

Greenpeace raids the cloud - shorbaji
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2010/03/greenpeace_in_t.php

======
jackowayed
What about all of the energy savings that computers bring us, Greenpeace?

It's a lot more efficient to make a couple Google searches than to drive to
the library.

It's a lot more efficient to buy something on Amazon and have it delivered by
UPS, which can combine trips like crazy, than to drive to the store--or
possibly several stores--to buy it.

It's a lot more efficient that I used Campfire as an integral part of working
remotely last summer rather than if I had had to fly across the country for
the job.

Sure, it is still important to reduce energy consumption, and lots of
computing doesn't directly replace more energy-intensive tasks (sending a
tweet rather than ... driving to all of my friends' houses to tell them a very
short message and then leave?), but computing has lead to lots of gains.

~~~
rauljara
You're misreading the article. Green eace isn't saying that cloud computing
should go away. It's saying that the energy that runs major data centers
should be green, or if not green, at least not coal powered.

------
jrockway
Centralizing computing is good, though. When you buy a PC, there is no real
incentive for the manufacturer to care about efficiency. 200W vs. 300W is a
few bucks a month for you and no bucks a month for them. So who cares.

But when one entity is running all the powerful computers, then shaving off a
few watts makes someone a lot of money. So they'll do it.

As for the green issue... I think it's good that Greenpeace is reminding folks
that just reducing the number of watts you use isn't enough. You need to get
those watts from something renewable or clean; not coal. Otherwise you're
still destroying the Earth... just not quite as quickly.

------
eplanit
They (G'peace) would no doubt decry energy and resource consumption at
factories were America ever to regain its much-missed and sorely-needed
position as a thriving manufacturing economy.

The posts below bring out good points. Energy use is not in itself evil. One
must consider what good was done with the energy. Watt-for-watt, those server
farms are doing a huge amount of work on behalf of people.

------
warfangle
If the apple data center in NC is being built anywhere near the research
triangle (and why wouldn't it?) - the electricityy is likely not coming from
the coal plants but from Sharon Harris nuclear power plant.

~~~
naz
Greenpeace are anti-nuclear power.

~~~
VBprogrammer
Greenpeace are against pretty much anything which would allow technology and
civilisation to proceed at it as it currently does.

------
lionhearted
Do you know what would impress me a lot more than protesting? Lead by example.

If Greenpeace and the rest of their ilk care enough, they should lead by
example - announce that they'll no longer use cars, telephones, computers,
heaters, air conditioners, or anything that was made by a process that also
created pollution. No email, no internet, nothing more than riding on
horseback to drop a letter made on hand made paper off. I think that would be
good for them as an organization and good for the rest of the world.

~~~
Confusion
Ah yes, the old discussion poisoning fallacy of "drawing a straw man and
implying the other party are hypocrites for not
following/implementing/adhering to the straw man".

And somewhat less abstract: if someone argues in favor of a smaller
government, they are not automatically anarchists that think there shouldn't
be a government at all. Painting a world without a military and challenging
them to go live in that world is not a proper counterargument.

