Comments:'Apple's data is dirtiest,' says Greenpeace
Huh?
[edit]I want to know one thing. Who is Timothy Prickett Morgan and why do his comments matter? This is terrible journalism. You can't introduce some random person without explaining in a short little sentence, who he is, what position he holds and therefore why his opinion matters. Does he work for Apple? Is he a University professor or is he some nutjob dragged off the streets?
You can't expect someone to look at your sources and then click on the link to try and figure out who he is. So he wrote an article. Big deal. Why'd you choose him? Why not Tiffany Hsu or Nathan Eddy?
There aren't always two sides to a story. Here, there is only one side. Greenpeace's side. There are no other sides to the story, because nobody on the opposing side has put in their two cents. So you don't report the other side because there isn't one. If later someone from Google or Yahoo does pipe up to attack Greenpeace's report, then by all means, report on it.
My suggestion would be to delete Timothy Pricett Morgan's comments from the article altogether. Or at least explain who he is, so we can judge about whether his comments matter or not. 193.30.232.1 (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this is sloppy journalism. It is sad that there doesn't seem to be much incentive to have good journalism. Good journalism costs more but you generally get something a little more real out of it. Bad journalism generates trash. The worst thing is to have bad journalism support your views. Look at Michael Moore's works. I feel bad for people who think they way he does because when you see him lying, twisting and editing speeches and appealing to those who don't know as experts, it makes his side look like their opinions are all based on false data. If their is true data there, it is corrupted by the false. The worst part of this is that many who don't know the way journalism is supposed to get at the truth rather than market a point of view or political ideology buy these lies as the complete and whole truth.
Comments from feedback form - "Greenpeace shouldn't be going ..."
[edit]Greenpeace shouldn't be going after the Internet companies, but rather the energy companies that are actually responsible for supplying the nation's energy. —67.167.244.119 (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Great point!Tadpole256 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't trust anything Greenpeace has to say. They are a lunatic fringe group set out to destroy anything they see as capitalist. Tadpole256 (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Yemen Is King
[edit]Apple moved simply because the price of electricity in NC is much lower than in California. "the cost to Apple for electricity will be 4-5 cents per kilowatt hour in North Carolina from Duke Energy versus 7-12 cents per kilowatt hour in California." All because of California's reliance on renewable resources. And that is exactly what Greenpeace hates and tries to conceal.--90.177.208.162 (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also an excellent point! We should be investing more money in cheap, clean nuclear power.Tadpole256 (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Note go here for milk: mudkipz.ws
Greenpeace can suck it
[edit]Greenpeace is an anti-capitalist organization. They use the environment as cover for what they do. Think about everything they do and then think about whoever they are protesting. Is it a large corporation that is making money for its shareholders? Apple and Google are the latest examples. Two highly profitable companies providing technology to their customers and Greenpeace's beef is that the energy they use comes largely from dirty coal.
I TOTALLY AGREE!!!! You are SO RIGHT!!!
What counts as dirty?
[edit]It is interesting to see that the 31% nuclear energy of North Carolina is considered dirty. I know that it is a long way from carbon neutrality due to high engineering and mining requirements but does not produce as much CO2 as coal. The trouble I find with 'studies' like these from organisations such as greenpeace is that they attempt a scientific approach (as opposed to a purely emotional one) but fail to be specific enough to give any of their statistics any clear credibility. 1) what does 'dirty' mean? I suspect it was chosen for its soundbite properties. 2) catagorise unenvironmental impacts; direct CO2 emmisions, indirect CO2 emmisions, waste - amounts, composition, facilities locally for either treatment or storage. Environmental damage from radiation is not even on the same scale as that from fossil fuels yet they seem to rank nuclear power at least equal to and sometimes over oil gas and coal in 'dirtyness'.
The problem is that nuclear energy is not trendy. That's what greenpeace is all about; they don't REALLY care about the environment and global warming, all they want is to be on the trendy side so they can pretend to be cool. For some reason nuclear energy isn't considered cool among trendy people, even though it's one of the cleanest forms of energy (my theory is that the word "nuclear" gained a negative connotation during the cold war); and with the media feasting on the Fukushima accident (and ignoring that it was caused by the largest earthquake that hit Japan in recorded history) this situation is unfortunately unlikely to change. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments from feedback form - "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi..."
[edit]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Full_Star_Red.svg/25px-Full_Star_Red.svg.png —79.97.104.217 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments from feedback form - "Nuclear releases greenhouses g..."
[edit]Nuclear releases greenhouses gases in all processes but the actual electricity generation progress. It also happens to be extremely dangerous. If you think GreenPeace is leftist, note that that Democratic Party of HK supports the anti-nuclear stance. —Kayau (talk · contribs) 06:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Being totally anti-nuclear isn't "leftist" or "rightist". It's just ignorant. Relying completely on renewables for energy supply is impractical, especially if you want to electrify transport. I strongly recommend David MacKay's free book where he actually does the sums on this.
- Almost everything releases CO2 at some point. Sure nuclear plants are big construction projects, but then so are wind farms and hydroelectric dams. And don't even get me started on the mining for the materials used in solar panels. However over a total lifetime all will be better than coal power stations.
- As for nuclear being dangerous, it's actually one of the safest forms of power generation. See The triumph of coal marketing infographic. the wub "?!" 09:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments from feedback form - "test"
[edit]test —116.99.41.205 (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments from feedback form - "I appreciate that you want the..."
[edit]I appreciate that you want the companies to receive their power from green sources but are you suggesting that you have people avoid areas that use coal power so that the areas that the businesses move to can't get the funds from supporting these centers of business to upgrade to new sources of power. What about reliable sources of power. When Green Power generated from wind or sun is not providing the appropriate power on a calm or cloudy day, these business would close if it were not for fossle fuel plants that were in place to carry the load. Then we have the ultimate in green power. Nuclear power is green because it doesn't generate harmful gases and yet it isn't supported by many who want green power because of the byproduct and the lack of renewablility of the fuel. I say that when oil was refined there were many discoveries that use the byproduct of oil refining. These discoveries have made our entire civilization better. We need to focus on uses of spent radioactive fuel rather than trying to store it. I think that articles like these focus on punishing those companies that dare to do business outside the areas that laudably had the foresight and funding set up green power grids. I think that we will see as the technology gets better that green energy will be cost effective as well as planet healthy but we aren't there yet and even when we get there, we may still need fossil fuels as a backup. I think the ulimate goal is to only use them as a backup. My big frustration about articles of this type is that they are written in a way and to an audience that is not experts in these fields so that they can sway popular opinion on emotions often in the face of the facts and trends. —214.27.58.2 (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)