Jew World Order

commentary In its trademark smashmouth style, Greenpeace last week took cloud-computing companies to task for using dirty energy — and then came under fire itself over its methods and assertions.

Greenpeace made a splash in Seattle by hanging this sign off a building near Microsoft and Amazon offices.
(Credit: Greenpeace)

Whatever Greenpeace’s shortcomings, though, its activists do have a point.

In the latest event of its “Clean our Cloud” campaign, Greenpeace activists yesterday rappelled off a building near Amazon and Microsoft offices, and attached a banner which reads “Amazon, Microsoft: How Clean is Your Cloud?”

Earlier, it released three videos that poke fun at Amazon, Apple and Microsoft by showing workers shovelling coal into a smoky fire behind the scenes of consumers using the companies’ web services. Sure, the cloud looks clean, the videos suggest. But do you know where the power that makes it possible comes from?

The campaign has been marred by an angry response from Apple, which claimed that Greenpeace greatly overestimated the power usage of its latest datacentre, and discounted its reliance on renewable energy. Amazon, too, says Greenpeace’s numbers are inaccurate. The environmental watchdog group continues to defend its analysis.

Narrowly speaking, this episode is about the tactics used by a single activist organisation. But it raises a broader — and valid — question: what is the role of tech companies in making the power grid cleaner? Cloud computing providers are large and sophisticated power consumers that could arguably exert substantial influence over how electricity is generated across the US.

True, tech companies arguably don’t have much control over electric power policy, which is largely set at the state level, and, in the absence of a national energy policy, by regulations on coal power plants. Almost half of all electricity in the US comes from coal, which makes it very difficult to avoid in most areas.

And in terms of actually lobbying for policy, Apple, Google, Facebook, et al would almost certainly rather expend political capital on issues that directly affect them, such as privacy or anti-piracy laws.

Still, cloud companies as a whole are doing something about their energy consumption. They’re doing it for economic reasons, and to be seen as being socially responsible, much in the way that Apple has reacted to public scrutiny of its partners’ factory conditions in China.

And it’s certainly fair to ask whether they should be doing more of it.

Fair shake?

Cloud computing sucks up huge amounts of power. Greenpeace estimates that some individual datacentres consume as much electricity as 180,000 homes. The overall number for the datacentre industry, estimated at about 2 per cent of all energy use, continues to expand as more mobile devices get online.

As such, datacentres can and should be efficient. Leading companies — Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc — have done a lot of innovation over the past few years, and have spent lots of money to design very efficient datacentres, some of which don’t even use air conditioning. Not only does this save on operational costs, it makes scoping out sites easier by negating the need to find locations with huge honking power supplies.

Renewable energy, which was the focus of this week’s Greenpeace report, can also play a bigger role, although the path here is less clear cut. Apple’s Maiden, North Carolina, datacentre will be powered partly by a giant 20-megawatt solar array, and nearly 5 megawatts of biogas-powered fuel cells. Google has purchased 200 megawatts of wind power from local utility grids as a way to lower the carbon footprint from its operations.

These activities are the exception, though, and cloud companies have no real choice but to balance economic and practical considerations (solar arrays, for example, take up a lot of space) with other advantages, such as predictable power costs and PR points for advancing clean energy.

Greenpeace suffered most publicly by giving Apple a low ranking compared to other cloud providers. It estimated that Apple’s North Carolina site would consume 100 megawatts of power, although Apple said that the number is more like 20 megawatts. “We believe this industry-leading project will make Maiden the greenest datacentre ever built, and it will be joined next year by our new facility in Oregon running on 100 per cent renewable energy,” Apple said.

Greenpeace’s rankings also greatly favour companies that disclose information on energy usage. Apple and Amazon scored a D and an F, respectively, on “energy transparency”, which helped push them towards the bottom of the pack. Of course, both companies are notoriously secretive about almost everything.

Some comments took Greenpeace to task, suggesting that the organisation is singling out Apple solely to generate attention. “Act tactfully as an organisation and acknowledge your mistake. I would have far more respect for an organisation that did that instead of sticking to their story just so they could keep the world’s most recognisable brand front and centre in their campaign,” wrote one commenter.

Digital citizens of Earth

Other parts of the cloud chose to embrace Greenpeace — or, at least, some of its ideas. Months after Greenpeace targeted Facebook for its datacentre pollution, the two outfits announced a collaboration in which Facebook will prioritise renewable energy usages and offer an application that lets consumers estimate their electricity usage.

Google’s senior vice president for technical infrastructure, meanwhile, told the New York Times that Greenpeace’s report was effective in drawing attention to the role of renewable energy:

We’ve put a significant time and resources into making Google as energy efficient as possible, using renewable energy, and investing in the sector. We welcome reports like this, as they bring additional attention to these important issues for the industry.

Amazon, on the other hand, said that Greenpeace’s estimates of its power usage are off base. In addition, it argued that centralising computing with services such Amazon Web Services results in higher utilisation rates and thus better efficiency, a view supported by a number of researchers.

“Amazon Web Services believes that cloud computing is inherently more environmentally friendly than traditional computing,” said the company. “The cloud enables a combined smaller carbon footprint that significantly reduces overall consumption.”

Microsoft, which also scored lower than its peers, noted that the company’s modular datacentres use half of the energy than those from three years ago, and only 1 per cent of the water. “We engage with a wide range of environmental sustainability advocates, including Greenpeace, to inform our efforts to reduce our environmental impact,” it said.

More broadly, Greenpeace argues the growing role that tech companies play in the economy gives them more clout than you might think, particularly on energy at the regional and local level.

As Greenpeace’s senior IT policy analyst Gary Cook told me:

IT companies have significant ability and standing to influence the energy policy debate. While that can actually be true for a lot of major companies and sectors, IT companies have a particularly important ability to do so because of their rapidly growing and concentrated energy footprint.

If companies like Apple or Microsoft showed up to tell US state officials — the same state officials who have bent over backwards to lure these companies to their state — that they want a greener electricity supply, you can bet your bottom dollar this gets their attention.

Whether you condone sending people to rappel off buildings to protest corporations’ reliance on coal is one thing. But responsible people should know where the electricity that powers their digital lifestyle comes from, and consider the impact of our energy practices.

Greenpeace’s current campaign taps into consumers’ strong attachment to their tech providers to build up grassroots support for cleaner energy. It calls this group “environmentally aware digital citizens“. After all, most people don’t have strong opinions about their utility companies (well, at least until the lights go out), but frequently vote with their wallets when it comes to technology.

Via CNET