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.'"
And by Renewable Power Sources (Score:4, Funny)
We mean human souls... Muahahahaha
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And by Renewable Power Sources (Score:4, Funny)
I was thinking along similar lines:
"Is child labor considered renewable energy?"
I appreciate the energy conscious choices being made. I appreciate the leadership value in it. There are lots of ways they can clean up their image and in my opinion, they aren't addressing the more serious concerns. All they are doing is better ensuring that when people come charging their offices with torches and pitchforks in hand, they will be able to stay in their buildings for a bit longer.
Re:And by Renewable Power Sources (Score:5, Funny)
Clean, safe, and too cheap to meter.
Re:And by Renewable Power Sources (Score:5, Insightful)
There are lots of ways they can clean up their image and in my opinion, they aren't addressing the more serious concerns.
Opposing child labour and sweatshops, and being green are pretty serious concerns in my book. All of them certainly far more serious than how much they are in tune with the demands of the OSS community.
Re:And by Renewable Power Sources (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that in the countries where child labor is practiced that the children NEED the work. ...
I understand that it means that the country itself is in a bad way and that country needs to serve its people better.
I also get that the thought of child labor to us is repugnant. What we need to keep in mind though is that if we could immediately stop all child labor tomorrow
Many people would die as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that what "LIVE FREE OR DIE" is about? We keep them as oversea slaves to fullfil our material desires, trampling our own principles of human integrity. A though choice, yes, but possibly one that would pay off in the long term.
Re:And by Renewable Power Sources (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that in the countries where child labor is practiced that the children NEED the work.
It's a subtle point that Apple is aware of. Whilst of course they can't change the fortunes of a nation, on those occasions when they have found a subcontractor that has broken the rules, and employed underage workers, it's a condition of remaining a subcontractor that they continue to pay the family the wage even though the child is no longer working PLUS finance the child to go to school.
It's a good move. It's a disincentive for a subcontractor to risk it, as well as making sure that Apple's intervention doesn't make life worse for the kid or his/her family.
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: (Score:3)
That was true, theoretically, in the US as well. But you know what happened? The cost of adult labor went up as they were more scarce. Children, meanwhile had more fun, went to school and advanced intellectually and in potential.
That's what should happen in these other nations. It's what COULD happen if the right changes were made.
Worse is that in these child labor countries, parents are thereby encouraged to have more children [to exploit] so they can bring more money into the family. This is the same
Re:And by Renewable Power Sources (Score:5, Insightful)
We have the advantage of sitting in our houses or apartments looking at pictures on the internet of the terrible conditions these people live in and we see children doing labor that adult men and women should do and we are rightfully sickened...the problem is that the GP is right in that sometimes this is for survival and there is no other way. Any time when there is this level of drive to simply survive, however, there are always pieces of shit willing to take advantage and those are the people really responsible for the "sweat shop" label. Those are the people who need to be stopped. I doubt mothers and fathers want their children working in factories very much but when their extra $ is what allows your family to get that extra heel of bread so that you can live, circumstances force people to mature from children to adults much quicker. Luckily none of us have ever had to experience a situation like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You miss the fact that they both are supposed to have the same ideological underpinnings.
They most certainly are not. They are orthogonal belief sets.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try with your big words though.
Re:And by Renewable Power Sources (Score:5, Insightful)
"More serious concerns", like your previously addressed child labor?
News flash: Apple is pretty much the only tech company that is actually addressing that concern. Apple actually investigates their manufacturers and drop them if they use child labor. Other tech companies by and large don't.
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."
Re:And by Renewable Power Sources- But really.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Really though, what do they mean? I did not see where they define what they consider renewable.
After all, coal and oil are also renewable, given enough time.
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]
Does that include their manufacturing plants? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does that include the Asian suppliers' and subcontractors' plants that actually manufacture all of Apple's products?
I didn't think so.
So perhaps Apple should not too their own horn [xkcd.com] very loudly on this.
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: (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: (Score:2)
Oh, c'mon, now, who doesn't want to see Apple embroiled in a greener than thou [youtube.com] battle with the absolutists?
Note to manufacturers: if you do anything responsible, we will publicly castigate you for not doing more (probably until you just give up on doing anything at all).
Re: (Score:3)
Don't stop there. Make sure that all the ore extractors use all renewable energy. And all transportation vehicles that move product are green, too. And the consumer who use their products must sign a contract that they can only use Apple products power with renewable energy. Also, the internet must be all renewable so the iTunes store doesn't use fossil fuels for power. Any publication that talks about Apple must be green, or they cannot write about Apple. You are not allowed to read about Apple unles
Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What part of "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." did you not understand?
Re: (Score:3)
So you think it's OK for Apple to say they are a green company using renewable energy as long as they don't include anything that is connected with making apple products.
At least they don't own coal power plants to produce their stuff, like Samsung.
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple made a car, they'd probably have a sealed engine compartment, "because it looks better" not to have that seam around the hood. Mmmph - they might not even deign put a hole in the car to allow access to the gas tank. Once it runs ou
Re: (Score:2)
Because if they don't they can claim a zero carbon footprint just by hiring someone else to turn on the light switches.
(first goyim joke goes straight to Hell).
Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? (Score:4, Insightful)
No one did that. The act of moving to more renewable power is laudable. The act of lying about it is reprehensible.
Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? (Score:5, Insightful)
No one did that. The act of moving to more renewable power is laudable. The act of lying about it is reprehensible.
Actually just about everyone in this thread did that, and they lauded nothing. Typical of the haters who hate no matter what. There was no lie. Their power is from renewable. They are not claiming that everything in their supply chain (including the mining of rare earth metals) is from renewables.
Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? (Score:5, Insightful)
There was no lie. Their power is from renewable.
I'll believe that when they stop selling "Apple" computers and start selling OSX for "Foxconn" computers. Until then, it's all a load of bullshit, since the work they've contracted isn't being done with renewable power.
So, like I said, you're just a hater. All their power needs for their operations is what the article is about. Not all the power used by all subcontractors in the manufacturing chain back to when the stuff was dust. Haters cannot acknowledge anything good about Apple. If Tim Cook said he wiped his ass north to south, you'd be shouting it should be south to north.
Re: (Score:2)
Haters cannot acknowledge anything good about Apple.
I can, and I do (as said previously) but I also live here in reality, where I realize that Apple is engaging in prevarication. I have a long history with Apple, I was a Mac user for many years, so I have good reason to hate Apple. No one who is not a total fanboy would spend as much effort as you are defending Apple's prevarication. I am not a fan of any corporations. Except maybe Clif. I don't even like Clif bars, but they treat their employees right.
Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? (Score:4, Insightful)
Haters cannot acknowledge anything good about Apple.
I can, and I do (as said previously) but I also live here in reality, where I realize that Apple is engaging in prevarication. I have a long history with Apple, I was a Mac user for many years, so I have good reason to hate Apple. No one who is not a total fanboy would spend as much effort as you are defending Apple's prevarication. I am not a fan of any corporations. Except maybe Clif. I don't even like Clif bars, but they treat their employees right.
Bull. They are not prevaricating. And only a rabid hater would spend so much time perpetuating that lie.
Re: (Score:2)
I do hate Apple, for what they have done. I will not be happy with them until they change their colors or go away. What has Apple ever done for you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What's a lie in the statement:
Logical fallacy, picking and choosing. The entire page constitutes a lie because they are deliberately implying that all their operations will be renewable. But the fact is that most of what they do is done on their behalf by someone else. It's called prevarication and it's an enhanced form of lying that you probably don't even realize you're doing right now. That's because you're doing it to yourself, which is called cognitive dissonance.
Re:Does that include their manufacturing plants? (Score:4, Insightful)
The entire page constitutes a lie because they are deliberately implying that all their operations will be renewable.
"implying"? If you can't understand plain English, that's your problem. It talks about Apple's corporate operations, not the operations of other companies.
That's because you're doing it to yourself, which is called cognitive dissonance.
That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. That's exactly why they are doing more. They were unfairly singled out for the allegations, not because their record was bad, but because they were a juicy target.
And as a result, they do more than any other company to ensure their third party manufacturing is squeaky clean as regards these practices.
Name any other large company that manufactures in those Asian countries, and there is more child-labour and sweatshop conditions than there is in the case of Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/technology/foxconn-said-to-use-forced-student-labor-to-make-iphones.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 [nytimes.com]
According to the department of labor [dol.gov], slave labor is
"Forced labor" under international standards means all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty for its nonperformance and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily, and includes indentured labor. "Forced labor" includes work provided or obtained by force, fraud, or coercion ...
Threats of university punishment if the internships is not taken is a kind of coercion, therefore making this sort of behavior slave labor.
Do note that I said allegations in my previous post, which are quite legitimate claims. These aren't just being made up to try to trash Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not voluntary if there's negative repercussions if you don't do it.
Every employee has that. Don't do it, and you'll be fired, and you'll lose your salary and benefits. That doesn't make it slave labour.
Every intern in every country for who the internship is a mandatory part of the course also has negative repercussions if they don't do it. That's not slave labour either.
For the record, these internships were internships in name only. They were long hour, monotonous assembly line jobs, nothing more.
For the record we've seen distortions far bigger than this being reported before. Remember the so called Foxconn suicide epidemic. The truth was that if you crunched the numbers, the general suicide rate in
Re: (Score:2)
Most power comes from coal.
Charcoal comes from trees (i.e. a renewable resource) and burns about the same.
Sure. But its too expensive, that's why the only things powered by charcoal these days are grills and the occasional smelter.
So... (Score:2, Funny)
Green Apple then?
Point of fact (Score:5, Funny)
Oil IS renewable, but takes a long time. Solar power is not renewable. Once the sun has spent its fuel there can be no more.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While it is all pretty trivial considering the timescale, Oil (from plant sources) only ceases to be renewable AFTER the sun has died. So conceptually (as long as we don't kill off all plant life on the planet first) there will be oil longer than there will be things which are directly solar powered. Of course, one other likely scenario is that we find a way to make more efficient use of newly created bio-material and therefore use it all up at or near the same time as the sun goes cold, so it wont have a
Re: (Score:2)
If we're going to talk at that level, can we not just say that all energy is renewable then? I mean it's never lost. It just changes states.
Re: (Score:2)
Tidal is not in any way linked to the sun. Not that tidal works particularly well...
Nor is geothermal. But again, that's not a major source of renewable energy.
Poorly worded title (Score:2, Insightful)
75% of Apple's Power Comes From Renewable Sources
Instead? Or even
Apple Says 75% Of Their Power Comes From Renewable Sources
which would also be more clear.
Re: (Score:3)
Now it all makes sense... (Score:5, Funny)
PS: I wonder how renewable the energy burned to drive the truck that deliver products to their retail stores is.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I do, however, take issue with your suggestion that these costs are outside Apple's control. Apple chooses the companies who transport their products to their retail stores. I presume they choose to pay for gas-guzzling tractor trailers.
Show me one method of shipping worldwide that uses 100% green energy. Just one. They are none. If you are shipping via ocean freighter, they use diesel. If you are shipping via air they use jet fuel. If you are shipping via ground, most likely it will be some sort of tractor trailer which uses diesel. Small shipments like UPS, FedEx, DHL uses gasoline/diesel/jet fuel along different points. In other words, no one has a choice but to use fossil fuels when shipping.
They could opt instead to use plug-in electric vehicles.
Which exist only in limited markets a
Let's hear from the Republican side: (Score:2)
"When did Apple become Communist?"
Re: (Score:2)
Generating or just using? (Score:3)
Renewable power bought from a utility company is a zero-sum game--only one party gets to use it, and everyone else gets stuck with whatever's left. So until they are actually generating all that power themselves, the claim is just chest thumping. No real benefit to the environment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Marketting (Score:2)
And for all of Apple's corporate facilities worldwide, we're at 75 percent
So their office buildings? What about the factories where all their products are made? You know... where probobly 99.9% of the power they use is consumed?
My fireplace is now powered by 100% renewable resources! I challenge the rest of the world to meet my same goals!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dell isn't concerned with selling shinies to unknowing fools.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And for all of Apple's corporate facilities worldwide, we're at 75 percent
So their office buildings? What about the factories where all their products are made? You know... where probobly 99.9% of the power they use is consumed?
My fireplace is now powered by 100% renewable resources! I challenge the rest of the world to meet my same goals!
If you care to actually read up http://www.apple.com/environment/our-footprint/ [apple.com]
So much hatred (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also consider whether this supposedly 'good' behaviour is consistent with their other behaviours of stripping freedom, price gouging, stealing, patent trolling, etc...
You know sometime
Re:So much hatred (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone who does something for the right reasons doesn't need to go around tooting their own horn, nor would they spin it.
Why wouldn't you if you thought you could also get other companies to follow suit? Then it has a real benefit beyond horn-tooting.
Also consider whether this supposedly 'good' behavior
Only an Apple Hater could label the desire to have cleaner sources of energy as "supposedly" good.
The simple truth is that for people like you it is not possible for Apple to do anything good at all, you will argue that anything they are doing is bad no matter how painfully obvious it is that you are wrong.
I'll let you have the last response as I don't care to see what kind of shovel you use to dig your hole deeper, nor what brand of shoe you choose to stuff in your mouth next.
Re:So much hatred (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdotters have been infected for about 6 years now with some weird vocal Google lifestyle. As soon as the iPhone came out, Apple was put up on high like the underdog had finally won. Slashdotters rejoiced that Apple was finally ahead of Microsoft in a big way. David had beat Goliath.
A year later when the first Android phone came out, it caused a great schism.
I think it's really sad that people from both sides of the issue couldn't be more objective.
But ultimately, I think that this has been a clash of culture that until now has been reasonably aligned...
Open source is Freedom of software, not necessarily free software. This has been beat into the first generation of Slashdotters. However, Google has come in and consistently pushed their own solutions to be "Free with an asterix" Google dependency. Many people find google's commitment to free software noble, but they are slowly tying themselves to Google's interests. There is a great distinction between GNU and Google for instance on the way software is produced.
People who find themselves immersed in google's technologies start to have their own self protection response when Google's interests are challenged.
"How can Google be bad? They give me so much. I can't imagine doing my daily work without Google."
This is NOT the same as the traditional Open source culture. Open source culture teaches you to be self reliant, independent and if you don't like the way code behaves change it. Giveback to society, but don't wait for society to fix your problems. Does google give you the ability to do this for ANY of their products and services?
Enter Apple. Apple is a for profit commercial company. You pay up front for what you want. You vote with your dollars. There's no sleaze, no slime. The restrictions are clear, the capabilities are clear. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Yet they are also an open source contributor and have long been one of the center points for FreeBSD development. ( Consider the irony that Apple's Webkit is now the basis for almost all web browsers )
They are NOT the doting father... they are not the place to go to for freeloading. They are quite clear of what they do and don't do. If you want something, look around a vendor may have a solution that fits what you want, or write your own software and give back to the community.
Not the same model as open source, but I argue, a compatible one that is in the best interest of consumer freedom.
The Google crowd doesn't like this. They'd rather wait for what "entitled" freebie they should get, and they get annoyed that Apple never gives it to them.
So when Android came out, and Apple "disagreed" with how it was designed ( I say this simply to try and avoid a rant of who is right and wrong here... go with me on this) , suddenly Apple is the ultimate bad guy. To the Google crowd, Apple is threatening to take away your lifestyle. Only it's not your lifestyle. It's not what Slashdot was founded on. It's GOOGLE's Life style.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple not only sees themselves as guardians of morality
Ironic, given that this post shows you yourself to have that self image.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple not only sees themselves as guardians of morality
Ironic, given that this post shows you yourself to have that self image.
Understanding English, you fail it. If you knew what the word "morality" meant, it would save you a lot of looking stupid and me a little bit of trouble.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that iFanbois showed up to bury my above comment! That never happens! The truth is that Apple cannot withstand the truth, because they sell fashion.
New tags (Score:2, Interesting)
It's already clear that they conveniently left out all manufacturing/storage facilities, as if subcontracting made them not responsible. And of course, they don't use conflict minerals, their workers work 8-hour shifts in comfy offices ... you get the idea.
Now I need a new tag for this PR BS.
"bs"?
"prspin"?
"corporatebull"?
Re:New tags (Score:5, Insightful)
It's already clear that they conveniently left out all manufacturing/storage facilities, as if subcontracting made them not responsible. And of course, they don't use conflict minerals, their workers work 8-hour shifts in comfy offices ... you get the idea.
They left it out because those places are beyond their control. I suppose Apple could go to another contract manufacturer, maybe one that Dell or HP uses. Oh wait, it's the same one. There are not a lot of choices when it comes to this kind of manufacturing. Finding one that is green is not likely.
Suppose you want to go green. You can do all you can use renewable energy at your home. What about your work place? Is your company green? What about the facilities they rent? What about they supermarket you use, the dry cleaners, etc? Do you have kids and is their school green? Is your car/bus/subway green? Unless you own 100% of every aspect of your life that uses energy, you have to accept that some places will use fossil fuels as energy.
Apple is converting the facilities that they control as much as they can. You can criticize them for things out of their control or you can applaud them for doing what they can.
Re: (Score:3)
I have little or no influence on my employer's, my local supermarket's or their landlords' decisions on energy consumption. But Apple has enough clout on their suppliers to have them build dedicated plants [cnet.com]. Apple can surely push Foxconn for (realistic) green energy policies, and hopefully did so.
Of course office buildings are easier to make green/carbon-neutral than manufacturing plants (in an industrial park you use whatever source of power is available), and that's the gist of the half-truth: When they sa
Re: (Score:3)
What I'm pointing out is that Apple puts forward a green image that is at best inaccurate and at worst misleading, but anyway:
Clout is not infinite - if Apple pushes Foxconn to be greener, Foxconn will charge more money.
Yup, it's about the bottom line - beyond a certain point (e.g. efficient usage of materials), green cuts into margins. It's not unreasonable to think that Apple subcontracts what it can to China for more reasons than cheap labor.
In that context why don't you find a greener job, or bike to a farmer's market? It's much easier to underestimate the cost of a sacrifice that you ask someone else to make than than a sacrifice you make yourself. The reason for this is that you're aware of the details involved for yourself, but view Apple from far away where everything is rounded and shiny.
Greener markets: check (farmers drive all the way from other states). Greener jobs: none in my line of work. There are not even many recycling containers in
Renewable does not mean clean (Score:5, Interesting)
Much like the term 'All-Natural', Renewable doesn't mean much.
The term causes the mind to think of things like 'Solar, Wind, Water, Geothermal', but the reality is that Renewable also means: "BioDiesel, Wood, Ethanol, Methane"
My point is, that there are many polluting, but renewable sources. I don't mean to imply that making sure our energy supply is sustainable is a bad thing, not at all, but just a reminder to keep an eye out for the marketing angle companies use when they use the term 'Renewable'.
People hear 'clean, green, healthy, responsible' when a company says they are renewable, but the honest truth is that a company could be powered by 100% Renewable Sources by burning pine trees in a 100 year old 30% efficiency furnace.
A previous company of mine recently converted their entire energy supply to renewable sources, generation was performed on site. The source was sawdust from the local saw mills. (However, it was actually a good move, because their system was actually a new high efficiency process they wanted to showcase, and by purchasing from the local sawmills, they helped support the community in a very direct fashion)
Waste Energy (Score:5, Insightful)
One should also take into account the useful life of the products they manufacture, with sealed-in batteries and throw-away design, along with their own marketing effort to out-fashion their own devices after only two years.
Using terajoules of the cleanest energy to produce stuff that will end up in the trash faster than you can say "planned obsolescence" is still waste.
I'll applaud when they reverse the flow and encourage people to keep their computers longer through cheap support plans and openness.
Re: (Score:3)
My second-to-last Apple product was a 3rd gen iPod that ran non-stop for 8 years.
I replaced it with a Sansa Fuse that lasted a year and a half before the entire front panel stopped working.
My current Apple product is a used iPhone 3GS built in 2011 that's showing no signs of quitting.
I have two Macs at home, a G4 and one a beige G3 that are both running fine after replacing a couple of cooling fans.
I have a friend who set up an iMac G3 for his dad to browse the web. He just replaced it last fall because it
As Expected (Score:2)
I knew when I saw the title of this, Apple was going to get flamed here by slashdotters no matter what. I was not let down. It's hard for me to understand why good news is turned into bad news on this site so often based solely on a brand name. Is it not respectable that a company with a huge global presence would be striving to be more efficient with the energy they use, and succeeding? Would there be this much flaming going on if it were Google, or IBM, or Samsung?
I do work for many IBM data-centers a
What about Apple Stores (Score:2)
Many are in malls, connected to the regular grid.
Oil and coal are here to stay (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
#PostAround820
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's what they mean by "renewable energy source".
Re:What about... (Score:5, Funny)
"Twenty percent comes from the energy generated by the white-hot hatred of Slashdot users!"
Re:What about... (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean the child slave labour that Apple actually works hard to not use, unlike every other tech company?
Re: (Score:2)
They are if you spend a little more time exposed to the sun.
Re: (Score:3)
Simple... They're not talking about the exact electrons used being shoved down a wire in a renewable energy based generator. They're saying "we use xW of energy in total, we personally generate 0.75xW of renewable energy".
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing is that "using" renewable energy is possible on the normal grid by purchasing renewable energy through the utility. As long as you know the store's consumption, you pay the utility that delivers it for the rate they have to purchase/generate it at. This is the same way "competitive" energy markets in the US work, the electricity enters the grid from a mix of where the customers want it. Just because you didn't get the electrons that were pushed by a windmill doesn't mean you aren't using
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Headline: "Powering our facilities with clean, renewable energy."
Strapline: "Weâ(TM)ve dramatically reduced the environmental impact of our corporate facilities and the data centers that provide online services to our customers. And we continue to invest in ways to achieve 100 percent renewable energy and lessen our carbon footprint even more."
Where's the deception? Corporate facilities and data centers. Not "factories of sub-contractors".
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: (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: (Score:2)
The 75% figure doesn't include manufacturing, or Apple stores
It doesn't include most manufacturing, because that is mostly third party companies. But why would you say it doesn't include Apple Stores? Of course it does.
Re: (Score:3)
The 75% figure doesn't include manufacturing, or Apple stores
It doesn't include most manufacturing, because that is mostly third party companies. But why would you say it doesn't include Apple Stores? Of course it does.
Because "corporate space" does not include "retail space".
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
One wonders what percentage would result if these were factored into their equations?
I notice it also doesn't appear to cover Apple shops....
Much lower - but still higher than any other computer / phone / consumer electronics company on the world.