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.
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.
What about all of the energy savings that computers bring us, Greenpeace?
Advocating that computers should use less energy does not equal advocating that one should not use computers. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that computers that use less energy are somehow less useful for coming up with other ways to save energy. Your argument is completely besides the point. How a dozen people can miss that and upvote you is beyond me and has probably more to do with a shared antipathy towards Greenpeace.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
12 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 33.2 ms ] threadIt'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.
There'd be much less remote hiring without hi-tech options, too.
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.
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.
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.
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.