Is the 'cloud' green or not? Greenpeace scrutinizes 10 giants
Summary: Just in time for Earth Day, the non-profit organization turns up the heat on some of the biggest cloud data center operators in the business, encouraging them to consider more renewable energy options as they expand.
In my time as a chronicler of things green and sustainable, I have seen Greenpeace take on several very high-level issues -- including a push for sustainable seafood harvesting practices that has helped change the polices of almost 20 high-profile grocery and special food retailers.
So, even though the mere mention of this particular non-profit organization's name is enough to raise the hackles of some readers, I follow its campaigns pretty closely -- including Greenpeace's ongoing push to get huge public cloud service providers to embrace more sustainable data center management and electricity sourcing policies. Its latest volley, the 2011 edition of "How Dirty is Your Data," which examines pretty much every big name in cloud services from Amazon to Yahoo! some of the biggest names, including Apple, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon get a "failing" mark on at least metric that Greenpeace studies.
Why does it do this report at all? Greenpeace figures that since the data centers run by the 10 cloud companies it is following use oodles of power, it has the right to expose where the power actually comes from. So you'll be treated to a comprehensive table of power demand, power choices and the percentage of "dirty energy" that is used by a given company's data center.
Here's how the companies rate from a "coal intensity" standpoint, according to Greenpeace. (The organization doesn't provide data for Akamai.)
- Apple (54.5 percent)
- Facebook (52.8 percent)
- IBM (51.6 percent)
- Hewlett-Packard (49.4 percent)
- Twitter (42.5 percent)
- Google (34.7 percent)
- Microsoft (34.1 percent)
- Amazon (28.5 percent)
- Yahoo! (18.3 percent)
The companies that get praise include Akamai, for transparency; Yahoo!, for the places it locates its data centers; and IBM and Google for overall efforts to reduce their power consumption. Google and Yahoo! apparently are also the most active when it comes to sourcing renewable energy.
Here's Greenpeace's overall observation about the sector in its executive summary:
"While a few companies have clearly understood that the source of energy is a critical factor in how green or dirty our data is, and have demonstrated a commitment to driving investment attached to clean sources of electricity, the sector as a while still seeks to define 'green' as being 'more efficient.' This failure to commit to clean energy in the same way energy efficiency is embraced is driving demand for dirty energy, and is holding the sector back from being truly green."
Do I think Greenpeace is being unfair in this scrutiny? Not necessarily. Ultimately, I do believe the cloud computing could be more inherently green than the current model, but I agree that energy efficiency shouldn't be the only focus. These companies have the might to make a difference. Now, we'll have to see if the general public really cares whether Google's search engine is powered by more renewable energy than Microsoft's?
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
RE: Is the 'cloud' green or not? Greenpeace scrutinizes 10 giants
When you add that reality to the cost of operating an inefficient renewable energy solution, it becomes obvious that these companies are doing the right thing.
Being green just to be able to say, "we are being green" is foolish and dishonest, I think it is a good thing they are choosing not to do that.
When "renewable" forms of energy become as efficient as current forms of energy, then and only then should we expect these large companies to go in that direction.
Microsoft and Yahoo are not in business to "make a difference," nor should they be, that is the job of you and i on a personal level; they are in business to make money; if they can be more efficient while doing so great, but we should not expect them to neglect their primary responsibility to the share holders, in some futile effort to pacify radical special interest groups like green peace.
RE: Is the 'cloud' green or not? Greenpeace scrutinizes 10 giants
You really couldn't be more wrong in your post. Clean coal, for one, is a misnomer due in large part to the inability to capture the emissions in a real way. Clean coal is a talking point in order to not get legislation passed.
Efficiency is a huge deal, no doubt about it, but efficiency alone is not enough to fix our growing energy problems and all of the additional problems that they cause. Google is spending a ton on renewable energy solutions and that money will be the impetus for increased efficiencies within that sector.
RE: Is the 'cloud' green or not? Greenpeace scrutinizes 10 giants
But the reality is that companies cannot wait for clean to catch up, otherwise it never will! If clean energy is to become a real alternative then it must be an imperative mission of companies to assist in the exploration and development of these alternatives.
And it would be money well spent. Alternatives could result in cheaper options that ultimately cut costs and is great PR.
RE: Is the 'cloud' green or not? Greenpeace scrutinizes 10 giants
RE: Is the 'cloud' green or not? Greenpeace scrutinizes 10 giants
RE: Is the 'cloud' green or not? Greenpeace scrutinizes 10 giants
RE: Is the 'cloud' green or not? Greenpeace scrutinizes 10 giants
RE: Is the 'cloud' green or not? Greenpeace scrutinizes 10 giants
I gotta say you bring up a good point. It is Good Friday and I have heard nothing about that in the media, but I have been bombarded with all this green talk.
What many green advocates fail to realize, is that to a great many of people, the green movement is nothing but a leap of faith in and of itself to believe in. It is almost like the worlds new religion.
Much like the days when Christianity was the "establishment," people got tired of being preached at, and the same is true with the green movement, many are tired of being preached at about that as well, especially since many feel that this so called man made threat to the planet, is just as phony as others believe God to be.
Perhaps those of you who feel Google and others are not doing enough to go green, and should be dictated to by the likes of Greenpeace, should ask yourselves how would you feel if the Catholic Church was dictating that companies spend large sums of their profits on pro Christian agendas.
Sure it would be great if Apple spent 50% of their profits on feeding the poor and clothing the naked, but who here thinks they should be mandated to do so by the Catholic Church?
This business with Greenpeace is no different; and this is why we should make a difference in our own lives instead of demanding that OTHERS do so in their lives and businesses.
RE: Is the 'cloud' green or not? Greenpeace scrutinizes 10 giants
NEVER TRUST GREEN PEACE !!!
RE: Is the 'cloud' green or not? Greenpeace scrutinizes 10 giants