Apple said it had reached its goal of powering all its facilities with 100 percent green energy, garnering headlines about the company’s commitment to the environment.
Apple’s announcement came a few days after Google, which uses way more energy, had met its own 100 percent green energy goal. Both companies have been working towards relying exclusively on green energy for years, part of a larger push by tech companies to become more eco-conscience.
Each announcement came with a huge caveat — green energy goals were met through purchasing credits.
Apple and Google are hooked up to the grid like all other multinational companies, meaning there’s no way for them to guarantee the electricity they receive was generated by wind turbines or solar panels. So, yes, both companies still rely on fossil fuels to keep their servers humming.
Renewable Energy Credits, or RECs, are used by companies to keep track of their green energy purchases. Companies can claim to “offset” their use of fossil fuels by funding additions of green energy to the grid.
With the world still getting most electricity from fossil fuels, it’s impossible for Apple and Google to not use coal, oil, and gas while connected to the grid.
Google, for starters, said it had “matched” its actual energy usage with green energy purchases, pretty much all from solar and wind farms. Google’s Urs Hölzle admitted in a blog post, “[I]t’s not yet possible to ‘power’ a company of our scale by 100 percent renewable energy.”
Hölzle wrote:
It’s true that for every kilowatt-hour of energy we consume, we add a matching kilowatt-hour of renewable energy to a power grid somewhere. But that renewable energy may be produced in a different place, or at a different time, from where we’re running our data centers and offices. What’s important to us is that we are adding new clean energy sources to the electrical system and that we’re buying that renewable energy in the same amount as what we’re consuming, globally and on an annual basis.
Apple also met its 100 percent green energy goal through purchasing RECs, but Fast Company reported the iPhone maker “has been very consistent about keeping its RECs closely associated with actual energy.” Though that’s not possible everywhere in the world.
To its credit, Apple does try its best to purchase RECs from facilities it helped build, usually near company facilities. “For the last couple of years we’ve been close to 100 percent,” said former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Apple’s environment czar.
“It’s just four percent more, but it’s four percent done the right way,” Jackson told Fast Company. “So this announcement feels like a classic Apple product release. Like our products, we sweat the details, we have pretty strict standards, and we prefer to wait and meet our standards than to rush and make a claim.”
There’s another caveat with Apple’s announcement.
Apple relies on suppliers and contractors for the really energy-intensive processes that go into its phones, tablets, and computers. Apple’s suppliers aren’t covered by its 100 percent green energy goal.
Apple got 23 of its suppliers to sign their own 100 percent green energy pledges, but the company’s biggest supplier, Foxconn, has not signed such a pledge.
Read more at Daily Caller
REC = Roman Catholic Indulgence
And Faceplant has met 100% of it’s greed goal by selling out it’s customers . Such a noble enterprise .
Does anyone believe anything the modern corporate crooks say ?
It is meaningless BS as CO2 does NOT cause global warming.
Therefore, Apple and Google are adding to the cost of goods through their purchase of RECs.
“[I]t’s not yet possible to ‘power’ a company of our scale by 100 percent renewable energy.”
NOR IS IT POSSIBLE to ‘power’ a tent by 100 percent renewable energy because “renewable energy” is NEVER EVER 100% available. Not even close.
RECs – A Ponzi Scheme variant?
“Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs)” “Green tags” “Renewable Energy Credits” “Renewable Electricity Certificates”, “Tradable Renewable Certificates” are NON-TANGABLE ENERGY COMMODITIES
(RECs) represent proof that (at one time) 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource (renewable electricity) and was FED into the shared system of power lines which transport energy.
Purchasing RECs a customer can claim emissions “reduction” even if they do not actually reduce their end-use at all – or even increase it.
Proponents counter that more REC purchases drive increased production of renewable power which can replace conventional production.???? HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE IF THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY UTILIZING THAT “RENEWABLE POWER”????
*****Note, that research shows that RECs purchased and retired voluntarily in the United States (i.e., not for compliance with a Renewable Portfolio Standard) DO NOT LEAD TO ANY significant additional renewable energy investment or generation.
I still recall that Greenpeacse boasted its ship Rainbow Warrior II had sails but just for show they never realy use them and they run on Fossil Fuels