Is Greenpeace overreacting about the iPad’s footprint?

Heading off the launch of Apple’s iPad on Saturday, environmentalist juggernaut Greenpeace has released a new study emphasizing the damaging impact of cloud computing — the framework that more and more of the internet, and particularly the iPad will depend on.
The report, titled “Make IT Green: Cloud Computing and its Contribution to Climate Change” claims that people who store information and use services based in the so-called cloud, have much larger technology-related carbon footprints than those who don’t. In 10 years, this means that the data centers and wireless networks used to support cloud computing will be consuming 1,963 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, more than triple amount they currently use.
On top of that, the amount of batteries being used for the iPad could cause shortages in materials needed for electric and plug-in car batteries, Greenpeace sources say. There have been rumblings over potential lithium shortages and what constricted supply might do to sticker prices when green cars roll into showrooms this year and next.
To stem the energy drain posed by data centers, Greenpeace recommends that companies like Apple and Google make more of an effort to power their data centers with renewable energy sources like wind and solar. The organization also took aim at Facebook, arguing that the company’s newest data center in Oregon runs on electricity from a coal-fired plant.
But Greenpeace’s opposition to the iPad has supposedly transcended this one report. Sources inside the organization have allegedly leaked that that activists will try to disrupt sales of the iPad with a subtle counter-advertising campaign planned to ramp up over time, according to a post on Tech Central.
But backlash to even the initial Greenpeace report was swift and vocal. Proponents of the iPad and cloud computing in general say that the environmental group has neglected some key factors:

New data centers are more energy efficient than they ever have been before, with advanced cooling systems and built-in management software, offered by companies like Viridity Energy and Enviance, that allows center managers to keep an eye on servers and automatically minimize energy consumption.
The cloud allows for the creation of virtual servers, which reduces the amount of energy required to manufacture physical servers and the e-waste that eventually results. Greenpeace only looked at the impact of new data centers.
Cloud computing is regularly becoming more energy efficient as technology progresses.
iPad sales will probably cause a spike in e-book sales, and the transition from physical to electronic books — not to mention electronic versions of magazines and newspapers — will actually slash greenhouse gas emissions (and save trees).
Apple is actually doing more than most companies when it comes to eco-friendly practices. Not only did it make a major push to eliminate toxic materials from its manufacturing processes, it went as far as to pull out of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when it took its stance against the climate bill last fall.

Based on all this, it seems like Greenpeace is overreacting. Cloud computing, while not the greenest concept in the world, is not any more damaging than how tech companies would otherwise operate.
That said, it’s nice to see at least one organization questioning the consequences of major technological advancements, even if it misses the mark. In January, Greenpeace released a ranking of the most and least environmentally-conscious companies in the tech industry. Even that list placed Apple in fifth place out of 18. Calling it out as a major threat at this juncture seems a bit silly.
Tags: ipad
Companies: Apple, Greenpeace