Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Greenpeace Says the Internet Emits Too Much CO2

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the stupid-internet-stop-that dept.

Earth 370

Pharmboy writes "A new report put out by Greenpeace argues that the IT sector is not doing enough to decrease reliance on 'dirty energy', saying the Internet, if it were treated as its own country, would be the 5th largest emitter of greenhouse gases. 'Many companies, the organization said, tightly guard data about the environmental impact and energy consumption of their IT operations. They also focus more on using energy efficiently than on sourcing it cleanly.' The report (PDF) doesn't mention how much CO2 is saved by telecommuting and higher corporate efficiency, however. So, exactly how 'green' or 'polluting' is the internet, really?"

cancel ×

370 comments

FFS (5, Interesting)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907836)

So, exactly how 'green' or 'polluting' is the internet, really?

The more important question is, how exactly does one "choose" a green energy source. I don't know about other parts of the world, but up here in Canada we generally only have one choice of power provider. We don't get to shop around for which power plant we want to produce our power. I guess if you are big enough to be able to "choose a location for the new datacenter" then you kinda can... but for the large majority of users not so much.

Yes, there are alternatives, but they arn't ready for the masses yet. Doing anything for power besides paying the going rate in your local area is at best risky. Unless you can use it as a PR piece effectively to the point of being worth it or it saves your more money over a reasonable amount of time, no one is going to go for it.

The report (PDF) doesn't mention how much CO2 is saved by telecommuting and higher corporate efficiency, however.

Greenpeace.. biased.. who'd have seen that one ;)

Seriously though, while I agree with some of the greenpeace message... I have very little respect for the organization and have a hard time taking anything they say seriously.

Re:FFS (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907902)

The IT sector is actually ahead of most industries in terms of being green. They can be 100% green operationally, today. Running completely on electricity means you can be as green as your source. It's not IT that's the problem.

Likewise, to the omissions of the report, how much CO2 is saved by internet shopping? Having a single delivery truck running all day is better than 70 cars making individual trips.

Re:FFS (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908040)

The IT sector is actually ahead of most industries in terms of being green. They can be 100% green operationally, today. Running completely on electricity means you can be as green as your source. It's not IT that's the problem.

Not quite true, there is the CO2 cost in making computers - we would get better if we did not replace machines so often.

Then there is the cost of printing paper, ink & all sorts of consumables.

Re:FFS (1, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908070)

The CO2 cost of making computers is the fault of the internet? That's a pretty big leap in terms of conclusions. How exactly did you arrive at that?

The CO2 generated manufacturing something is the fault of the manufacturer, not the fault of the end use of the item.

Re:FFS (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908206)

I said 'operationally' not infrastructure. There's CO2 cost in *everything*, but you can't remove the CO2 cost of making, say, concrete and steel. (ok, technically you can, but not without massive changes to the process)

Re:FFS (3, Insightful)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908280)

Then there is the cost of printing paper, ink & all sorts of consumables

That particular cost is not a problem on the IT side but rather a reflection of the deficiencies outside of IT that require that interface. As a software engineer my workspace is dominated by monitors not paper. In a given week my total output to a printer is less than five pages. I have a pad of paper and a pen which I use for meeting notes, and scratch. One pad typically lasts me between two and three months. The same cannot be said for sales, nor the front office, etc.

Re:FFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908090)

Well, when I was a kid we walked usually - or took public transporting to the next big city occasionally

Re:FFS (4, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908164)

What's the deal with Greenpeace these days?

I could kind of get behind them when trying to protect living things like whales from overkilling...etc.

But geez..sounds like they're a bit like MADD...and going WAY beyond what they were originally set up for....

MADD now pretty much seems to want total prohibition...and Greenpeace is leaning towards the eco-paranoid where things won't be 'right' until we go back to a primitive caveman society...

Re:FFS (4, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908230)

Well to be fair, AGW is likely to have a pretty massive effect on most living things on the planet so saying Greenpeace doesn't have a dog in this fight isn't exactly fair...

Re:FFS (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908288)

Greenpeace is #1 in standing around and holding banners.

Re:FFS (3, Insightful)

spd_rcr (537511) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908002)

Of course without the "internet" Greenpeace wouldn't have a means to complain about the internet. Sure they are a few Greenpeace rep's out in the cities when the weather is nice, but they're usually lost amongst the rest of the aggressive pan-handlers.

As usual, they're simply trying to make a statement in a controversial manner. The internet isn't it's own country, it's a communication medium. If they wanted to make a serious statement, they could focus on the waste involved in the manufacture of disposable (quickly obsolete) electronics or focus on the power plants we get our energy from. No-one's going to give up the internet to save the planet, arguments like this just continue to paint Greenpeace as a collection of sensationalist, attention-whoring, hippies.

Re:FFS (2)

absurdhero (614828) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908212)

As usual, they're simply trying to make a statement in a controversial manner ... arguments like this just continue to paint Greenpeace as a collection of sensationalist, attention-whoring, hippies.

And websites like Slashdot disseminate these articles on their behalf instead of more meaningful, less sensational ones. Unfortunately, these articles keep you and me coming back here to click on the ads (or Slashdot would still be a blog run by CmdrTaco).

Re:FFS (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908030)

The more important question is, how exactly does one "choose" a green energy source...

Large data centers that use enormous amounts of energy such as the ones Google and Facebook operate in Oregon (and Apple's huge center in the Midwest) certainly do have choices about power sources. As well, there are many opportunities for conservation and "green" energy programs at these places.

Re:FFS (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908058)

Successful activist groups work a lot like corporations. They either need to grow or die. Because if they just try to solve one problem in the world they will more likely succeed then they will out of business and then will need to refile as an other NPO for the next thing. So Greenpeace like PETA, and MAAD, Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups they expand their scope of problems so they will stay in business longer (Espectially if their goal is popular enough they quickly get big enough where they have paid staff and a CEO who making 6 - 7 figures a year) but by expanding their scope they actually hinder on getting anything meaningful done. If you want to save the Wales Greenpeace could probably do it. But they are too bogged down with their other issues to put effort into solving any one problem.

Re:FFS (0)

bsane (148894) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908184)

Well said.

Re:FFS (0)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908228)

Who are we saving Wales [wikipedia.org] from?

Re:FFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908088)

The more important question is, how exactly does one "choose" a green energy source.

We're talking about Internet data centers. It doesn't matter where they are. You can just move them to a place that offers plenty of green power.

The pedants will point out that latency varies based on location, but for the majority of activities that involve data centers, no one cares about latency.

So, yes, websites can easily choose whether or not they want to use green energy by deciding where they place their data centers. And plenty already do. [google.com]

Re:FFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908100)

Here in NL most power providers offer the choise to pick between green energy and normal.

Both being same price.

With the green option they guarantee that all energy comes from renewable sources.

Re:FFS (1)

boaworm (180781) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908144)

It all depends on how you count. In Sweden you have a number of power providers to choose from, some have only "green" power, while others have various sources. If you want, you can build your own windmill, start a distribution company, and sell your electricity via your distribution company. It is of course pushed into the national power grid before reaching the end customer, but unless you sell more "green" power than your windmill produces, you're basically doing what you claim you do.

However, there are many other ways to count. One recent report showed that an electric car today would emit around 200g of co2 / kilometer, which is significantly more than a small "green" diesel (around 120g co2/km). So how can an electric car emit co2 in the first place? Well, of course it doesn't, but the power has to come from somewhere. And the report suggests that when a new car is added to the market, it will consume power from the "last few percent" of power production, as this is the type of power production used to compensate for a varying demand. Thus, when you charge your car, the power company has to crank up some coal plant or diesel generator to produce your "extra" needs, hence the higher co2/km than a diesel car itself.

This is of course equally correct and complete nonsense at the same time. But the fact remains that all power used has to be produced, at the exact time of consumption. So maybe if you claim you only charge your car during the night when the temporary dirty generators are offline, you're better of.

So sure, the internet is using a lot of electricity, but how many sheets of fax paper does it save every day? How many airplanes full of mail does it save every day? And every video conference or skype call that took place instead of a taxi, bus or plane trip is of course saving hugely. It feels like greenpeace should have more pressing matters than chasing after "the Internet"...

SHUT IT DOWN!!!11!1!11eleven (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908148)

http://greenpeace.org [greenpeace.org] is a great place to start. ... and nothing of value was lost.

Re:FFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908282)

They can start making the internet green by taking down their site. That should sure reduce the CO2...

Human race a big polluter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35907854)

We should eliminate them immediately, less the planet die!

No more news at 11.

Net savings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35907872)

How much CO2 does Internet usage SAVE? How about not driving to work 3 days a week and working from home remotely? Methinks the Internet has a net improvement on CO2 emissions.

Re:Net savings? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907974)

I am 7.7 miles from work and I ride a bicycle.

Re:Net savings? (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908062)

You still exhale CO2, you environmental terrorist!

Re:Net savings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908210)

I collect it and store it in jars in my basement. I am weird like that.

Re:Net savings? (1)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908086)

I am 7.7 miles from work and I ride a bicycle.

And when you ride it, do you exhale additional CO2? What people need to do is to cycle less, drive less and eat more. The more carbon you can tie up in fat reserves, the better for the planet. Burning off that carbon through exercise can only make things worse.

Re:Net savings? (1)

Zcar (756484) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908276)

And when you ride it, do you exhale additional CO2? What people need to do is to cycle less, drive less and eat more. The more carbon you can tie up in fat reserves, the better for the planet. Burning off that carbon through exercise can only make things worse.

This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of CO2 emissions. Any CO2 you emit in your breath doesn't count - it was atmospheric CO2 a very short time previously that was absorbed either by the plants at the base of the food chain. It's the release of previously long term sequestered carbon (e.g. that which had been underground for millions of years as coal) that raises atmospheric CO2 levels.

Re:Net savings? (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907976)

And don't forget the move to e-mail from snail mail. Also, computer equipment has been getting faster, cheaper, and more energy efficient every year. I would bet that the Internet has been steadily improving the bits/Watt every year. And think about the huge energy savings when most people switched from desktops to laptops, where energy consumption all of a sudden became important. Greenpeace is way off on this one. I think they've been smoking a little too much of the green.

Re:Net savings? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908114)

Also, computer equipment has been getting faster, cheaper, and more energy efficient every year.

I don't think that's really true. It's probably true now, but things were going backwards when Intel was pushing their P4 with Netburst architecture and RAMBUS memory. Those things were power hogs.

Re:Net savings? (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908178)

That was the exception to the trend, and Intel got severely punished for their mistakes. That's about the time when AMD gained market share with their platform supporting DDR2.

Fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35907886)

Would it help if we could plug-up some of them tubes?

Re:Fix (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908176)

Would it help if we could plug-up some of them tubes?

I was just thinking something like that, there must be a leak in the tubes somewhere, letting out all that CO2....

Yeah well... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35907896)

Greenpeace emits too much hot air.

Slanted article is slanted (2)

SiliconJesus (1407) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907898)

Greenpeace just like any other group with a political agenda (like NRA, Sierra Club, PETA, MADD) has to provide the shock value to get its point across. How many more pieces of paper would be wasted if it weren't for the ability to send email or post on grandma's wall. Sending or writing a check is nearly extinct. Sure we have a heck of a lot plugged in, but servers are becoming exponentially more efficient as time progresses. With technologies such as cloud computing and virtualization, the peak load of infrastructure has promise to slowly decrease over the next decade. Remember the internet, as far reaching as it is, is still a relatively young technology that is getting its legs under it. Give it time, and the cost of powering all of those servers slowly moves companies to reduce their consumption or supplement with sustainable green power.

Re:Slanted article is slanted (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908094)

Agreed. Remember, this was the same company ranked apple last, not because they were the least green, but because they didn't disclose any information to them. This article is the equivalent of saying "OMG! If light bulbs were their own country, they would be the largest emitters of greenhouse gases!" Even though it does't take into account the SOURCE of the electricity. In my opinion, they're nearly as idiotic, and self-important, as PETA.

That's not about the internet (2)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907900)

"The internet" is a vague term and isn't even what the report is about. The report is about IT operations. Sure if you combined all the datacenters in the world their carbon footprint would be HUGE, but then...let's consider the alternative. Let's start by storing all those TPS reports on paper. Billions of reams of paper, probably. We're going to need boxes or file drawers and folders to put them in. And warehouses in which to store them, which we can build to replace the forests we cut down to make the paper. Then of course there's the cost of transporting all this stuff wherever it's needed...that's a lot of gasoline. E-mail would be a lot less wasteful, but hey....Greenpeace is chiding us about producing too much pollution with our e-mail. So we'll FedEx those papers. Jet planes aren't nearly as bad on the environment.

Seriously. There are bigger things they could be tackling. If anything, Greenpeace should be pushing for MORE dependence on networking and IT and a trying to draw the world away from relying so much on paper. Fix THAT problem, then talk about IT.

Re:That's not about the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908010)

Not that I'm terribly excited about the content of the article, but if you think that the TPS reports aren't stored electronically as well as on billions of reams of paper, you're very naive about how business does things in this day & age.

Re:That's not about the internet (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908108)

Re-read the comment you dummy.

Re:That's not about the internet (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908150)

But if we switch back to paper, we would be creating massive carbon stores. I know what we need to do, we need all governments in the world to increase bureaucracy. With the amount of paper we would all need to store, we would be offsetting our CO2 emissions!

Re:That's not about the internet (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908258)

But if we switch back to paper, we would be creating massive carbon stores.

Not really, as the trees that paper was made out of was not only a carbon store, but a carbon dioxide reduction machine. And most of that paper will end up in the landfill, and start churning out methane eventually.

Greenpeace Largest Offender of the human race (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35907908)

Greenpeace's collective mouth hole emits to much CO2, maybe the should just stop breathing!

Greenpeace... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35907910)

I really stopped respecting or listening to them when they got in bed with PETA and the Voluntary Human Extinction movement...

Greenpeace? (2, Insightful)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907914)

Why should anyone care what Greenpeace says?

Re:Greenpeace? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35907950)

Greenwashers is more apt name

Re:Greenpeace? (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908138)

Greenpeace gives environmentalism a bad name.

Re:Greenpeace? (4, Insightful)

rabun_bike (905430) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908252)

Because regardless of ideology it is still an intriguing statement and provokes some interesting discussion as evident here on /.

Stone Age (5, Insightful)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907920)

Can't do nuclear, can't put windmills up due to the birds or hurting the value of the Kennedy compound. Ethanol doesn't work. Honestly, I don't think the environmentalists will be happy until we're back to living in caves and dying at around age 25 from famine.

Re:Stone Age (2, Insightful)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908032)

They seem to always talk about solar or fusion but never do second level thought on that. When the next asteroid or comet hits or a super-volcano like Yellowstone erupts and blocks out the sun solar wont work quite so hot. There is significant probability a large asteroid or comet will hit us one day, and that one day a super-volcano will erupt. Fusion that produces energy cost-effectively has yet to be produced, and none of the Greenpeace morons are trying to help that endeavor out by becoming nuclear scientists. I doubt most of them have the capacity for it anyway since they don't bother to think beyond "stop doing ____ it hurts the ______".

Re:Stone Age (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908218)

You realize you are making an argument FOR utilizing more solar. If there is a fear that a meteor will block out the sun, then we had best stop using up all our finite meteor-proof fuel now and use the sun while we have it, saving our fossil reserves for when they are needed (during the meteor induced blackout).

Re:Stone Age (1)

boaworm (180781) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908204)

There is always cold fusion [physorg.com] !

Perspective... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907928)

From TFA graph entitled, "2007 electricity consumption. Billion kwH":
  1. US at 3923.
  2. China at 3438.
  3. Russia at 1023.
  4. Japan at 925.
  5. Cloud Computing at 662.
  6. India at 568.
  7. Germany at 547.
  8. Canada at 536.
  9. France at 447
  10. Brazil at 404.
  11. UK at 345.

So "The Cloud", is fairly far from the top two energy consumers, US and China. No simple breakdown as to how "green" easy consumer is, though a later table lists non/renewable usage for countries, but not The Cloud...

Re:Perspective... (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908246)

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that Cloud Computing accounted for more electricity use than Germany did in 2007.

Or that it used 1/6 of the electricity used in the USA....

Publicity Whores are whoring publicity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35907930)

Greenpeace is detrimental to the environmentalism movement.

Explains Al Gore (0)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907932)

Obviously Al Gore felt really guilty about all the pollution his invention has caused. This explains why he's had such a focus on the environment and climate change. He's just trying to balance it out.

Why give them a voice? (1)

nefus (952656) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907938)

Why validate the opinions of an organization that has been banned from a variety of countries and towns around the world? It's like asking the mob their opinion on small caliber firearms. Would you really want them involved?

You emit too much CO2! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35907944)

You asshole!

Missing Moderate Article Option (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35907946)

Where is the:
-1 Ideological Terrorist

Option? I'd love to be able to use this for future Greepeace and PETA articles.

Both organizations have a lot in common:
- Gross disregard for others rights if it interferes with their own agenda
- The embracement of "Shock" tactics as a means of furthering their "message"
- The subversion of ideological ideas to the extreme to the exclusion of common sense.

I mean, hey, Shit is Organic, Locally Harvested, and its consumption would lower worldwide pollution of our Oceans and Aquifers, but I don't see anyone advocating it.

As a card carrying Vegetarian and someone who DOES try to lower my environmental impact on the planet (not negate, that is impossible without ceasing to exist), these groups went from being interesting when I was younger, to being downright scary in their Fundamentalist beliefs, and being outright wack-jobs who have lost their way, and whatever mandate they thought they had.

Greenpeace emits a lot of hot air (1)

Camelot (17116) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907954)

If they would shut up, we would be just fine.

But... (0)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907958)

It's obviously ok for Greenpeace to use it to get their message out in PDF?

Why don't they write it on fallen leaves and let the wind carry their message around.

Did they take down their web site? (0)

jcr (53032) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907966)

If they want to get people to quit using the net, they should lead by example.

-jcr

Screw the internet, just look at Spam (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35907972)

Obviously Greenpeace wants people to rage... you want to rage? Don't look at the internet's total power consumption, look at how much of that consumption is caused just by spam or other illegitimate traffic.

Screwy way to look at it (1)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907978)

Look, using energy efficiently is doing something good for the environment. Until that mythical time when all our power comes from sources that don't cause global warming, emit pollution, create radioactive waste, kill birds, destroy desert ecologies, require materials that have to be mined, disrupt fish lives, or look bad, reducing power usage is reducing environmental impact.

Moreover, if I'm running a data center, it's up to me how much I work at saving energy. If I'm getting it from a utility, I have a lot less ability to control how they get their power. Think globally and act locally, guys.

hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35907980)

and without internet they expected this news to propogate...how exactly? carrier pigeons and snail mail?

Re:hypocrites (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908244)

We can all drive/fly to their climate controlled offices to pick up a pamphlet. Clearly that will use far less energy than the internet.

Polluting, or is it restoring natute? (2)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907984)

Earth used to have a CO2 atmosphere until this new form of life (plants) showed up and started spewing O2 into it as waste bi-product from their "photosynthesis".

Some people are just trying to restore Earth to its natural state. How much greener can you get than that?

Re:Polluting, or is it restoring natute? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908250)

nice.

I don't want it returning to a previous state. (well, a state older then ab out 1850)

I mostly want it to be comfortable and habitable as possible for humans.

The Internet says Greenpeace tastes like chicken (4, Insightful)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907988)

Slow roasted Greenpeace over a hickory smoked fire. Famous Dave's Devil's Spit barbecue sauce slathered all over, popping and sizzling in the hot coals as it slowly drips. Next to it, a rack of Greenpeace ribs slathered in the same sauce, cooks to perfection as it fills the air with a smokehouse aroma.

over a hot fire
I can't wait to take a bite
Greenpeace is cooking

In other news, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35907992)

Greenpeace finds people produce too much CO2. To solve this issue as well as world hunger, they have decided to introduce a low cost food source Soylent Green.

Dear Greenpeace: (1)

Hartree (191324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35907994)

I'll be foregoing my normal donation to you this year, and spending it on MMORPGs and cloud storage instead.

Sincerely,
The Internet

Telecommuting and more (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908020)

I have been telecommuting for two years. Certainly the gas savings need to be considered. But there's more. For the past year, vie mostly purchased ebooks and emagazines. How many trees saved? How much fuel for shipping saved?

Bottom line is that any comparison like this is exceedingly complex. Simpleminded people do simpleminded studies and get inane results.

Greenpeace falls among the naysayers: "you can't do that". If they actually provided some realistic concrete alternatives, I might actually give them some consideration. As it stands now, as soon as they identify themselves with green peace, I stop listening.

Man made 'global warming' is a myth (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908024)

www.climatedepot.com

You'll noticed that the idiots who believe in 'global warming' (and thereby think that somehow it makes them 'better' people) are also the same idiots who believe in open borders, i.e. that white people (and only white people) don't have the right to have their own countries.

Yet they can defend neither position.

Do What?!?!? (1)

pro151 (2021702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908026)

Are they running out of things to obsess over? Do all of their boats run on fusion energy? How "Green" are they now that they have me thinking about it?

Re:Do What?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908190)

Do all of their boats run on fusion energy?

Can't be fusion, that's "dangerous nukular energy stuff!!!"

The more Greenpeace speaks, the worse it makes the environmentalist platform sound.

CO2 of things it replaces? (4, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908038)

Has Greenpeace calculated reduced fuel consumption due to decreased snail-mail volume? Reduced travel CO2 due to IM, video-conference, and other IP-based technology? The contribution of computing to developing greener technologies?

Run those calcs and get back to us.

Take down your site then (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908042)

Greenpeace should take down their website then; they are contributing to the problem.

Alternatives... less green (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908052)

How much more CO2 would be generated if I ...mailed 50 letters a day across the country/world? ...My servers printed out their logs instead of sending them electronically to a syslog server? (any mainframers also remember these days?) ...I drove to the mall/bookstore/music store etc.. I needed to purchase something. ...had to buy a new set of encyclopedias every year ...had to create plastic overheads (aka "foils" to some) for every presentation ...mailed individual pictures to all of my family of my recent vacation ...mailed my taxes in via USPS instead of electronically.

Anybody know what type of infrastructure Greenpeace uses?

orly? (0)

ya really (1257084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908054)

Considering Greenpeace has a website themselves and one that runs a windows stack (as well plenty of bloat inducing javascript), I think they should be looking at what they can do to stop emitting CO2. Let me know when they pull the plug or at least rebuild their site using only assembly.

Don't care... (1)

david.emery (127135) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908060)

About Greenpeace, a theater troupe whose desire for headlines outweighs any real contribution to the debate.

So wait. (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908072)

The internet, as a whole, is only the fifth most polluting entity?

For a world-spanning corporation with massive servers, that's pretty darn good.

As an aside, IT companies redue their dependency on the internet? HA

Again! (1)

Grindalf (1089511) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908074)

Is there any needed life supporting resource that this outfit will not try to destroy? This is another fabricated story by them and wholly without scientific foundation.

Greenpeace says...Who cares what greenpeace says (1)

JohnRoss1968 (574825) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908110)

And Greenpeace is the second leading emitter of Bullshit. PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals?) Trumps them in first place.

Dumbass way of looking at it. (2)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908130)

"...saying the Internet, if it were treated as its own country, would be the 5th largest emitter of greenhouse gases."

Uh, OK, that's one hell of a way to look at it. Gee, if I put every single car in it's own "country", I'll bet it would be one of the worlds largest consumers of rubber tires too. Go figure.

Anyone can lump a bunch of shit together, but it takes a true idiot to lump a bunch of shit together that would never occur naturally in the first place and then start hitting the global warming panic button. Morons.

Oh, and thanks a lot there, Al Gore. The internet may not be your invention, but I'll gladly pin this clusterfuck on your ass.

Re:Dumbass way of looking at it. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908216)

This is not about Gore.

This is about green peace who uses any scare tactic and lie they can to get in the media and gt money.

That is all.

Brining Gore into this just shows you can't divorce your statement from false ideological beliefs.

A new study says (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908156)

A new study says Greenpeace activists are not showing any sign of reducing their CO2 emission while breathing.

Where is the clean energyh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908162)

These F***ers always gripe that energy isn't clean enough... It hurts the environment... There isn't ONE energy source these dumb asses find acceptable!

Pick any energy source and do a search. You will find some environmentalist griping about it.

If they want to live in a dark cave licking algae off the walls then they are more than welcome to do it. I want a nice temperature controlled house, big, fast cars, fattening foods and lots and lots of cheap energy!!!

Offset? (1)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908182)

Article didn't seem to mention it, but do they consider the offset the internet provides? A lot of people shop online now, so instead of spending the gas to go buy a CD or something else, it's instead downloaded digitally or ordered online; I don't have the stats to back it up, but I would think that mass shipping is more efficient than a hundred individuals driving to the mall.

Greenpeace can (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908198)

suck my great green donkey dick.

Time and time again they lie, and they are no longer about the environement. They are about using corporation as whipping boys so they can drum up volunteers and money, even if they lie about it.

They lost there way in the 80s, and really aren't worth anyones time.

And I say that as a former member.

Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908234)

And most of the internet thinks green peace is emitting too much hot air.

Summary is sensational nonsense (1)

makubesu (1910402) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908236)

Greenpeace is not attacking the internet. They're simply trying to get big server farms to start thinking about environmental impact. None of the bias in the summary is in TFA.

Telecommuting is not green...necessarily. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908240)

The poster implies that telecommute-based work is necessarily reducing the carbon footprint, but there is not a lot of evidence to support this. Yes, you reduce your commute times, but you also increase resource consumption in your home - resources that are possibly duplicated in your house. More significantly, it's been shown that telecommuning is causing more egress from the cities into the suburbs or the country - areas where, typically, people have LARGER carbon footprints - larger commutes from home to grocery stores, etc. One also tends to have larger amounts of land and houses, which ultimately displaces co2-offsetting trees.

Greenpeace can help (2)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908254)

They can shut down their servers and help make the internet a bit greener.

Well, in that case... (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908260)

We'll go back to delivering information by sending everybody thick heavy bundles of paper, then. I'm sure that'll be much greener.

Still drinking Al Gore's Kool Aid in 2011 (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35908270)

It's 2011. Someone still believes in:

1) Anthropogenic global warming
2) CO2 = pollutant/contributor to global warming
3) "We must reduce our carbon footprint!"
4) "Buy carbon credits!"

They're even teaching this nonsense in schools. Now your kids, and an entire generation of impressionable youths, will become useful idiots in the Green Cult.
In fact, I can see that some of you folks are already rank and file members of the Green Cult.

That's right. Go right ahead and continue with your heroic, altruistic efforts to save the f**kin' planet.
George Carlin is laughing at you.

What it really is (4, Insightful)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908274)

Greenpeace is no longer an attack upon pollution. It is an attack upon the concept of wealth.

Greenpeace has a problem with Internet energy use only when it doesn't serve Greenpeace, its political activities, and its ability to indulge in the great human urge to tell others what to do. Greenpeace, like the Sierra Club ('wilderness is for rich people only") and PETA ("let's get naked and pipe-bomb universities"), has become an embarrassment and a liability to the concepts of environmentalism and conservation. They help the cause of environmentalism about as much as a parade of drag queens dressed in rubber nun outfits masturbating each other whenever the traffic lights turn red help obtain gay rights.

There was a time, long ago, when I supported Greenpeace. But now... they ARE the problem. You can't make changes by alienating the mainstream, no matter how much of "I'm a rebel!" gives you a hard-on when you look in the mirror.

It's raining where I am at today, (1)

m93 (684512) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908284)

so it's going to be difficult to get my Earth Day tire fire started. But I will keep trying. It's too important!

All the same. (1)

Darth_brooks (180756) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908286)

Greenpeace. MADD. PETA. At some point the folks running those organizations realized there was good money in ostensibly working towards a cause that no one could disagree with. Now they're all just run by self serving publicity whores, all chanting the same mantra of "Give us money, or else you hate (mother earth) (grieving mothers) (cute puppies), and you wouldn't want to be known as someone who hates (mother earth) (grieving mothers) (cute puppies) this close to re-election season, would you?"

The internet is full of it... (1)

no_opinion (148098) | more than 3 years ago | (#35908292)

Too much hot CO2, right?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...