Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Earth Google Power Apple

Amazon Still Lags Behind Apple, Google in Greenpeace Renewable Energy Report (greenpeace.org) 84

Amazon's cloud-computing unit says that one day it will rely solely on renewable power. But Greenpeace reports that a ramp-up in data-center construction in Virginia, where electricity comes mostly from coal and nuclear plants, makes that goal elusive. From the report: Apple, Google, Facebook, and newcomer Switch are taking some of the greatest strides towards 100% renewable energy, while companies such as Netflix, Amazon Web Services, and Samsung are lagging. The findings in Greenpeace USA's report outlines the energy footprints of large data center operators and nearly 70 of the most popular websites and applications. "Amazon continues to talk a good game on renewables but is keeping its customers in the dark on its energy decisions. This is concerning, particularly as Amazon expands into markets served by dirty energy," said Greenpeace USA Senior IT Analyst, Gary Cook. "Like Apple, Facebook, and Google, Netflix is one of the biggest drivers of the online world and has a critical say in how it is powered. Netflix must embrace the responsibility to make sure its growth is powered by renewables, not fossil fuels and it must show its leadership here," continued Cook.

Amazon Still Lags Behind Apple, Google in Greenpeace Renewable Energy Report

Comments Filter:
  • What I care about is whether their service is efficient and affordable. Why again do I care about where they get their energy from?

    • because coal causes worse pollution than CO2 which leads to health problems. using renewable keeps the pollution in china at the point of mining and manufacture

    • hat I care about is whether their service is efficient and affordable. Why again do I care about where they get their energy from?

      Presumably because you don't like the negative effects of living in a place with polluted air and water. Have you ever been in a city with serious smog problems? I have. It's not pleasant. I won't speak for you but personally I prefer to breathe clean air. Furthermore by sourcing their energy smartly they can actually save money thus making their service more efficient and affordable.

    • by hipp5 ( 1635263 )

      What I care about is whether their service is efficient and affordable. Why again do I care about where they get their energy from?

      Well most people have at least some standards for the methodology a company uses to service you. For example, I can't imagine too many people would order from a company--no matter how efficient and affordable--if their service required them to execute a puppy for every packaged shipped.

      So the questions becomes, "where is the line between where the means and ends matter for customers?" Judging by the fact that we still eat mangrove-destroying shrimp by the truckload, and buy diamonds that fuel genocidal wars

    • by antdude ( 79039 )

      So, you don't care if the energy comes from your own body as a battery like in The Matrix series? :P

  • Greenpeace has lost all credibility. They are out for their own aggrandizement, and their primary goal is to perpetuate themselves. If they actually have any positive effect on environmental or conservation causes, it is entirely by accident [theverge.com].

    • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

      Greenpeace hasn't had credibility since the 1980's. It's all about filling someones pocket at the expense of fear mongering, it's also the same reason why people are being more critical of environmental groups. There's a reason why in Canada people who live outside of Toronto label it a watermelon organization. That's communist and anti-industrialist on the inside, environmentalist on the outside before some braindead nut starts screaming "racism." Their absolute insane brand of environmentalism also gi

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <[mojo] [at] [world3.net]> on Wednesday January 11, 2017 @02:08PM (#53649387) Homepage

      Greenpeace do a lot of good work. Their policy papers on renewable energy are quite influential with governments, at least in Europe. There is a lot of good science and research that goes into them.

      That's partly why people try to smear them so much. That and the strange myth that environmentalism is trying to make Americans poor.

      • by e r ( 2847683 )

        Greenpeace do a lot of good work.

        Such as? No, I can't google it myself because I'm asking for your opinion on what their good work is. I can't google for your opinion.

        Their policy papers on renewable energy are quite influential with governments, at least in Europe.

        1. The fact that some governments listen to what Greenpeace has to say doesn't prove anything to me one way or the other.
        2. Can you provide some links to these policy papers you mentioned?

        There is a lot of good science and research that goes into them.

        Please provide links to these policy papers you mentioned so that I can evaluate for myself whether there's a lot of good science and research in them.

        That's partly why people try to smear them so much.

        Can you please provide links so that I

  • Nobody cares.

    Signed,
    The sane people of the world

  • Who the hell cares what greenpeace says ? I do care about nature but i certainly pay no attention to what greenpeace says. And hippies in general.

    They aren't a scientific institution, they are a lobby group for simpletons who cannot abide by the conclusions of scientists when they differ from their religious preconceptions. They are rather anti-science. They fish arguments from fringe individuals and see most scientists or engineers or physicians as suspects and in collusion with some vague plot from the in

  • Greenpeace? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kuzb ( 724081 )
    People still take the uneducated eco-terrorists seriously? I thought they lost all their credibility years ago.
  • By all means, cover the datacenter roof with solar panels to buy down the cost of power in the daytime. But keep it connected to the grid for the baseload reliability a dense cube of servers needs.

  • Amazon lags in green tech! Save the Amazon rainforests!

    Make up your fucking mind.

  • While Apple, Google and Amazon all have electronic services delivery, Amazon is, by far, the largest in terms of physical plant for their vast goods-shipping network.

    While yes, Apple and Google do ship, they simply don't have the sheer scope of what Amazon is dealing in.

    So yeah, Amazon's going to come in behind those two.

    • While Apple, Google and Amazon all have electronic services delivery, Amazon is, by far, the largest in terms of physical plant for their vast goods-shipping network.

      While yes, Apple and Google do ship, they simply don't have the sheer scope of what Amazon is dealing in.

      So yeah, Amazon's going to come in behind those two.

      This report is only about data centers, not all operations. So it's excluding goods shipment infrastructure.

  • This is fake and greenwashing. Google claims it's carbon-free only because they bought enough carbon credits to do so. That's not what being green really means and it's disappointing these companies feel the need to defraud the public.

  • If Amazon was serious about their centralized transaction and distribution model, their commitment to moving products from manufacture to seller over ever increasing distances, their commitment to deep processing power, with its necessity for an energy-rich future...

    They would get behind Thorium and LFTR.
    And let other silly, deluded corporate hobbyists fund the low-yield weather-intermittent countless points of failure crap.
    __

    "DID SOMEONE SAY THORIUM?" TIME ONCE AGAIN FOR
    CONFESSIONS OF A SLASHDOT ENERGY AN

6 Curses = 1 Hexahex

Working...