Apple has come in for stern criticism in environmental group Greenpeace's 'How Dirty is your Data' report, issued this week.
The focus of Greenpeace's ire is a new data centre in North Carolina. North Carolina's electricity grid is largely powered by coal and according to the group Apple's decision to locate the data centre there shows "a lack of a corporate commitment to clean energy supply for its cloud operations".
Greenpeace said that along with Google and Facebook, Apple makes up part of 'North Carolina's dirty data triangle'.
"Apple has been steadily adding to its online offerings, which can be delivered via the cloud from its iTunes platform. Following the phenomenal success of the iPad, the soon-to-be-completed $1bn US dollar 'iDataCenter' in North Carolina indicates that Apple is moving to significantly increase its cloud-based offerings to iPhone and iPad customers," Greenpeace's report states.
"Although Apple has become increasingly transparent about the environmental footprint and operational performance of its products, especially laptops and iPhones, it has not been as forthcoming on the current or expected impacts of its online products. Though many IT companies have pointed to the benefits of downloading entertainment over traditional delivery methods, one of the largest online destinations for such media – iTunes - does not provide any data to evaluate these claims or allow comparison with offerings from other vendors," it continues.
According to Greenpeace, Apple is looking for cheap power supplies and turning a blind eye to its environmental impact.
"Apple's decision to locate its iDataCenter in North Carolina, which has an electrical grid among the dirtiest in the country (61% coal, 31% nuclear), indicates a lack of a corporate commitment to clean energy supply for its cloud operations. The fact that the alternative location for Apple's iDataCenter was Virginia46, where electricity is also comes from very dirty sources, is an indication that, in addition to tax incentives, access to inexpensive energy, regardless of its source, is a key driver in Apple's site selection," Greenpeace said.
Greenpeace did concede that Apple has made changes for the better in terms of its carbon footprint but said that much more needed to be done.
"Apple has reported a significant increase in the amount of clean energy it has purchased for its operations in the past two years, and has said that it will continue to look for sources of renewable energy and buy green power wherever it can be found.47 However, Apple has not declared a renewable energy or greenhouse gas target to shape this commitment. The massive iDataCenter has estimated electricity demand (at full capacity) as high as triple Apple's current total reported electricity use, which will unfortunately have a significant impact on Apple's environmental footprint," the How Dirty is your Data report reads.
Greenpeace has focused many of its recent reports on the carbon footprint of cloud computing, challenging the idea that manufacturing industries are the biggest polluters in the world of technology.
In 2009 Apple launched a special website to explain its environmental policies, pointing out that the company's facilities in Austin, Texas, Sacramento, California, and Cork, Ireland, are 100 percent powered by renewable energy.
Contact Us
Digg
It's easy and free to get the latest news headlines, reviews and opinions straight to your email inbox. Sign up NOW to make sure you receive the latest Mac news, reviews and tutorials on your favourite topics.
Comments received
MCCFR said on Sat, 23 Apr 2011
"Apple's decision to locate its iDataCenter in North Carolina, which has an electrical grid among the dirtiest in the country (61% coal, 31% nuclear)…blah, blah"
I'm as keen on green as the next guy, but Greenpeace really are scraping the bottom of the barrel in trying to raise their public profile at the expense of Apple or any other high-profile household name technology company.
The iTunes Store, along with the App Store, the iBookstore are delivering massive benefits by either mitigating manufacturing costs for atoms as opposed to electrons/photons as well as distribution costs/impact or the impact of people driving to a mall to collect those goods.
If they want to change the generating source in N. Carolina or any other US state, they should make their case to the utilities or the state government (who will give them pretty short shrift).
Grinner said on Tue, 26 Apr 2011
Jesus... what a mean spirited comment. Why does anything regarding the environment bring out the worst in people?
I think it's perfectly right for Greenpeace to ask why Apple, a company based in California has based it's new whopping data centre thousands of miles away in N. Carolina.
The answer is probably because it's cheaper there - and part of that reason it's cheaper is that the N. Carolina government is probably happy to pollute its environment with cheap and dirty energy production facilities.
I think it's perfectly right for Greenpeace to bring this to our attention and if so both N. Carolina is wrong for running a dirty state and Apple should consider its decision to locate there; or if relocation isn't possible or practical they could attempt to mitigate it in some way (perhaps by investing in green energy production in the area).
Apple has lead the way in physical manufacture and can do so in cloud-based systems too.
Disclaimer
Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Macworld. Macworld accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content.
Click here to read the house rules.
Click here for the latest reader comments