Greenpeace has released its latest "Cool IT" report ranking which tech firms are doing most to combat global warming and reduce emissions, and which are failing to rise to the challenge. The group urged companies to use the upcoming Copenhagen Climate summit to take action to improve things. Melanie Francis, Greenpeace …
It's the "Greenpeace lists a bunch of companies, not by their actual 'green' programs, but by whatever press releases sound the best."
Al God on the board
How can Apple do any wrong?
Must be time time of year to wag finger for donations.
for most contribution to greenhouse gases should goto greenpeace and its anti-nuclear campaign
If 80% of our power came from nuclear (rather like a country just to the south on the other side of the channel), then our emissions would be about 20 to 25% lower than they are now
But the government will cure global warming by putting taxes up. so thats alright then
Flames... because this topic will sure attract them
Greenpeace can't tell their ass from their elbow. All the serious, sorry - make the qualified, scientists left them when they realises they were a bunch on millitant loonys who have not concept of ecology. They're campaigning for more energy saving light bulbs whilst at the same time demonising computer manufacturers for using mercury in their displays.
I think its fair to say the Greenpeace have cause more ecological disasters than they have ever tried to save.
"Lets go camp on the oil rig to protest, stopping them from safely dismantling it before it leaks oil everywhere! Thats a great idea. What? we just made half the north sea a toxic wasteland... has to be the oil companies fault"
"lets ram the ship of people hunting whales, oh noes - our ship got dented! THEY ATTACKED US!"
And the question all are asking...
What is ElReg's score?
What is a "good" score?
Another Moral Dilema Solved
This has made me decidedly 'cool' toward these pandering perverters and their planetary prevaricators.
Greenpeace is neither ...
Greenpeace attacks privately held boats on the high seas.
Isn't that piracy?
And aren't the pirate's attack boats, with their two-stroke engines, more polluting than the economical boats being attacked?
Greenpeace is neither green, nor peaceful. I believe the word is "hypocrites".
I'm sure they'll all be quaking
This strikes me as the sort of behaviour you expect from a socially inept adolescent: making lists of people they are friends with, then crossing them off again if that friend does something which doesn't support their fragile little egos. I can just see Apple's share price plummeting now that the news is out that they won't get a christmas card from the greenies this year. Oh, wait! it isn't.
Give me a break!
I don't like Microsoft much, being an Apple fanboi and a member of Greenpeace to boot, but FFS what has this got to do with Microsoft?!?!
MS make software, pretty good software, it has the eco features built-in, saving energy is a hardware thing surely? It's down to all hardware manufacturers to deal with this, software makers like MS can only do so much with hardware control!
Good old Greenpeace
This is an organisation whose sole purpose of existence is to publicise itself and raise more funds for itself. And you give it more publicity by publishing its press releases. Well done!
This bastion of factual accuracy told us Brent Spar contained many hundreds of tons of toxic chemicals and mustn't be sunk. Then after the event realised that it was a few kilos.
Trust their utter b*llocks press releases with the contempt they deserve.
Mine's the one with a trillion tons of plutonium in the pocket.
Greenpeace, a good excuse to be sanctimonious in public while wearing clothes that desperately need putting in the laundry.
I get sick to the back teeth of their mother hen - wagging finger attitudes, maybe they could come up with some solutions for a change?
Yes, big companies are all very very bad and evil, we know.
Wait wait wait. Greenpeace are still on the internet? They still use computers? Why? Everyone knows how massive the carbon footprint is for computers. Greenpeace are therefore killing the planet. Even if they use the most CO2 friendly computers, it is no different to slowly poisoning the foster parents of a blind orphan.
Shame on you Greenpeace, why would you do that? Why don't you go out and pay some more whalers to slaughter some more innocent whales so you can film them again.
Re: AC (Give Me A Break)
Yep, trust greenpeace to just look at the technology sector as one industry, with completely identical products and outputs.
Haven't looked at this report, but the last one slated Microsoft and gave them a low score not because of what went into Xbox's or Zunes (the only thing they really make in large amounts), but for the amount of energy usage in offices.
It was all based on a formula they made for manufacturing companies, however then just applied to software and services companies such as Microsoft and Google etc.
Sure, electricity should be in the calculation, but if its like the last report, the results are completely skewed due to the fact MS and Google don't make vast numbers of PC or laptops for their amount of energy usage.
Also, got to love that now Apple got slated previously, they've employed Al Gore on the board, made Macbooks out of recycled stuff and then everyone love them because they're green. Not considering the fact that they still contract out the actual product to Foxconn in China who no doubt take the manufacturing 'climate' bill for Apple, so they come up smelling of roses in these reports and Greenpeace can all still happily own five macs and three iphones without feeling guilty (there's probably an app to save the planet after all....)
Sorry i'm young
Who are Greenpeace and what do they do? I've never seen 'em in the news, altough i've only been reading newspaper's for the last 15 years, what do they do? I'm guessing they keep the peace between all the greenies and who has the most crazy apocalyptic idea of how MAN (its always man?) will destroy the planet.
Personnaly i think they can all sod off cause the planet will be peerfectly fine its the things on it that are in trouble.
The answer's in there.
So. Why are we bothering with all this crap? What's the reason for Kyoto, Copenhagen and all the associated bollocks?
Surely if things get too hot / cold / wet / dry / radioactive / sunny / dark / smelly / acidic / glaciated / whatever we can just club together and purchase the correct one of IBM's "extensive range of climate solutions" to alleviate the problem?
I'm off to IBM's website now to download a warm summer's evening so I can sit outside the pub and smoke in peace tonight. BTW: Anyone in North London might want to go away for the weekend as there's a retailer that I have issues with in the area and I'm thinking that an F4 Tornado followed by an Ice Storm would get the message across nicely.
It really pains me to say this....
... but the French had the right idea.
DGSE 1 Rainbow Warrior 0.
> Who are Greenpeace and what do they do?
Their "job" is to stop things. Just like computers have operating systems to slow them down to manageable speeds, Britain has Greenpeace. They organise statistically insignificant numbers of highly vocal individuals who are then given massive publicity by the media. They do all this in our name, on the presumption that the general public is too lazy, too ill-informed or unenlightened to protest themselves, so they do it on our behalf - a sort of outsourcing, if you like.
The way they discover what the general public would like them to protest about is by going to the Glastonbury festival every year and listening to what the people there are grumbling about. Sadly they're all too pissed, stoned, sleep-deprived and deafened to actually converse and retain any specific information..So they just come away with the general feeling that everyone had a nice time and that they could continue having a nice time if we all lived in tents, used chemical toilets, erected a token windmill and ate vegetarian food.
Now, just like a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, if you protest about enough things some of them will turn out to be a Bad Idea ( (c) HMG, 1066 - 2009 ) As a consequence they are occasionally right about things, though I can't actually recall any instances (too much Glasto?), and they're usually only right after the event. These successes, coupled with being terribly, terribly earnest, allow them to gain the ear of lots of people who we elect to make random decisions for, or against, us. This usually results in the worst of both worlds: dithering, when any action in any direction would be better than being frozen in a paralysis-of-choice - or as it's called: holding an inquiry. What's worse is that the standard british answer to a conflict is to give a little to everyone. Thus, we have some policies which placate the Greens, such as not building any more nuclear power stations. This then has to be balanced by other polices to placate business - which leads to extra runways at airports. Sadly, rather than ending up with all sides being satisfied with the little victories they've won we get a situation where each side is hacked off about the others' "wins" which largely cancel out the progress they wanted towards their goals.
Would we be better off without Greenpeace? it's hard to say. Just as they rose, Phoenix-like from the ashes of CND, it's a fair bet that if Greenpeace all went off on an anti-whaling trip somewhere, then another organisation would appear to take their place. After all, someone's got to sit in the mud at Glastonbury.
this sort of list is really useful
I can buy gear from the "bad" companies, i.e. the ones that invest time and money into useful features, rather than pandering to ecofascists
Slightly echoing Roland above here: if you're a CEO or COO, and you read a Greenpeace report that says your company has a very high Gaia rating or whatever, then you have a clear indication that your company's in trouble. Specifically, you aren't producing anything, you aren't selling anything, and you are in all probability clinically dead.
What I want to know is whether Greenpeace's interns ate any meat while compiling this report? According to the front page of today's Times and Comrade Stern, that's what's killing the planet at the moment. Surprise surprise. Whenever you hear talk about the ecosystem, you never have to sniff very hard to detect the foetid, decaying stink of the ascetic.
"Look at me! Look at my superior way of living! You can tell I'm better than you, materialist weakling, because you don't have the endurance to live in a cave among your own excrement, eating nothing but twigs, now do you! Yes, go on, leave! Your punishment will come in the afterlife, or possibly 2050, or some other date far enough in the future that you'll have forgotten my prediction by the time it comes to test it!"
Just wanted to correct two bits of FUD you are peddling, there:
Apple are one of the few companies who _HAVE_ done something to reduce the toxic materials in their products, unlike HP, Dell, etc. who just say they will. See http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/
Apple batteries are replaceable, just not _USER_ replaceable. To replace them, you take your iThing into an Apple store and get them to replace it for you. OK, so it may take a day or three, but the upshot is they recycle the old battery at the same time. How many user replaceable batteries get recycled? Oh, and not forgetting that user replaceable batteries don't last as long because they have a lower capacity (due to space being taken up by mountings, etc necessary to facilitate their user-replaceableness).
Copenhagen vs Patents
Small wonder that Greenpeace is urging IBM, etc to push for a signing of a treaty that has the potential to revoke Patents and to ban future ones under mandatory technology transfer arrangements.
I suspect that e.g. IBM has enough IP lawyers to spare to peruse the UN-FCCC document drafts and the various "options" proposed. Doesn't take long to find the offending clauses.
Always check your pockets after talking to Greenpeace.