facebook and greenpeace, why can't they be friends? by Peter Judge

Views and Opinions on Green IT (Apr 11 2011)

1. 

   The war between Facebook and Greenpeace over green power in data centers took a couple of new twists in the past week, and leaves most of us rolling our eyes in disbelief, but watching with keen interest.

   Greenpeace has been campaigning for more than a year now for Facebook to power its data centers from renewable sources. In response Facebook said its new data center is one of the world’s most efficient, saving energy - albeit using “dirty” power. Greenpeace, meanwhile, has been shown to be using coal-fired power for its own servers.

   So, before last week, we knew that Greenpeace was being hypocritical, and Facebook was refusing to answer the question, talking about efficiency rather than carbon intensity.

   On this site, Doug Mohney calls Facebook’s campaign a “jihad” for its unreasoning character. It’s an interesting metaphor, given that jihad, and its Christian counterpart, the crusade, between them developed the concept of a “just war” -  in which some commandments can be broken for a higher cause.

   Just wars and “holy wars”, in whatever form, at some level involve killing people to save them. On a smaller scale, Greenpeace feels the big cause is enough to justify using dirty power for its own site - and using Facebook’s coal-powered site to power its anti-coal pages on Facebook itself.

   That’s the sort of argument Greenpeace spokespeople have used with me, when I’ve asked why Greenpeace won’t adopt its own anti-coal message. They have also said that Greenpeace’s use of coal-fired electricity doesn’t matter so much, because Greenpeace is smaller than Facebook - an argument which really doesn’t stand up.

   So in the last few days, it’s all escalated. Greenpeace took a TV ad in California, asking Facebook to use Earth Day (22 April) to set a timetable to eliminate coal.

   Greenpeace also had a meeting with Facebook last Tuesday, according to a Slate article. We don’t know what was discussed at that meeting, but it can’t have gone well, because the two organisations are as far apart as ever.

   Two days later, Facebook launched its own green data center initiative, the Open Compute project, which has “open sourced” the specifications of Facebook’s custom data center hardware for anyone to use.

   The announcement is interesting - Facebook has shaved six pounds of weight (and embedded energy) from each of its servers, and cut down on frills and unecessary components. There’s lots of interested debate on the Open Compute pages, and it could help increase data center efficiency.

   Greenpeace is not impressed,. Before the Facebook launch, it blogged sceptically about the announcement, and immediately afterwards repeated its demand for renewables, not just efficiency.

   The day after Facebook’s launch, Greenpeace started some action at Facebook’s Dublin headquarters, placing lumps of dirty coal, toy windmills, and explanatory beermats where they would be seen.

   So, why can’t the two companies be friends? Well, I think - consciously or not - Greenpeace does resent the popularity of Facebook, which occupies a lot of the free time that movements like Greenpeace wants from people.

   Greenpeace had more of a consensus of support in the 1970s and 1980s; it has moved into the social media world - and is apparently the most prolific non-profit on Facebook. It doesn’t like the success and triviality of Facebook, though it feels it can’t do without it. So it denigrates people’s content on Facebook as “gossip” in its patronising Unfriend Coal quiz … which it then puts up on Facebook along with all the other gossip..

   Of course, writing off Facebook as “gossip” doesn’t sound so convincing given its ongoing role in the spread of democracy in the Middle East.

   At the same time, Facebook can’t bear the thought that its users might have views on the company itself, and tries to keep itself outside that kind of discussion. Its Open Compute initiative does not mention the Greenpeace attack anywhere, and is clearly not to be seen as a “response”.

   Facebook absolutely does not want its users to have any say in what it does - its business model is about using their personal lives and information any way it can get away with, or get tacit agreement to, by promoting the idea of uncontrolled sharing.

   It’s a world that more “purist” activists stay clear of, despite its popular reach. The Free Software Foundation’s Richard Stallman, for instance, says: “When an organisation that mistreats people uses the network effect, everybody who uses it is a co-perpetrator.”

   If Facebook were to give Greenpeace a direct answer - that would suggest Facebook users have some control over it, which might be the thin end of a big wedge. 

   Facebook also can’t take the “greenwash” route like Google. getting green kudos by making high-profile investments in renewable energy, while still using coal power. At this stage, Facebook has a very high valuation, but not a huge amount of actual cash, since its business model is still developing.

   Given those constraints, open sourcing its hardware is a clever and cost-effective move for Facebook - even if it doesn’t get Greenpeace off its back.

   It may also have actual benefits across the industry if the ideas get picked up and applied elsewhere. 

   -->

   Bookmark or Share this article

Login to comment.