iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Leila Deen

GET UPDATES FROM Leila Deen
 

Clean Energy: If Apple Can't Afford to Think Different, No One Can

Posted: 27/04/2012 00:00

Those Apple stores are so beautiful. All pale and linear - clean clean clean. The irony is poignant. As we pointed out in our report, How Clean is your Cloud, Apple is in fact powering their iCloud with coal. Coal which is coming from Duke Energy, a utility that uses mountaintop removal coal - literally blowing up mountains and destroying the landscape to produce more dirty energy.

It's a no brainer - the people that use the super sleek iPad could do without thinking that each time they upload a photo of their daughter or their mother to the iCloud, they are using fossil fuels to do so. Because fossil fuels are antiquated and filthy - they don't go with this year's iPad.

In those pristine Apple stores around the world today, customers heard the dirty truth - In Regent Street, London, a team of 25 activists from Greenpeace UK arrived at the flagship store and set to work redressing the minimalist window, plastering it instead with an alternative advert for Introducing iCoal, an internet spoof which parodies Apple's latest advert for the iCloud. Others headed into the store and handed out perfectly formed Apples, shaped from coal, to let the customers know that Apple isn't as pure as the driven snow after all.

Hours earlier in San Francisco and New York, Greenpeace US activists had arrived at stores with hundreds of black balloons, which they released up to the clear glass ceilings. At the same time a second team arrived, dressed as a super cool cleaning crew, there to clean up the cloud. And then yet more teams, from Greenpeace in Hungary, Hong Kong and Holland (the alliteration was accidental). The staff weren't thrilled, of course, but by and large they were open to Greenpeace's concerns and acknowledged that Apple, of course, should be green. Particularly when we highlighted that Google, Facebook and Yahoo! are all doing better.

With $110.2 billion in the bank, as Apple announced yesterday, if they can't afford to think different, no one can.

 
FOLLOW IMPACT
Those Apple stores are so beautiful. All pale and linear - clean clean clean. The irony is poignant. As we pointed out in our report, How Clean is your Cloud, Apple is in fact powering their iCloud wi...
Those Apple stores are so beautiful. All pale and linear - clean clean clean. The irony is poignant. As we pointed out in our report, How Clean is your Cloud, Apple is in fact powering their iCloud wi...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 29
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
10:17 AM on 05/25/2012
Wake up once the government gave tax breaks to big industry for [going green ] if they did not get charity/green status how many would be out there ?
12:34 AM on 04/28/2012
Actually Apple uses clean and green nuke power in the South while Greenpeace is the one using coal.

Get the facts.

Google "Benefits of Nuclear Power - NYTimes.com"
05:45 PM on 04/28/2012
greenpeace is using coal? Are you sure?
07:24 PM on 04/29/2012
They get power off the grid where ever they have operations - most of that is coal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ppenguinator
Life's too imprtant to be taken seriously.
05:40 PM on 04/27/2012
But they do think differently. They're the only ones not to use renewable energy to power their cloud servers.
02:27 AM on 04/28/2012
Who does?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lance Manling
02:58 PM on 04/27/2012
Why should Apple think differently? Because Greenpeace says so?
05:45 PM on 04/28/2012
Shouldn't apple think differently? Why wouldn't they stop using coal and start going green?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
05:47 AM on 04/27/2012
Having huge facilities in N. Carolina is the reason. I'm just glad they built the facilities in America.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linus521
In wildness is the salvation of mankind
05:47 AM on 04/27/2012
What's the definition of green? The color green is reflective of Earth's terrestrial and natural surface, green, rich in trees and plants, alive with life and all that constitutes life. We've lost the definition of green as seeded in the dawning of the environmental advocacy. Only one green exists on Earth or the first green, the big green, the only green that matters beyond all other definitions of green, the salvation and preservation of Earth's ecosystems.

We know coal kills Earth's ecosystems, but what of entombing ecosystems with dead fields of solar panels and deadly windmills? This is the new green, but killing ecosystems for all the whatevers, is still brown and dead. Killing our terrestrial ecosystems for solar and windmills is comparable to draining the oceans of their waters.

Greenpeace, you require a refresher course in the science of ecology.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
EAPrince
My other car is an Al'kesh
06:54 PM on 04/27/2012
I'm unclear what your alternative suggestion is. Outlaw cars and manufacturing plants? I'm all for some magical force that produces power with no pollution that takes up virtually zero space, but I'm not sure where this fantastical creation will come from.

Erik
http://eaprince.blogspot.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linus521
In wildness is the salvation of mankind
07:19 PM on 04/27/2012
Solar and wind should be utilized where people actually live without killing the Earth to help the climate, like on rooftops, buildings, shopping centers, parking lots, cities. I read somewhere, they even have small windmills; I can't remember what they're called.

A smaller version of a windmill with a protective metal cage over the slicing blades; a shopping center recently placed house sized solar panels in its parking lot. A medical center installed solar on its roof. Today, they even have solar roofing tiles or shingles. A school in Iowa placed geothermal under the existing school building without raping the planet.

Nuclear energy consumes the least of the body of Earth with high energy yield; however, many are fearful of nuclear. Ecologists claim, however, that pushing extinct biodiversity is about as safe for mankind as thermonuclear war.

No easy answers exist, but I've heard many times, energy conservation, alone, would help sustain our Earth immensely. I would like to see energy conservation more in the limelight and ideas to help us conserve energy.
05:48 PM on 04/28/2012
That is so true. I can't imagine the whole country of brazil covered from top to bottom with solar panels and all coasts all over the world covered with wave generators and super tall wind mills blocking out the light of all of africa because yes, that is what will happen if stop using coal. Those are the only 2 options and there is no inbetween. Right on Linus. Also, you should get a job at a university and teach an ecology course and make it mandatory for greenpeace. You will have to do it for free because they don't have any money. Its fine though, I'm sure you're up for it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linus521
In wildness is the salvation of mankind
02:18 AM on 04/29/2012
Scientists are out there that believe land usage/change is more crucial than climate change, and they truly are related. This very site featured a scientist who claimed, our natural resources are more important than climate change. Of course, our natural resources come from the natural Earth. More importantly, ecosystems also give mankind his only "life-supporting services"!

Climate regulation and moderation are listed as a natural ecosystem function, and all ecosystems, altogether create the very life zone of the Earth, her biosphere/ecosphere. And, all integrated ecosystems have loops and feedbacks to the climate and the very atmosphere as well as release oxygen, exhale fresh water and are the natural sequestration of the climate warming, heat trapping gases and a long list of all the reasons man exists.

"I'ld like to focus on a related and arguably more urgent issue: land use and land change."
photo
artleads
Let's have a national retreat.
05:20 AM on 04/27/2012
"In those pristine Apple stores around the world today, customers heard the dirty truth - In Regent Street, London, a team of 25 activists from Greenpeace UK arrived at the flagship store and set to work redressing the minimalist window, plastering it instead with an alternative advert for Introducing iCoal, an internet spoof which parodies Apple's latest advert for the iCloud. Others headed into the store and handed out perfectly formed Apples, shaped from coal, to let the customers know that Apple isn't as pure as the driven snow after all. "

This must be the sort of thing my mom referred to as riding (a) buggy without a top. PRETENDING to be something it isn't. Something does not compute in this scenario. I didn't know about the coal, but I was put off by the cocooning excesses of the....damn Apple products. They always struck me as missing the point, and being just an escalation of shiny plastic stuff in an already overstuffed world.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
olitenup
01:50 AM on 04/27/2012
And another reason there are no Apple products in my life.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
EAPrince
My other car is an Al'kesh
06:50 PM on 04/27/2012
Doesn't that seem a little odd when you really think about it? Not Apple products in particular, but the idea that you think you are making such a difference by not buying from a company that relies on fossil fuel power? Have you stopped using light bulbs because GE isn't depending on solar arrays for all it's needs? Did you forgo a car because the plant that built it wasn't running on wind power? I am all for renewables. I would LOVE to see everyone get away from fossil fuels as soon as possible. But in a world where a huge percentage of power is still coming from fossil fuels of one sort or another it's all but impossible to buy something that wasn't made with or supported by non-renewable sources.

I don't mean to be abrasive, but if you own a cell phone or computer, of any kind, you are still buying from a company that relies on fossil fuels. Singling out Apple may make you feel good, but is not much of a statement.

Erik
http://eaprince.blogspot.com
05:50 PM on 04/28/2012
Where would you suggest we start? Someone has to be the first. Why not apple?
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
12:43 AM on 04/27/2012
Blame Coal, not Apple.

Blame you GOP and conservative Dems to giving coal huge breaks and subsidies, 100 times the total for green energy.

What a pointless article.
05:50 PM on 04/28/2012
Yes i agree. I would like to see those coal companies completely off of all subsidies. The same goes for all petrol companies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
EAPrince
My other car is an Al'kesh
12:18 AM on 04/27/2012
I agree that we have to move away from fossil fuels in a deliberate way. And we need to do it soon. But it's not going to happen overnight and as much as I'd love to see corporations with a conscience, I'm not going to hold my breath either. It might be a bit silly to expect Apple, or any big corporation to just wake up one morning and declare that every data center, Apple store and office will now be powered by 100% clean sources of energy. In the US, half the power is still provided by coal, so I'm not sure how Apple can setup a data center that is 100% clean. Not unless they branch out the company into solar or wind development, anyway. They seem to be making some significant strides with fuel cells and solar arrays at the NC plant, so they are hardly ignoring the issue.

Maybe it would be a good idea to give them, and others, credit when it is due. Doesn't mean you don't make the point that they should do better still, but perhaps some positive feedback would be a nice change from the constant pronouncements of doom. Just a thought.

Erik
http://eaprince.blogspot.com
12:00 AM on 04/27/2012
Nice article, short sweet and exactly to the point. The first four sentences are perfectly concise.