Greenpeace Challenges Facebook’s Dirty Energy Choices
Image Source: Combined screen captures.
Social networking giant Facebook has received a lot of press lately and most of it hasn’t been good.
First, news came out that their new data center would be powered by coal. Then, Change.org ran a petition in an attempt to get them to switch to a more renewable power source. Now, Facebook comes head-to-head with their most formidable opponent yet: Greenpeace.
Yes, Greenpeace—the great, international, environmental organization—is the latest to challenge Facebook’s decision to use coal power instead of renewable energy. Much bantering has already gone back and forth between the 2 and both seem to be getting nowhere. Here is a snippet of what each has said thus far:
“Data centers are huge consumers of electricity, and as more and more internet users shift to “cloud computing” platforms like Facebook, we can only expect this demand to grow. Companies who run their data centers on energy from burning coal are supporting the biggest source of man-made CO2 emissions in the world. The only truly green data centers are the ones running on renewable energy.” … “But given the massive amounts of electricity that even energy-efficient data centers consume to run computers, backup power units, and related cooling equipment, the last thing we need to be doing is building them in places where they are increasing demand for dirty coal-fired power.”
“At the same time, it is simply untrue to say that we chose coal as a source of power. The suggestions of “choosing coal” ignores the fact that there is no such thing as a coal-powered data center. Similarly, there is no such thing as a hydroelectric-powered data center. Every data center plugs into the grid offered by their utility or power provider.” … “It’s true that the local utility for the region we chose, Pacific Power, has an energy mix that is weighted slightly more toward coal than the national average. However, the efficiency we are able to achieve because of the climate of the region and the reduced energy usage that results minimizes our overall carbon footprint.”
Now, let’s look at some facts into this whole situation:
- · Facebook chose to use power supplied by Pacific Power.
- · Pacific Power does supply some types of renewable energy; however, most of their power still comes from coal.
- · Coal power is the number one source of man-made CO2 emissions in the world.
- · Coal is an extreme pollutant. It damages the environment and is also known to cause a number of health problems.
- · CO2 emissions are an extreme factor in global warming/climate change.
Since most of the power supplied by Pacific Power comes from coal, it can generally be suggested or assumed that a good bit of power that will be provided to Facebook’s new data center will also come from coal. Granted, a portion of it might come from renewable sources, but if the majority of a power company’s power comes from coal, that means that most of their customer’s energy will also come from coal.
It would be like if you had a pizza and three-quarters of it was covered in pepperoni, while only one-quarter of it was simply cheese. Given that there is more pepperoni, you have a greater chance of getting a slice with pepperoni on it than a plain cheese slice. The same idea can be applied here. If a company has, for example, 65% of coal power and the other 35% of power comes from wind, water, or other renewable sources, guess what. You’ll most likely be stuck with the coal power, simply because there is more of it to go around.
Now, I’m sure you’re wondering what exactly Greenpeace has been doing to fight this whole matter. They’ve created a Facebook page, what else? What exactly they want you to do other than join them, I’ve no idea. There doesn’t seem to be a petition or other campaigning involved. At the very least, they want as many people as possible to help expose the whole “Facebook chooses coal” thing.
So, why is it such a big deal now? The new data center is not up and running yet. It’s actually not expected to be finished until some time in 2011. Environmental organizations are making a big deal now because if they can get Facebook to switch completely to a renewable energy source, then that will be a great thing, indeed. Facebook claims they are “committed to environmental responsibility” and they need to start showing it. The use of coal power does not show any form of environmental responsibility and it certainly will not lessen any carbon footprint, regardless of how great a region’s climate may be.
I’ll leave you with one other Greenpeace quote to think about as you post on your wall, fan some obscure club, or obsess over your applications:
“If your Facebook page is being powered by coal, then it’s contributing to climate change. How do you like that?”
By Heidi Marshall
I have been with GreenFudge for about a year now, but I've had a passion for Nature my entire life. When I'm not writing articles, you can find me out hiking, gardening, working on green craft projects, or taking photos for my website. You can check out the site at http://arkisaeo.com
Popularity: 1% [?]
Tags: coal power, complaints, controversy, Facebook, Greenpeace, new data center, Pacific Power, petitions, renewable energy
I certainly have no problem in leaving Facebook. From a web designer point of view, I think the overall structure of the site is too cluttered, and some of it even rather pointless. The only reason I had joined in the first place was to promote my own website, but I’ve found better paths for that anyway. Unfortunately, whether they switch or not, too many people will stick around…or continue to join, unless they can be convinced to do otherwise.
I’ll just leave Facebook if they don’t change their views on the energy matter. As an activist I was arrested last year in an action against a planned coal plant in Antwerp, Belgium. Leaving FB is a much lesser effort for me. It is a matter of principle, consistency and conscience. As I understand, a lot of people, who are against FB using energy gained by coal, find leaving FB a commitment that goes to far. Which I don’t understand.
Do you really want FB to run your life, make you an accomplice? Well, I can live without FB. Can you?
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=346401620732