Google Talks Its Way Off Greenpeace's 'Dirty' List

It's important to give credit where it's due, Lin. Google certainly is backing green efforts. And as you say, wind farming may become big business in days to come. I hope so.

In the meantime, though, I think it's inaccurate to hold Google up as an example of a reformed carbon guzzler when by its own admission it's not all "clean green."

I am also not saying that Greenpeace exonerated Google completely. But the organization let it off easy this year and picked another target in Apple, perhaps hoping to achieve similar results. That kind of emotional manipulation just bothers me.

While I don't share your view of Greenpeace, DukeW, what I do believe is that the organization doesn't do itself any favors by allowing its findings to be presented in a fashion that makes people question their integrity, as you have done.

Thanks for your comment, RufusJones. Surely, Google is backing up green efforts and demonstrating its interest in being more energy efficient. But so are other vendors, such as Apple. What I question in the emotional response Greenpeace made to both suppliers' efforts in its latest report.

This kind of emotional reaction does not help garner support for Greenpeace's just cause.

The elephant in the room here, the point nobody wants to touch on, is that Greenpeace is a neo-Luddite, anti-technology band of eco-terrorists who would very much like us to all freeze to death in the dark, and just as quickly as possible, thank you very much.  They attack large corporations like Apple, Google, and Microsoft not just because that garners them headlines, but because it seems to fulfill some deep-seated socio-political need for them.  Their twisted, new-speak kind of "logic" may ring true for liberal arts majors, but I don't believe that anybody with an engineering or technical degree could be won over by such an egregiously emotional appeal, rather than facts and figures.  The "fact" that Google went from an F to an A in one year makes me "figure" that Greenpeace's "logic" is coming up a bit short.  A perfect example:  Apple's and Google's Oregon facilities are both fed power from Bonneville Dam, and any engineer knows hydro power is 100% renewable.  I find it far too easy to discount and dismiss their "facts," their findings, and their motivations.  The cynic in me wants to ask just how large the contribution was that Google made, but that would be inappropriate.  I have no proof, just this elephant over here.  And now if you'll excuse me, I have to go take Jumbo here for a walk....

Describing the following paragraph:

In late 2011, Google increased the transparency of its environmental footprint significantly. The company finally published its energy usage and GHG [green house gas] footprint for the first time. Google has also provided white papers on its energy procurement plans, and basic information to end users on the energy/carbon footprint associated with its various services.

as " Google opened up to Greenpeace and talked up its plans to do better" is colossally cynical. If I'm trying to audit someone's compliance to my standards, the first thing I'd like to have is accurate information, so I don't need to guess.

Being open isn't the same thing as being compliant, but it is at least better thn the following point of view, expressed by Dick Nixon on the Watergate tapes:

"I don't give a shit what happens. I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up or anything else, if it'll save it—save this plan. That's the whole point. We're going to protect our people if we can."

I've never heard anyone suggest that Greenpeace could be charmed, bought off or conned by empty promises.

I have a very low opinion of Google, but I assume they do want to cut their carbon footprint-- because doing that generally requires reducing energy use, which cuts costs.

Kq4ym – From what I've heard, Google has a strong commitment to green data centers and green energy - not for altruistic or ecologically responsible reasons, but for business reasons. Green commitment none the less. Google may have some unclean data centers in North Carolina, but my guess is that Greenpeace reevaluated Google's inclusion on the Dirty List because once they included more Google data centers in their evaluation, Google data centers came up as comparatively clean.

Last year at the AWEA Wind Conference, Google's Needham was a keynote speaker. He talked about Google's focus on clean data centers.  He said that not every Google data center was green-clean, but that on a statistical basis, their data centers use 50% less energy than comparable data centers.  He explained that Google has a very green ($$$ green, not environmentally green) reason for focusing on clean data centers – energy usage is one of the major costs of a data center and decreasing the operating costs of their data centers improves Google's bottom line.  Some of Google's data centers are less environmentally green than others, but on a statistical basis, Google's data centers are cleaner than most.

He also said that Google had a strong commitment to wind farming and was trying to move into it in a big way.  The reasons he gave for Google's strong commitment to wind energy were wind farming is a profitable business, and it is a business unrelated to Google's core businesses.  Wind farms filled Google's need to invest cash in a profitable venture, with the added plus of diversification, while reaping the benes of being perceived as ecologically friendly.

For Google to increase the overall level of clean-green makes business sense. It stops making business sense if every data center has to be equally green Not a great thing to have some dirty data centers in North Carolina, but it's more important to ensure that green-clean remains a good business decision for the corporation.

Ha! Yes, Kim, that's the "right" term to use. Problem is, engaging stakeholders with PR bluff is a short-term tactic that can leave people feeling ripped off when it doesn't materialize. Eventually, said stakeholders will catch on.

Good PR is priceless.  Sorry, I should say "engaging with stakeholders."

I pledge to use 100% clean energy. With my pledge I intend to investigate the best use of green energy for my business and household within the next 4 years.

Do you buy that? I didn't think so.

It's easy enough to make promises, pledges, and commitments, but the proof is in the doing. I don't think Apple, Google, et. al. will seriously go green unless there's a profit to be made. Or a publicity.

And taking tax incentives? What's really going on is North Carolina and others offer incentives to businesses to re-locate, just transferring the bill for government services from imported businesses to already existing businesses and the state's citizens.

Mary- There's a lot of PR that goes on in 'green' talk. There's another possibility that Google is doing theirs only too well. Hopefully its real commitment that we're looking at though.