June 5, 2012 |
Photo Credit: Frank Gaertner/ Shutterstock.com
As Facebook's first public offering
on May 18 failed to meet expectations, causing a number of stock market
analysts to predict the social network's ultimate demise, founder and
CEO Mark Zuckerberg was no doubt giggling in greed-filled joy. He even
topped off his celebratory weekend by tying the knot with his longtime
Facebook's public sale was more a whimper than a bang, despite being
the largest of its kind ever. Coincidentally, the buildup to this
history-making event would have been an opportune time to wage a public
campaign against the company's suspect practices. While most are aware
of Facebook's privacy assaults, less scrutinized is the company's
reluctance to embrace green energy, a challenge Apple has readily
accepted for its data storage centers.
In January 2010 Facebook announced it was going to build a
147,000-square-foot data center in the town of Prineville, Oregon for a
whooping $200 million. It is the first Facebook-owned data facility, and
houses Facebook's servers. The majority of the power for the center was
set up to be purchased from PacifiCorp, which draws the lion's share of
its energy from the burning of coal. The entire campus will eventually
consume about 78 megawatts of electricity to support its operations.
Greenpeace, known for its feisty environmental campaigns, was the
first to heave criticism on Facebook for failing to go green. "Facebook,
by opening this center, is sending a signal: We're not quite done with
coal yet," said Daniel Kessler of Greenpeace. "We understand that the
data center is being built. They already have a power service agreement.
This is really about where Facebook and the industry are going."
In September 2010 Greenpeace released a humorous cartoon video
Zuckerberg and company, laying into Facebook's choice of power for its
Oregon data center. The video claimed Facebook had the option to choose
wind power, but "silly Mark Zuckerberg chose dirty old coal" instead.
Wind power in eastern Oregon is plentiful and Greenpeace believed it was
entirely possible for Facebook to tap into this renewable resource --
or set up a wind farm of its own nearby.
Simultaneously Greenpeace launched a successful "Unfriend Coal"
campaign against Facebook, asking the social network giant to use
100-percent renewable energy.
No doubt Facebook was feeling the heat. The Greenpeace video
lambasting Zuckerberg received a half a million views and tens of
thousands of users joined the group's Unfriend Coal campaign. In April
2011 Facebook said the company would install a solar array at its Oregon
facility, which would make the data center one of only a few in the
world to receive any power from solar energy. Nonetheless, Facebook's
solar panels are only set to generate a meager 100 kilowatts of energy, a
small fraction of the center's 78-megawatt consumption.
Greenpeace called Facebook's solar move "encouraging," but still not
enough. Yet, in December of last year Greenpeace announced it was
dropping the campaign, saying Zuckerberg's company and the enviro group
would work together to encourage the use of renewables over coal.
It was an odd announcement to say the least. Greenpeace claimed
victory, but for what exactly wasn't clear. Facebook was still going to
use coal for its data center and in Greenpeace's public agreement with
Facebook, there were no timetables given and no goals listed for how or
when it would reduce the amount of dirty energy it used. The only thing
Facebook said was it will have a "preference for access to clean and
renewable energy supply."
A preference is not a commitment.
Greenpeace, however, said it also hatched a private agreement with Facebook as well -- one its members were not allowed to see.
"We would have certainly preferred to have more specific timetables and benchmarks included as part of our public agreement
wrote Gary Cook of Greenpeace in an email on the subject shortly after
his group dropped its campaign. "This was not possible from their side
due to associated financial sensitivities [because Facebook was not yet
Cook continued, "Because of our private agreement and belief that
Facebook is serious about its own commitment to clean energy and the
policy advocacy that are part of this commitment, we believe the
commitments announced ... will ultimately have a significant impact both
among other IT companies as they feel pressure to follow suit, and as
more IT companies adopt similar commitments."
For an organization that often pressures companies to be transparent
about their practices, Greenpeace's private agreement with Facebook
comes across as a bit hypocritical. How can it claim victory even though
we have no idea what that so-called victory entails? Sounds like a
good-faith agreement that doesn't hold water.
With Facebook's failing stock the company is going to be under
tremendous pressure to produce exceptional financial results for its
shareholders. As such, Facebook could easily backtrack from its good
faith promises and say that now is not the time to invest in costly
While Facebook refuses to show publicly how it plans to use renewable
energy to power up its massive data servers, Apple is actually making
hard commitments. Just this month Apple said that by early 2013 it would
use "renewable" sources
solar, wind and hydro-dams to power up all of its data centers around
the globe. (Of course, someone ought to remind Apple that dams aren't
truly enviro-friendly, just ask endangered salmon in the Northwest.)
Apple's move is a step in the right direction, but note this has only
to do with its data storage and not its manufacturing practices, which
is an entirely different beast.
That said, Apple's committment to use renewable energy for its data
centers is significant, bold and a new milestone for the industry. The
merits of what defines its energy as renewable may be contested, but
regardless, when compared to Facebook's Oregon facility, Apple is
showing Zuckerberg how to get the job done. And to top it off, Apple is
also in the planning stages of building a data center of its own in
Prineville, Oregon and if it sticks to its goals, its new facility will
employ only renewable energy
once up and running.
The search engine giant Google, unfortunately, is not forthcoming
about its data centers. An educated guess would put the number of its
centers in the dozens. But since little is known about Google's actual
server facilities, even less is known about where Google derives its
energy. The company states that it is "committed to using renewable
energy, like wind and solar, as much as possible" but mostly relies on power generated from the grid
, which "isn't currently very green."
So in terms of energy transperancy, Google is far behind both Facebook and Apple.
Recently, Greenpeace waged a public campaign against Apple's energy
practices in North Carolina, focusing on ending its use of coal power
produced by Duke Energy at its Maiden, N.C. data facility. Based in
Charlotte, Duke has been the target of numerous environmental lawsuits
and protests for its polluting ways. In 2005 Duke had 70 coal-fired
"Apple's announcement [about going renewable by 2013]... is a great
sign that Apple is taking seriously the hundreds of thousands of its
customers who have asked for an iCloud powered by clean energy, not
dirty coal," a Greenpeace spokesman told Grist.org via email.
However, according to Apple, it's long been set to wean off of coal,
and has been planning its recent announcement, as well as the purchasing
of land for solar arrays, for quite some time -- even before the
passing of Steve Jobs, an Apple executive tells me. All of this occurred
before Greenpeace sent its "cloud-cleaning" activists to Apple stores
in New York, San Francisco and Toronto last month. Still some are hailing
Greenpeace as having forced Apple to embrace renewables, even though
the tech giant has long been planning to roll out its clean energy
Currently Greenpeace is waging campaigns against other data storage
behemoths that use coal like Amazon.com and Microsoft -- rightly so --
and the hope is that they follow Apple's green lead. Here's also to
hoping that Greenpeace restarts its innovative campaign against
Facebook, as well as Google, until the companies commit to using
100-percent renewable energy.
Joshua Frank is an environmental
journalist and author of "Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George
W. Bush." He is co-editor, with Jeffrey St. Clair, of "Red State Rebels:
Tales of Grassroots Resistance in the Heartland." Frank and St. Clair
are also the authors of the forthcoming book, "Green Scare: The New War
on Environmentalism." He can be reached at email@example.com.
Post a Comment