The Internet Pollutes the Atmosphere More Than India, Says Greenpeace
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Yeah, well I'll start caring as soon as Greenpeace stops contributing to global warming with all this hot air they're always spewing.
http://www.facebook.com/greenpeace.international
Oops. Oh well. Actually doing something to help things out yourself isn't nearly as important as getting up in everyone's faces about their own Internet use.
Yeah, that's a good idea. We should consider, for example, that more than 50% of Facebook's energy comes from "dirty" sources, and should probably find a "greener" social networking site instead.Xzi said:
http://www.facebook.com/greenpeace.international
Oops. Oh well. Actually doing something to help things out yourself isn't nearly as important as getting up in everyone's faces about their own Internet use.
Of course not! That would make sense, and we can't have any of that bullshit when there's a planet to save!jim1398 said:
Quit astounding indeed. It almost makes you wonder if people just shut off their brains when they read or watch the news, eh?EllEzDee said:
OT: I'm all for the pursuing of cleaner alternatives, even if Greenpeace does tend to exaggerate, but then again, who doesn't?
Earth Day or belated April Fool's?
I honestly believe we have an impact in the environment, but this is the type of stuff I don't plain care about. Our power grids are outdated, we need alternative fuel sources, ad nauseum, but it'll take a miracle to uncorrupt all of the dirty roots to the problem (Greenpeace, speaking of corruption...) and get those in power to move forward. These corproate tech giants have access to different fuel sources, but even then, a lot of weight falls on the governments (like here in the U.S.) that put laughable effort into energy ideas that could do much more good. As with many things like corporate greed, the top bears a lot of responsibility with its great power, and world leaders seem uninterested in anything beyond their next term.
I am also filled with quite a bit of apathy because for all of the good the internet has done for me, I don't really care if it destroys any of my remains...
I honestly believe we have an impact in the environment, but this is the type of stuff I don't plain care about. Our power grids are outdated, we need alternative fuel sources, ad nauseum, but it'll take a miracle to uncorrupt all of the dirty roots to the problem (Greenpeace, speaking of corruption...) and get those in power to move forward. These corproate tech giants have access to different fuel sources, but even then, a lot of weight falls on the governments (like here in the U.S.) that put laughable effort into energy ideas that could do much more good. As with many things like corporate greed, the top bears a lot of responsibility with its great power, and world leaders seem uninterested in anything beyond their next term.
I am also filled with quite a bit of apathy because for all of the good the internet has done for me, I don't really care if it destroys any of my remains...
Urm exactly how it is today? Isn't everything running out because people failed to acknowledge how what we were doing will effect the future and continued to consume rapidly and ignore the consequences?Blitzwing said:
What the hell is with the people who are so narrow-minded that they don't give a fuck because something might not happen in their lifetime? God damn, the people these days. You guys are worse than the fucking politicians sometimes.
If Greenpeace really gave a shit about anything they would promote nuclear power. Presumably the people at Greenpeace don't realize that switching entirely to renewable would at least double the living costs, yet nuclear is much cheaper and not kill as many people from starvation.
Cost of power sources:
Fossil Fuels < Nuclear < Renewables
Asking people to switch entirely to renewable is hopeless, Nuclear is significantly less hopeless and a good starting point.
Cost of power sources:
Fossil Fuels < Nuclear < Renewables
Asking people to switch entirely to renewable is hopeless, Nuclear is significantly less hopeless and a good starting point.
No Coal fired power station?
I hope they enjoy living back in Medieval Era.
And Chinese Coal is not more dirty than american coal. "Dirtier" coal is the one you're supposed to use in the power station , the "cleaner" coal is used for steelmaking as coke. So those two are not exactly comparable.
I'm all for removing coal fired power station, but I'm knowledgeable enough to understand that unless a solid "clean" energy plan is ready. It's not going to happen.
Lastly, Greenpeace is composed of upper class hippies who can afford it if electricity price went up. Mid to Low class people like their electricity cheap.
I hope they enjoy living back in Medieval Era.
And Chinese Coal is not more dirty than american coal. "Dirtier" coal is the one you're supposed to use in the power station , the "cleaner" coal is used for steelmaking as coke. So those two are not exactly comparable.
I'm all for removing coal fired power station, but I'm knowledgeable enough to understand that unless a solid "clean" energy plan is ready. It's not going to happen.
Lastly, Greenpeace is composed of upper class hippies who can afford it if electricity price went up. Mid to Low class people like their electricity cheap.
Well, it's nice to see that most people here care about the planet. Seriously, they aren't advocating the total shutdown of the internet or anything, they just want to raise awareness about some of its costs. Oh well; I suppose you would prefer to go over the cliff blindfolded as opposed to seeing it coming, let alone to try and avoid it.
The power for your computer might be green, but the servers that are communicating with your computer have their own power and thats not neccessarily green.TestECull said:
This post just confirms to me the ultimate futility of trying to be purely green, you never will be unless you go live in a cave and even then it will take some work.
In order:Blitzwing said:
Nope. And how does internet usage translate into "They have to live in caves"
They can. Paper=/=internet
I just think it's funny that they say that one of the greatest advancements in communications technology is being targeted. Without the internet, their message would not be nearly as effective, not to mention hindering any worldwide organized protests.
Oh, and there are MUCH bigger fish to fry than the intenrnet
OH NO! THE INTERNET USES POWER! PANIC, PANIC I SAY!
What about whaling, poaching, deforesting, destruction of endangered species, car emissions, the fact that plug in cars STILL CAUSE POLLUTION (most energy from coal), the fact that most energy comes from coal, a more efficient wind turbine not being able to be created due to lack of funding, etc.
But no, the internet must clean up.
Fuck Greenpeace.
I think I can anger absolutely everyone at the same time, yay!
First of, Greenpeace is being absolutely reasonable. A lot of energy goes into sustaining the internet, and it appears that a lot of that energy could come from renewable resources, and it doesn't. Pointing this out is a good thing worth considering, and could help us out.
On the other hand, investing in renewable energy to begin with is a more practical approach that we have more control over, and would have a more widespread effect. Also, before anyone thinks that this is an actual criticism of the Internet, lets remember what the internet does. It eliminates the need to write out that memo on paper. It eliminates the need to use fuel to mail that letter. That song doesn't have to be produced on a plastic disk with plastic packaging and then shipped to a store, you can just download it. You can work from your computer sometimes instead of commuting. Overall, the internet is a good thing for the enviornment. But that doesn't mean that focusing on where data centers get their power won't help.
First of, Greenpeace is being absolutely reasonable. A lot of energy goes into sustaining the internet, and it appears that a lot of that energy could come from renewable resources, and it doesn't. Pointing this out is a good thing worth considering, and could help us out.
On the other hand, investing in renewable energy to begin with is a more practical approach that we have more control over, and would have a more widespread effect. Also, before anyone thinks that this is an actual criticism of the Internet, lets remember what the internet does. It eliminates the need to write out that memo on paper. It eliminates the need to use fuel to mail that letter. That song doesn't have to be produced on a plastic disk with plastic packaging and then shipped to a store, you can just download it. You can work from your computer sometimes instead of commuting. Overall, the internet is a good thing for the enviornment. But that doesn't mean that focusing on where data centers get their power won't help.