "science"? You would think that when all the emails were released to the public showing that global warming "scientists" were faking and altering data to get more government grants, and basing their predictions off of completely unsubstantiated claims, that people would stop believing this nonsense.
Then again, you still have the morons that will say evolution isn't real, and that the world is flat, so I guess you can't completely get rid of them.