The Internet Pollutes the Atmosphere More Than India, Says Greenpeace

[wadark]

I read the title of this article, and thought that it might actually make sense after I read it...no...it did not.

Even if this is true, the connection is specious and preposterous.

Go go, Greenpeace, you've out-bullshited PETA which takes not only a concerted effort, but a serious amount of skill (or lack thereof, not sure which).

 

[SwimmingRock]

Why is it that whilst every group like Greenpeace or PETA is always right, they're also oh so very, unbelievably wrong at the same time.

Because they're usually short-sighted and never particularly bright. Makes me sad, because I liked GreenPeace when I was a kid. You know, until I found out how ineffective, ridiculous and corrupt they actually are.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

If the internet were ranked as its own independent nation, it would be the fifth worst polluting country in the world, behind the US, China, Russia, and Japan.

It would also have the world's highest GNP and Land mass. And be increasing the HDI and Human Rights Index by its very existence.

Oh, and if you're counting it as an independent nation, you've just lowered the rest of the world's pollution by its standards. Otherwise you'd be counting it twice.

Sorry, but scare tactics have failed to work since you've gone over to using advertising techniques. Especially as you've admitted to outright lies.


Just for interests sake:

Worst US drought: 1934
Deadliest US flood: 1889
Deadliest US fire: 1871
Deadliest US tornado: 1925
Deadliest US hurricane: 1900

Damn that Internet, huh? You want results? Talk to Murdoch, Trump, Gates, Jobs and the rest. Don't spread more lies to your followers.

 

[ReaperzXIII]

I honestly don't give a fuck. The world can burn, as long as it burns when I am long dead and gone.

This

Hmm...I wonder how Greenpeace, organize protests, raise awareness worldwide, do their research...probably by the internet the hypocrites

Hmm 1 Fuck to save the planet huh?

Sorry Greenpeace, but I don't give a fuck

I'm saving my fucks for things that will effect me in this lifetime

 

[Baneat]

Oh well, better facebook and twitter it, spread the word!

 

[AngryMongoose]

That was a bad comparison because, let's be honest, we need The Internet a lot more than we need india, and it is much more viable to dispose of india in an environmentally friendly way than The Internet. Where would you even start trying to get rid of the internet?

 

[Flig]

Heh, it's funny, Scrolling through about half of the first page, most of the comments have said either "I don't give a shit/fuck," "Shut (the fuck) up Greenpeace," or have made some attempt at being witty while bashing Greenpeace. All while mostly ignoring what the news post was about.

What's even funnier is that if this was a post coming from an organization like the EPA, or really anyone other than Greenpeace, I have a feeling the responses would be different.

As stupid as the people in Greenpeace can be, they have a point with this one, the major companies, as Microsoft and Google have shown, are entirely capable of finding other sources of power, rather than coal and the like. Whether or not you think the whole Global Warming issue is an actual issue or not, they're called non-renewable resources for a reason. The sooner we start getting major companies and corporations to switch off to renewable resources, the easier the inevitable transition will be.


Also, why does my captcha have a greek Theta in it? I'm not sure I can even type that on my keyboard...

 

[gigastar]

Oh Greenpeace, some of the things you say makes less sense than the stuff PETA spews on a regular basis.

It's pretty basic. You can see how much electricity the data center use (look at their electricity bill/meter), see the source of energy in that area, find the emission.

I specifically meant the stuff like...

For example, the report claims that Facebook uses dirty coal for 53.2 percent of its power needs.

Now as im sure you can guess, you cant track every last bloody joule of energy running through the grid, so how can you be certain that 53% of Facebooks power is coming from coal-fired plants?

 

[Frotality]

so internet posts are harmful to the environment? i knew trolls were poisonous.

then again, so is this post apparently. well i dont use facebook, but ive no idea what kind of power every other site i visit uses. internet users cant really be blamed for not knowing what percentage of every site they visit is powered by pollution...i thought the internet was powered by the heat generated by flame wars until now.

 

[Carlston]

This from the people the first earth day I recall at my school must have cut down a huge forest.... printed earth day fliers and then...


The day after the entire city was littered by those fliers as trash....


Yeah...really caring bout the planet. Goobers.

 

[Agayek]

<color= green>I'm not contributing to pollution because this post has officially gone green.

2: CO2 is harmless. Plants breath it in, see?

<color= green>Co2 IS a Greenhouse gas and the trees don't breath <url=http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/muana-loa-co2-caption.gif> ALL of it in.

Yes, but if the amount of CO2 ever exceeds that point, we will all die, and the Plants will continue to consume it, until a stable atmosphere is reached again.

There's really no reason to freak out about it.

 

[Dusk17]

I don't see what is so ridiculous about what they are saying, and if they were not talking about your precious internet they wouldn't be receiving so much hate.

 

[Lunar Templar]

o.0 green peace still exists?!?! wow ... o.o ... and the first thing i hear from them is utter bullshit, awesome -.-
way to be stuck in the stone age morons, -.- hope a whaler runs your asses over

 

[Quazimofo]

1: Greenpeace, my power is hydroelectric and nuclear. So, no CO2.

2: CO2 is harmless. Plants breath it in, see?

3: I can not take anything you say steriously. You've managed to out-bullshit PETA, who I want to remind you asked for people to just donate 20,000 dollar cars because some dime-a-dozen spider was stupid enough to nest in the EVAP canister.

well, CO2 is not harmless, its just the plants and animals made a nice equilibrium. its poisonous to us, but not to them. that is the only real reason it is a problem, extreme excess and removal of the balancing factors. (deforestation and the like)

Anyway! OT: this is actually pretty damn funny. put a smile on my face.

 

[babinro]

Personally I don't understand this 'problem'. The companies have a choice on how they power their operations. If facebook chooses to use coal to power their operations...than it is facebook that is polluting, not the demand for internet services.

 

[Nieroshai]

<color= green>I'm not contributing to pollution because this post has officially gone green.

2: CO2 is harmless. Plants breath it in, see?

<color= green>CO2 IS a Greenhouse gas and the trees don't breath <url=http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/muana-loa-co2-caption.gif> ALL of it in.

Yes, the ocean does much, MUCH more as far as CO2 absorption than all land-based plant life.

 

[dnnydllr]

Also @TestECull
What do you think went into making the actual grid? How do you think your respective source of nuclear power is mined out, then enhanced? SOME green house gas will be released. Pound per pound, CO2 is actually one of the least powerful GHG there is. Methane is 4 times as strong, and NOx and SOx is about 14 and 23 respectively if I remembered correctly. CO2 is used as the main unit because we just happens to release it a lot more than everything else.
@dnnydllr
The point is that in a catastrophic event, no matter how rare, the result is much more dangerous with nuclear power. It's all about risks. Coal mine collapse sucks, big time. And it happens a fair bit too. But even a single nuclear meltdown, no matter how low the chance, can wipe out a large area--not in an explosion, mind you. Nuclear power plant cannot explode. But it can contaminate a large area for a very long time. While trees and things can still grow near Chernobyl..well..you're welcome to go and live there. I'd bet that the land would be incredibly cheap.
It's not just direct consequence of people dying right then and there. It's the potential land use. The world is slowly tipping towards overpopulation. Desertification is slowly but surely creeping in. Sea level will rise, swallowing our coast line. It probably doesn't matter to you, but it does to me--my home WILL sink within the next 20 to 30 years if we keep going at this rate. Try having that reality in your face--it makes you think in an entirely different way.

With any source of power there's going to be some level of pollution, but in the actual production of nuclear energy there is none. Even wind turbines contribute greenhouse gases by that logic. Where do you think the materials to produce the turbine itself come from? My point is that nuclear is much cleaner and safer than other power sources, especially with coal making up something like 40% of the worlds energy production. It took an 8.9 Richter earthquake to cause the world's third major nuclear accident. It took a poorly produced well cap to cause the BP oil spill. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Also, you may want to sell your home and move inland...

 

[Nieroshai]

Personally I don't understand this 'problem'. The companies have a choice on how they power their operations. If facebook chooses to use coal to power their operations...than it is facebook that is polluting, not the demand for internet services.

I did not realize Facebook was powered by anything, nor that the internet worked that way.

 

[Nieroshai]

While I may be one that takes the issues of Climate Change seriously from a perspective of my own personal self..

..Shut up, Greenpeace. The internet is the one thing I will not reduce for sake of this planet, and I love it that way. LOVE IT!!

It was all admitted in the climate gate thing. They choose data they like shut down those who say otherwise and use the measuring systems that give the results they want as apoase to the accurate ones.

Teehee, someone whom actually thinks Climategate was a valid newstory..

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/12/climategate-debunking-get_n_642980.html

Nice try.

Nice job there, citing web sites known to have political agendas. The LAST people I'm going to take their word on for debunking anything are the Huffington Post and Media Matters.

 

[F-I-D-O]

But you see Greenpeace, think of it this way.

[HEADING=1]Shut up.[/HEADING]

Pretty much this
And is Greenpeace responsible for all the internet usage from people reading their news stories? How about when they posted it? And isn't there a Greenpeace facebook page?
This won't have a peaceful ending for their PR team [sub](let's play find the pun)[/sub]