Apple: 75% of Our World Wide Power Needs Now Come From Renewable Power Sources 262
skade88 writes "Apple now owns and runs enough renewable energy power plants that 75% of their world wide power needs come from renewable sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and hydro. From the Apple Blog Post: 'Our investments are paying off. We've already achieved 100 percent renewable energy at all of our data centers, at our facilities in Austin, Elk Grove, Cork, and Munich, and at our Infinite Loop campus in Cupertino. And for all of Apple's corporate facilities worldwide, we're at 75 percent, and we expect that number to grow as the amount of renewable energy available to us increases. We won't stop working until we achieve 100 percent throughout Apple.'"
Re:Point of fact (Score:5, Informative)
Hopefully you're trying to be funny, and failing. All energy in this solar system except the, relatively speaking, small amounts that derive from sources such as nuclear fission of heavy elements in planetary cores, comes from the sun. If one decides that solar energy is not "renewable" based on the stellar lifetime, then fossil fuel cannot be regarded as "renewable" either, as it is stored solar energy.
Re:What about manufacturing? (Score:5, Informative)
Did they indeed ignore it? I was assuming manufacturing is part of their power needs. Do you have a link showing it's excluded?
Sure: the one from the article [apple.com].
And for all of Appleâ(TM)s corporate facilities worldwide, weâ(TM)re at 75 percent
The 75% figure doesn't include manufacturing, or Apple stores, or energy costs used shipping iDevices from China. It only refers to "corporate facilities," whatever that means.
It's fairly clear that it doesn't include manufacturing - which is contracted out anyway, remember, so it's not like Apple owns any factories - and it doesn't include retail. And since we're only talking buildings, it clearly doesn't cover energy spent shipping from China, let alone to Apple stores.
Re:What about manufacturing? (Score:2, Informative)
"Corporate facilities" means the 20 some odd buildings in Cupertino (and the surrounding areas) that makes up Apple (excluding retail), as well as the the satellite facilities in Austin, Paris, and Vancouver (and smaller ones elsewhere). It also includes the data centers.
Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? (Score:5, Informative)
Don't blame Apple for the submitter's terrible headline. What Apple actually claims is on their website, and they have a clear breakdown of what they view their footprint to be is here:
http://www.apple.com/environment/our-footprint/ [apple.com]
(Broken down b/c nobody actually RTFA)
61% Manufacturing
5% Transportation
30% Product Use
2% Recycling
2% Facilities
Re: I don't really consider... (Score:2, Informative)
Right, that's why you would buy Samsung. Now with even more child labour and more denied cancer deaths, right ? You are a moron of epic proportions if you think child labour is an Apple specific problem and/or all other manufacturers are holy. Quite the opposite. Foxconn conditions within the Apple section are bad, but still among the best in china. The wages in Shanghai(china) are far above those in Taiwan.
Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? (Score:5, Informative)
The slave labour allegations are bullshit. Ref: The lies of Mike Daisey.
Of course ANY company subcontracting manufacture to China and various other Asian countries is in danger of the subcontracting companies using child labour or sweatshops. And the majority of consumer electronics are manufactured there.
However Apple does more than any of the other companies to ensure this doesn't happen with the companies that they subcontract to.
The continued repeating of these allegations as if Apple were choosing to use child labour is the lowest form of filthy lie, from the dregs of the slashdot membership. To use a serious issue like child labour in order to further their shilling for Android or OSS is the lowest of the low.
Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, that breakdown is not in TFA, and is not linked from the summary. So while the article you cite is certainly relevant to the discussion and sheds a lot of light, I don't think it's fair for you to bitch about people not reading TFA when the key point you make didn't come from it, either.
Re:And by Renewable Power Sources- But really.. (Score:5, Informative)
Really though, what do they mean? I did not see where they define what they consider renewable.
Apple's definition of renewable is Solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal [apple.com]
Re:And by Renewable Power Sources (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize that in the countries where child labor is practiced that the children NEED the work.
To be clear: The country is China, and the "children" were 14 year old students ordered out of their classroom and taken to a Foxconn factory for an "internship". This was done without the permission of the parents and in violation of Chinese law. A Chinese court ordered the kids to be returned to their school. Factory internships are normal in China, but not for students this young.
There are certainly countries where children need to work to help feed their families. But China is not one of them. China is a middle income country, and school attendance is mandatory. What happened was illegal and inexcusable.
Re:And by Renewable Power Sources (Score:5, Informative)
"Furthermore, the discovery of these child workers also provides evidence for the ineffectiveness of Samsung’s audit system."