Beta
×

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: Amazon Fire Burns More Coal and Gas Than It Should

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the not-enough-greenwashing dept.

Cellphones 288

Jason Koebler (3528235) writes "The biggest thing that sets the Amazon Fire Phone apart from its Android and Apple competitors probably isn't the clean interface or the unlimited photo storage—it's the dirty power behind it. When Fire users upload their photos and data to Amazon's cloud, they'll be creating a lot more pollution than iPhone owners, Greenpeace says. Apple has made a commitment to running its iCloud on 100 percent clean energy. Amazon, meanwhile, operates the dirtiest servers of any major tech giant that operates its own servers—only 15 percent of its energy comes from clean sources, which is about the default national average." Greenpeace's jaundiced eye is on Amazon more generally; the company's new phone is just an example. Maybe Amazon or some other provider could take a page from some local utilities and let users signal their own preferences with a (surcharged) "clean energy" option.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Clever editors. (1)

penguinoid (724646) | about 2 months ago | (#47538667)

It's funny because "fire" and "coal". /sarcasm

Re:Clever editors. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538707)

The only real Amazon related environmental problem is the out-of-control population growth in South America and other developing areas.

Re: Clever editors. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538943)

I think "it's" funny because isn't it the greenpeace CEO the one commuting to work in a private jet?
Or is that some other Enviromental group ?

Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538709)

This whole "I buy my energy from green sources" crap is hipsterism at its finest. It's even more hipster than goddamn "walled garden" cell phones with unusable flat UIs, glasses with no lenses, and fedora hats.

It represents everything that's fucked up about hipsters and their toxic attitude:

1) They think they're "making a difference" without actually doing anything beneficial at all.

2) They brag about how they're "making a difference", when they obviously aren't.

3) They feel good about how they're "making a difference", when they haven't done a goddamn thing.

4) They think they care about the environment, when they clearly don't.

5) They subject the rest of us to their "environmental justice" and "social justice" crap without end.

These hipsters make me sick. Give me back the hippies of the 1960s, or the real environmentalists of the 1970s! As obnoxious as they often were, at least they weren't filthy hypocrites like today's hipsters are. They actually managed to practice what they preached, even if they were out of touch with reality. Hipsters today are totally out of touch, and can't even be assed to live by how they say everyone should should be living.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538785)

This whole "I know better than everyone else" crap is fanboyism at its finest. It's even more fanboyish than goddamn "open" cell phones with unusable UIs, necks with beards on them, and fedora hats.

It represents everything that's fucked up about fanboys and their toxic attitude:

1) They think they're "making a difference" without actually doing anything beneficial at all.

2) They brag about how they're "better", when they obviously aren't.

3) They feel good about how they're "making a difference", when they haven't done a goddamn thing.

4) They think they care about the technology, when they clearly don't.

5) They subject the rest of us to their "free software" and "opensource" crap without end.

These fanboys make me sick. Give me back the engineers of the 1960s, or the scientists of the 1970s! As obnoxious as they often were, at least they weren't filthy like today's fanboys are. They actually managed to practice what they preached, even if they were out of touch with reality. Fanboys today are totally out of touch, and can't even be assed to live by how they say everyone should should be living.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 2 months ago | (#47538797)

What would be even more green is having a phone with an SD card slot so that you wouldn't need to be connected to "the cloud" to have a reasonable amount of content stored on it.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538831)

SD slots on every phone would be worse for the environment. In the cloud, you can store everyones data efficiently instead of using millions of inefficient SD cards. Plus the the SD card approach will create more waste as cars go bad or break.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (3, Insightful)

David_Hart (1184661) | about 2 months ago | (#47538905)

SD slots on every phone would be worse for the environment. In the cloud, you can store everyones data efficiently instead of using millions of inefficient SD cards. Plus the the SD card approach will create more waste as cars go bad or break.

LOL.... What? Have you had your coffee or energy drink today?

1. Having stuff that you can download and keep on SD cards uses a TON less energy than having to stream it every time. You are missing the energy required to transmit packets, to run routers and switches, etc...

2. Obviously you "know nothing, John Snow...." I've never had a SD card break, let alone stop working. My biggest fear with the MicroSD cards is that I will lose them, they are so tiny... So far so good...

3. Maybe this was meant as sarcasm and I missed it entirely.... doubtful though....

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538939)

You are not accounting for the energy required to transport the sad car from the point of manufacture to the point of use.

You fail to account for how slow SD cards are so that they need to be powered longer to extract data off them.

You missed the added ewaste of having to get a new phone when the sd cart slot breaks.

It's a sample fact having everything centralized is always more effiecent than having something distributed.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (0, Troll)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 2 months ago | (#47538961)

2. Obviously you "know nothing, John Snow...." I've never had a SD card break, let alone stop working. My biggest fear with the MicroSD cards is that I will lose them, they are so tiny... So far so good...

Oh thank god. All this time I was thinking that no storage device is 100% reliable and here you come along and shatter that view. Thank you David_Hart for assuring me that SD cards are 100% reliable and never experience data loss. I am switching to SD cards for all of my backups from now on; both at home and at work! I am sure my boss will love how much money I saved him by switching from costly tape and off site providers to simple SD cards. THANK YOU!

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (3, Insightful)

Nukenbar (215420) | about 2 months ago | (#47539069)

Oh thank god. All this time I was thinking that no storage device is 100% reliable and here you come along and shatter that view. Thank you David_Hart for assuring me that SD cards are 100% reliable and never experience data loss. I am switching to SD cards for all of my backups from now on; both at home and at work! I am sure my boss will love how much money I saved him by switching from costly tape and off site providers to simple SD cards. THANK YOU!

Don't be a tool.

No one is saying you keep your one copy of the nuclear launch codes on a SD card. He is saying they have become relatively inexpensive removable storage and that most phone makers outside of apple have acknowledged this.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538933)

I doubt that. SD cards require much less power to operate than the servers required for the cloud. And servers generate a lot more waste than micro SD cards.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538947)

This is 100% wrong.

It's more efficient to store 1 file on a central hard drive than store millions of redundant copies on millions of SD cards.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 months ago | (#47539067)

no one made that argument though..... stop pushing goalposts

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539099)

In the cloud, you can store everyones data efficiently instead of using millions of inefficient SD cards.

Learn to read.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47539273)

It's more efficient to store 1 file on a central hard drive than store millions of redundant copies on millions of SD cards.

Transmitting a copy of that 1 file every time when it is accessed consumes enormous amount of energy.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538967)

Memory cards are extremely resilient and I've been using is 4GB SD card for the past 10 years in my cameras. I'm pretty sure I've thrown a non-ruggedized USB memory stick into the wash as well and it's come out fine the other end.

The two 32GB cards that I have and use (one is in my phone at the moment) have been used reasonably extensively for the past few years as well.

The carbon footprint of a 32GB card once it hits store shelves is 0. The failure rate is incredibly low since there's no moving parts.

Compare to "cloud": the extra battery power used to shuttle possibly GBs of data over Wifi or LTE. The power hundreds of thousands of servers require.

This, of course, doesn't count the carbon cost of manufacturing all the components of a computer. How man tiny 1cmx1cm card (that's doing the same thing over and over again - it's mostly just memory "chips") are needed to compensate for the manufacturing of the power supply, CPU, hard drive and motherboard.

You're pretty much wrong. lol

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539075)

Memory cards are extremely resilient and I've been using is 4GB SD card for the past 10 years in my cameras. I'm pretty sure I've thrown a non-ruggedized USB memory stick into the wash as well and it's come out fine the other end.

And I have ones that have failed.

The carbon footprint of a 32GB card once it hits store shelves is 0.

This is a completely wrong statement. Needs to be powered to operate. It needs to be transported. The store shelf it is sitting has a carbon foot print.

 

The failure rate is incredibly low since there's no moving parts.

If they are so reliable, why don't they just use these in servers? They don't use them in servers because they're extremely unreliable and incredibly inefficient.

The power hundreds of thousands of servers require.

First of all they are not using hundreds of thousands of servers. Second the energy to run 100,000 servers is way more efficient than the energy required to operate 7,000,000,000 cell phones in use throughout the world. Third those servers need to exist anyways otherwise you could not have digital stores.

This, of course, doesn't count the carbon cost of manufacturing all the components of a computer. How man tiny 1cmx1cm card (that's doing the same thing over and over again - it's mostly just memory "chips") are needed to compensate for the manufacturing of the power supply, CPU, hard drive and motherboard.

You completely ignore manufacturing and transportation of billions of SD cards that would need to be manufactured, transported and eventually disposed of.

In short you are wrong.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 months ago | (#47539211)

> And I have ones that have failed.

My last Archos 5 with spinny rust inside of it refuses to die. It's fortunate too since no other device I've seen can match it for local storage and disconnected (from the cloud) operation.

I've yet to have an SD card fail. If anything they will become obsoletely-tiny before actually breaking.

It's funny that someone thinks that multiple redundant server farms and the entire network infastructure of the internet and all the phone providers is less of a resource hog than a few tiny bits of electronics.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539101)

Or, you know, don't own a cell phone.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538867)

And this excerpt from the article succinctly summarizes your point.

Maybe Amazon or some other provider could take a page from some local utilities and let users signal their own preferences with a (surcharged) "clean energy" option.

Why should we have to pay a surcharge for "clean energy"; clean energy should be the default and "dirty energy" needs the surcharge.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538871)

I don't let the hipsters get to me. In fact I go out of my way to make sure that my energy purchases are not green. I drive a 1968 dodge pickup with a Cummins diesel engine that dumps billowing black smoke out of the tailpipe. I just love the handicapped looks that I get from the hipsters in the Prius as they load their canvas shopping bags into their econobox. My truck on the other hand has a sheet of oiled plywood in the bed with cans of diesel, a toolbox and other "hick" accoutrements including a mean looking German shepard dog (he's actually a big wus and will accept pets from total strangers). In my home I use incandescent light bulbs and I run the air conditioner at full blast 68 degrees on those hot days without a solar panel in sight. I'll wager that my carbon footprint is easily a few times larger than average, but hey somebody has to pick up the slack for those hipsters and that suits me just fine. Damn greenies and their meddling environmental ways, to hell with them I say.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#47538903)

I don't know, building your datacenter near a hydro-electric dam or a wind farm, or in a cool place so it doesn't need as much cooling, seems like it actually does make a difference.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539191)

Be careful -- The TVA has a wind farm. They turned it off because it took more to run the wind farm than the value of the energy it produced. Going after these lovely Liberal ideas of "Green Power" can put you and your business at risk when the "Green Stuff" runs out or fails to produce.

The local power company sells "Green Power" but, as best as I can find out, they just shove the "Green Power" into the lines and everybody gets some of it. The people who pay the inflated price don't actually get "Green Power"--false advertising and a bait-and-switch.

Regrettably, this dandy, new "Green Power" sources aren't up to snuff yet. It is wiser to run redundant systems and actually change to the "Green Power" when it really is developed and efficient (if ever).

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (1)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | about 2 months ago | (#47539219)

The main way to make datacenters environmentally friendly is to build them near windfarms, and to build more capacity than you need. Then process data in the center where electricity is the cheapest, i.e. where there is an excess of wind at the moment. This increases the profitability of windfarms and leads to more investment.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (5, Insightful)

jez9999 (618189) | about 2 months ago | (#47539073)

And they tend to oppose nucelar power which is our best way of actually getting enough "clean energy" for modern society.

It's a shame (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539107)

Give me back the hippies of the 1960s, or the real environmentalists of the 1970s! As obnoxious as they often were, ....

It's a shame with all this hostility towards environmentalists.

They were the ones who pushed for cleaner air and water. They were the ones who helped get lead out of gasoline.

If it weren't for them, we'd have the environment of China because businesses do not care. Pollution is the tradgedy of the commons - folks pollute and the rest of society pays for the costs.

During the Summer here in coal powered Metro Atlanta, air quality gets so bad that it kills suseptable young children and the elderly.

But use cleaner and more expensive energy?! Fuck no!

Gotta power all those Chinese made electronic gadgets - especially the big screen TV plugged into the overpriced cable because we gotta have our sports!

And of course there are the gas guzzling SUVs and "manly" pickup trucks - many driven by "No-noes" (folks who drive a truck just to be manly and NEVER actually use it to haul anything). Oh no! Cannot look like a fag driving something a bit more sensible and perfectly adequate with 4 cyclinders.

But I actually walk the walk - and I save a shit load of money.

That's right. Living "green" is CHEAP!

Cheaper cars, lower fuel expenses, no cable bill, no expensive cell phone bills because I don't have a smart phone, cheaper electricity because I don't have a TV in every room or any other energy sucking toys.

I walk to local stores - they're less than half a mile away. See, being "green" also saves money on exercise. Why pay hundreds of dollars and get locked into a shitty gym contract when walking and carrying packages is great exercise?

Much our polution is because of our insane consumerist culture. Buy, buy, buy! Spend money! Go into debt! Sign away your freedom and enslave ourselves with debt because we gotta have those electronic toys, big trucks, cable TV, etc ...

If we learned to live simpler and deeper, we'd be much happier as a society and things would clean up on their own because we would spend time doing important things instead of wasting it on shit doing shit.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 2 months ago | (#47539111)

I too thought Apple was "buying" clean energy. But it turns out they have actually built a solar plant at their datacenter along with fuel cell backups.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/05/17/apples_icloud_data_center_to_use_100_renewable_energy_by_end_of_year [appleinsider.com]

http://www.cleanenergyactionproject.com/CleanEnergyActionProject/CS.Apple_Maiden_iCloud_Data_Center___Hybrid_Renewable_Energy_Systems_Case_Studies.html [cleanenerg...roject.com]

This article peaked my interest though:
http://www.imore.com/apple-google-microsoft-come-out-clean-greenpeace-cloud-rankings-amazon-dirty [imore.com]

How exactly do they measure energy consumption from a particular power source? If the data center is grid connected the current will flow based on path of least resistance, loads and other factors. How can they be sure a load used 20% coal 30% nuclear and 50% natural gas? Did this information come from the power companies who can estimate the demands and current flows based on grid load? I read the linked Greenpeace report and nothing was made clear about how this was done.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 months ago | (#47539139)

Nice rant about hipsters, but do you have any actual arguments against what Greenpeace is saying?

I'm actually surprised that Amazon is doing so badly. Most large data centres realized that since energy is one of their biggest costs and they have all that otherwise unused roof space they might as well rake in some solar power. The up-front cost is relatively minimal and the pay off term pretty short for heavy users. Even fairly far north it's worth doing.

Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (1)

afgun (634001) | about 2 months ago | (#47539249)

Amen. I'm amazed that people still argue about this shit; if you want to really make a difference, stop driving your fucking car. Buying a "green" phone indeed.

As soon as greenpeace touches it (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538715)

It loses all credibility. perhaps its true, but once they make a claim i almost always assume that its another exaggeration or outright lie.

I don't hate the environment, i just don't believe anything those idealistic eco hippies say.

Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 2 months ago | (#47538777)

Maybe you don't know their history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538901)

Maybe you don't know their history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

So what? They got their boat sunk when they pissed off powerful people.

That in no way refutes GP's claim that Greenpeace is full of self-absorbed, clueless, preaching narcissists. Hell, if anything it reinforces the GPs point by showing how pie-in-the-sky living-in-Fantasyland Greenpeace types are.

Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (-1, Troll)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 2 months ago | (#47539049)

So you support state sponsored terrorism. Tyranny, fun for the whole country....

Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 months ago | (#47539115)

obvious troll is obvious

whoosh (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 2 months ago | (#47539333)

Didn't catch the murder in there I guess.

Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (3, Informative)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47538841)

Greenpeace is like vegetarianism: in principle a great idea but ruined by too many fanatics.

Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538853)

embrace beign an omnivore

Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538877)

Greenpeace is like vegetarianism: in principle a great idea but ruined by too many fanatics.

Except in principal vegetarianism is not great. It is scientifically proven to be unhealthy [cambridge.org] .

Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539193)

I've been a vegetarian for 15 years and can run a marathon. How about you?

Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539229)

Congratulations on your misleading generalization of the provided link.

The link you provide illustrates a specific vegetarian diet deficient in vitamin B12.

Does it talk about healthy vegetarian diets that are not deficient in vitamin B12?

Unhealthy vegetarian diet is unhealthy. Unhealthy non-vegetarian diet is unhealthy.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539215)

I think you've giving vegetarianism a bad name there. Done properly, vegetarianism can be a fully healthy alternative to omnivorism. However, it requires a lot of work to get the proper balance of nutrients, micronutrients, and calories. Most folks don't want to bother with that, or they skip certain foods and end up hurting themselves slowly. It also depends on what culture you're starting from. If you're from India, or say, Mexico, you've got a lot of dishes that are vegetarian and time-tested. If you're coming from say, British or German culture, well you better pick up some cookbooks in a hurry, because cabbage soup isn't going to feed you much.

No, Greenpeace is more like veganism: unhealthy on every level. My proof? When was the last time you saw a healthy looking vegan? They've always got that half-starved look about them. Poor devils don't know to listen to what their body is screaming at them.

Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47539243)

I think you've giving vegetarianism a bad name there.

Bad name? I said that it is in principle a great idea.

Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 2 months ago | (#47539119)

Exactly. Greenpeace activism, though well intended, isn't based on solutions. They rely on manufacturing 'bad guys' and the FUD accepting naivety of youth.

Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (1)

mattwarden (699984) | about 2 months ago | (#47539169)

This was my thought exactly. I thought it was odd that the title makes "Greenpeace" so prominent. Author (or editor) seems to think that adds credibility.

Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 months ago | (#47539175)

i just don't believe anything those idealistic eco hippies say.

Do you realize how stupid that is?

John Stewart Mill made the point that you should consider every argument, even if only one person in the entire world is making it against the consensus of everyone else, on its merits. The person speaking does not matter, only the merits of the argument.

Effectively you harm yourself by dismissing things that could be beneficial for you, simply because you dislike the messenger.

Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539315)

i just don't believe anything those idealistic eco hippies say.

Do you realize how stupid that is?

John Stewart Mill made the point that you should consider every argument, even if only one person in the entire world is making it against the consensus of everyone else, on its merits. The person speaking does not matter, only the merits of the argument.

Effectively you harm yourself by dismissing things that could be beneficial for you, simply because you dislike the messenger.

In theory, yes, given infinite time.

However, in day to day life, we have to make judgments on what will merit our time and attention.

I take the poster's meaning in that context.

Disclaimer: I can tolerate Al Gore. Hell, I can even tolerate David Suzuki and I'm not even going to say personal opinion of him. I take public transit despite the inconvenience and I believe in environmental taxes and levies (in theory), and a cap and trade system on carbon. I do not, however, take anything that Greenpeace says at face value. Just my personal opinion of Greenpeace.

dirtiest (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538717)

"Amazon, meanwhile, operates the dirtiest servers "

I dunno about you, but I haven't been able to find much pr0n in Amazons Prime Instant Video collection

Greenpeace... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538723)

Greenpeace are those hippies that told us nuclear power is bad, so we should keep using coal and gas power, right?

Wrong (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 2 months ago | (#47538795)

They did anticipate renewable energy making nuclear power uneconomic though. https://will.illinois.edu/nfs/... [illinois.edu]

Re:Greenpeace... (1)

mcleaver (105698) | about 2 months ago | (#47538807)

Right! And Greenpeace wants us to use wind and solar which are also dirtier and more lethal than nuclear!

And Greenpeace runs its ships on pure sunshine (2, Funny)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about 2 months ago | (#47538725)

...although that sunshine was 100 million years ago which was then coverted into fossil fuels.

Re:And Greenpeace runs its ships on pure sunshine (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538821)

They use 100% organic whale oil - a fully renewable fuel!

Re:And Greenpeace runs its ships on pure sunshine (1)

mattwarden (699984) | about 2 months ago | (#47539173)

They offset it by buying magic unicorn credits

Re:And Greenpeace runs its ships on pure sunshine (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 months ago | (#47539205)

Straw man. Greenpeace do not argue that all fossil fuel use is automatically bad and should be avoided, they simply argue that the current massive scale of use is bad.

I'm really starting to dislike the way every debate about the environment, women, nuclear power, guns and many other topics instantly gets flooded with ad hominem attacks, straw men and other logical fallacies. It's like a tabloid newspaper or low quality TV news channel. I'm sure Slashdot wasn't like this a few years back.

Not always. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538735)

I have a solar phone charger which obviously doesn't burn any coal.

Re:Not always. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538851)

We're mostly talking about the cloud servers chewing power. Although a solar phone charger is certainly a nice thing to have. :)

"jaundiced eye" is spot on. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538743)

And to be fair, I don't think Apple was always so green. Typically, tech companies muscle into a new market any way they can, then get greener as they streamline their processes. Amazon's devices groups may well do the same.

Re:"jaundiced eye" is spot on. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538751)

Typically, tech companies muscle into a new market any way they can, then get greener as they streamline their processes.

I think it has more to do with them finally 'making it' into the market they're attacking, then once adopted its scrutinized by everyone with an agenda so they need to go green because hippies always complain first and loudest

Re:"jaundiced eye" is spot on. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539087)

Considering how often they lie (just google "britain tablet LTE" or the many other commercials where they've just outright lied to consumers about their capabilities), I wonder how much power they use is actually clean?

Or perhaps they made a subsidiary called "Clean Energy" with one minimum wage staffer in it and buy their power through that one guy to say "omg clean!"

I mean, who can doublecheck this? Privacy laws specifically prevent anyone else from knowing.

Apple by far worst e-waste producer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538753)

Apple uses the software under it's control to create a faster hardware turnover rate than Windows PC's. Where Windows versions and PC's can last a decade, annual OS X versions only last 4 years and newer versions not supported on older Mac hardware.

Plus Apple has shifted all "Pro" laptops to only Intel CPU graphics and one iMac so far, giving 50% less performance at 18% discount according to ArsTech.

I call out the folks at GreenPeace on this!

http://www.reddit.com/r/MacSuc... [reddit.com]

Oh, come on. (1)

seebs (15766) | about 2 months ago | (#47538789)

Greenpeace is to the ecology roughly what Autism Speaks is to the autistic community, or what Bennett Haselton is to articles that aren't painfully stupid.

This is not news, and it does not deserve attention or reporting.

the members of Greenpeace (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538791)

breathe more O2 than than they should, as well.

Everyone realizes that put in simple terms, the Greens are Communists, yes?

Re: the members of Greenpeace (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538917)

I don't know about everybody, but I realized long ago that calling somebody a communist was a red flag for somebody who is using empty labels rather than genuine discourse.

OH SHUT UP ALREADY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538805)

When clean power is standard you can start bitching about the offenders

Greenpeace Blecchhh (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 months ago | (#47538809)

No credibility whatsoever. I've caught them in outright lies far too often.

Re:Greenpeace Blecchhh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538931)

Is there any other pro-environment agency that I could follow? I personally am also full of Greenpeace's lies but still am an eco-nerd and interested in these kind of issues. Anyone?

Re:Greenpeace Blecchhh (3, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 months ago | (#47539135)

start one

Objective Assessment (1)

lazarith (2649605) | about 2 months ago | (#47538813)

I would like to see a calculation of how much CO2 is emitted by uploading a photo compared to, say, driving to the grocery store.

The calculation would take the CO2 emitted by powering the servers, divided by the number of users of the servers, divided by the number of photos a user is expected to upload over a given time period.

I would imagine that heating your home or driving would be much worse, and the time spent uploading the photos would be better for the environment than driving to the movies. But this is speculation until someone does the calculations.

This link may help:
http://www.manicore.com/anglai... [manicore.com]

Time to start building more nuke plants as long as (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 months ago | (#47538815)

Time to start building more nuke plants as long as they are not.

SNPP
chernobyl
3 mile island
Fukushima

they are safe.

Re:Time to start building more nuke plants as long (3, Informative)

GenaTrius (3644889) | about 2 months ago | (#47539003)

Did you know 3 Mile Island is still manned, operating, and producing power? Evacuation was not mandatory, there is no exclusion zone, and the surrounding area is still populated. The reactor that melted down isn't in operation, of course, but the safety checks worked and no one died. I am consistently amazed at hoe many people do not know this.

Apple no saint with 2 year disposable iPads (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538829)

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jul/04/apple-ipad-software-update

Re:Apple no saint with 2 year disposable iPads (2)

timmyf2371 (586051) | about 2 months ago | (#47538857)

Turns out the iPad still worked after two years, only for the user to feel that they had to replace it.

Is this an Apple issue, or a user issue?

Re:Apple no saint with 2 year disposable iPads (2)

danbob999 (2490674) | about 2 months ago | (#47538893)

It's an Apple issue, beacause they make it hard to replace the battery, which is probably what is going to fail after 2 years

Re:Apple no saint with 2 year disposable iPads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538975)

It's an Apple issue, beacause they make it hard to replace the battery

Looks pretty simple to replace to me [ifixit.com]

Re:Apple no saint with 2 year disposable iPads (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 2 months ago | (#47538993)

Oh come on. By the time the battery is half dead it will be replaced by the latest iPad lest the user be seen with last years model in public. Oh the shame that would bring them.

Legacy (1)

djupedal (584558) | about 2 months ago | (#47538843)

Amazon put their infrastructure in place long ago so as to be first into a market they helped pioneer. Projected profits were based on that equipment and how long it was to remain in place.

Fast forward to today and that legacy commitment is a yoke around their corporate neck that creeps toward a negative aspect.

Reminds me of how the large telcos want to squeeze every last penny out of all that copper still in the ground.

Please STFU and show yourself out (4, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 2 months ago | (#47538847)

I support Apple's initiatives and I'm glad they're setting a good example as an industry leader. However, I could not possibly care less that a given cell phone might be accessing a server that isn't "green". Yes, Amazon Fire will be running "on top of" AWS. This is an absolute given. It will also be leaning on servers from Google, Apple, Rackspace, and Joe's Server Shack.

Greenpeace, shoo. You're not involved in these discussions and you're not relevant to the task at hand. It's cute that you want to be a part of the conversation, but this is the adult table.

Re:Please STFU and show yourself out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539133)

Did you support their initiatives when the first ithingy came out and they used BPA (I forget if this is the specific chemical, but it was something really hazardous to the environment) when the entire cellphone industry had already banned it?

I didn't.

I wonder what initiatives they really take since practically all their PR/ads are lies ("there's nothing wrong with our antennas, but here's a rubber bumper to fix the problem", or "hey look, learn to play a guitar using a voice assistant" LOL)

Amazon Responses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538861)

Or....

Amazon (and to the same extent, each of us) could just tell Greenpeace - each in our own special way - to bugger right off as a bunch of pseudo-religious fanatics with fetishistic tendencies.

Who cares (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538873)

That energy is going to be used in any case. If they used "green" energy, then means someone else will be using the coal energy instead of the "green" energy.

If this is the only reason you don't buy a Amazon Fire, then you must be part of the climate change religion and believe everything your told.

Besides your pictures are just sitting on a hard drive, takes next to no power to send, store, and retrieve a picture.

Apple uses Azure and Amazon... (1)

longstream (3766505) | about 2 months ago | (#47538945)

As far as I know, Apple makes extensive use of Azure and Amazon cloud-services to run their iCloud. So it's not really fair to call Apples energy consumption 100% renewable, since they rely so heavily on third parties...

Re:Apple uses Azure and Amazon... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538959)

No they don't.

Re:Apple uses Azure and Amazon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539053)

Yes they do.

Re:Apple uses Azure and Amazon... (1)

longstream (3766505) | about 2 months ago | (#47539113)

I'm pretty sure they do. They definitely did in 2011 or whenever iCloud with Photostream was released. There is simply no way that Apples little datacenter in NC can handle all that traffic. I'm sure they are planning to one day run it all by themselves (or maybe not). But I think their datacenter capacity is far from able to handle all of the iCloud services...

Re:Apple uses Azure and Amazon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539145)

I'm pretty sure they don't. They definitely did in 2011 or whenever iCloud with Photostream was under development but not anymore.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Apple uses Azure and Amazon... (1)

longstream (3766505) | about 2 months ago | (#47539317)

Just tried to do a Photostream sync to my PC while running Wireshark. Guess where the HTTP-GET requests point? http://eu-irl-00001.s3.amazona... [amazonaws.com] so yeah, they are definitely still not able to handle their own cloud-business, but instead relies on Amazons dirty cloud... So much for their 100% renewable BS.

Re:Apple uses Azure and Amazon... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539085)

Uhh, even Jobs admitted that iTunes simply could not exist without Microsoft's help, and now iCloud was designed, built, and run by Microsoft. Jobs admitted that the vast majority of expertise that created Apple's ecosystem was engineered and managed by Microsoft. Apple just doesn't have any technical employees. They are an image company with no substance. It is Microsoft that creates the technology that Apple refines and turns it into something great. Why do you think Apple refuses to hire technical people? The vast majority of Apple employees have only a high school degree. When I worked for them in their attempt at running a retail store, I didn't even have a high school diploma. That is Apple. They are not technical. From the top, there is a great hatred of technical people there. That is why they must rely on Microsoft to do all of the hard work. Microsoft is the only company in the world that can pull off this sort of technical feats.

Re:Apple uses Azure and Amazon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539151)

Citation needed

Hit a few golfballs for me pal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538963)

I don't remember when greenpeace was elected or overthrew world governments?
LOL

Fair enough, as far as I'm concerned (1)

GenaTrius (3644889) | about 2 months ago | (#47538971)

Everyone has to play a part if we want to end our reliance on fossil fuels, especially big companies that actually have buying power. Greenpeace may be a bunch of sensationalist hypocrits, but that doesn't mean Amazon couldn't stand to try and source more of their power from renewables.

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538981)

Thanks for the laugh

Might isn't Should isn't Could (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539011)

Amazon doesn't use all the "green" energy sources it could - A sentence that presses no judgements.
Amazon doesn't use all the "green" energy sources it might - A sentence that acknowledges that Amazon has made choices about energy supplies.
Amazon doesn't use all the "green" energy sources it should - A sentence that judges (and disapproves) of Amazon's choices.

The writer of this piece should learn the limits of telling others what to do.

Using clean energy or papal indulgences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539021)

All this talk about choosing the green option is just marketing speak. The utilities produce energy and pool it on the grid. They can't guarantee that their "green" electrons produced in their green plant go to some consumers. The only thing they can guarantee is that the sum of electricity consumed by their clients who signed the green option is lower than their total production of clean energy. They're not going to produce more clean energy if you take the green option, they'll just pretend you get 100% clean energy and to compensate, they will pretend those who didn't get the green option are actually using more "dirty" energy.

To illustrate this, I'll present a simple example. Suppose you have one utility in a monopoly who produce 100 units of energy per year, 20 of which are clean, 80 of which aren't. Suppose also that they have 100 consumers who each consume 1 unit of energy per year. If no one takes the "green option", then each consumer "receives" 0.2 unit of clean energy and 0.8 of dirty energy per year. If 20 take the option then those 20 are counted as receiving "100% clean energy" and the other 80 are counted as receiving as receiving "100% dirty energy". End result, nothing changes for the environment, but those who took the option get in exchange of money the equivalent of a papal indulgence, a piece of paper on which it is written they have only used clean energy.

I had a Greenpeace membership once... (1)

Ecuador (740021) | about 2 months ago | (#47539035)

Being a geek kid I used part of my allowance for good, such as a Greenpeace membership. But, being a geek kid I had to look into exactly what they were doing with my money and found out there were much better ways to spend if you want to protect the environment. I was 14 at the time IIRC. So, I probably would say it doesn't take a genius to figure Greenpeace out, but I can't be sure. I mean the local Mensa told me I scored the max of the preliminary test (around 140?) so according to them I was some sort of genius, but then said I would have to pay them monthly for the privilege of me being a genius (after "verifying" with their longer non-free test), which made me doubt their finding. So it does or does not take a genius to figure out Greenpeace for the posers they are.

GREENPEACE ARE DISHONEST, AS WELL AS INCOMPETENT (5, Informative)

Mike Greaves (1236) | about 2 months ago | (#47539121)

Last time they ranked Amazon poorly for datacenter power, I checked some numbers and compared with other agencies rankings.

Amazon got about 27% of it's power from nuclear.
No CO2, but Greenpeace didn't credit anything for it.

Dell's datacenters had higher CO2 emissions, only ~7% nuclear, but a little more renewables.
The anti-nuclear geniuses at Greenpeace gave Dell a cleaner ranking than Amazon.

They only credit CO2 abatement, if they agree with the method.
Not only that, they don't even MENTION all CO2 abatements.

In fact, I found that Amazon's emissions were far better than average.
I think they had the 2nd lowest fossil generating share of about 10 US datacenter operators compared.

In addition, Amazon was investing heavily in PSU, rack density, and cooling improvements, and virtualization is a known resource saver across all components. Ever heard of virtualization at Amazon?

I doubt that anyone at Greenpeace understands any of this.
Any electrical engineers there? HVAC engineers? POWERPLANT engineers?

Greenpeace are dishonest, technically ignorant, and thoroughly foolhardy;
and will destroy your World if you let them.

TFA shouldn't have even been posted here.

Re:GREENPEACE ARE DISHONEST, AS WELL AS INCOMPETEN (1)

rainer_d (115765) | about 2 months ago | (#47539285)

Virtualization does not save you anything, once you run a big enough infrastructure.
In fact, it will just generate useless overhead (unless you use a light-weight "virtualization" like FreeBSD Jails, LXC, Solaris Containers).

Why does anyone listen to Greenpeace? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539165)

This is the same group that in June, 2006 released a press release decrying President Bush visiting a nuclear reactor with the following text...

"In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]."

They tried to downplay it as a joke.

This is also the same group who pays an exec to commute 250 miles to work by plane. [theguardian.com]

Bottom line is Greenpeace exists to raise funds so it can exist to raise funds.

The Device does not burn anything (1)

YoungManKlaus (2773165) | about 2 months ago | (#47539217)

its the cloud-sync that is bad!

Exteremists at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47539313)

So waht?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?