AAPL Stock: 117.81 ( -0.22 )

Printed from

Apple environmental chief expanding green power efforts

updated 12:59 am EDT, Thu July 31, 2014

Data centers, some stores already off the grid; suppliers next

In a new report for the UK newspaper The Guardian, Apple Senior VP of Environmental Initiatives Lisa Jackson has acknowledged that the company needs to do more to facilitate more use of renewable energy by its suppliers and partners as well as itself. The iPhone maker has had tremendous success in converting its data centers to renewable energy, and has implemented similar measures in 120 of its stores. The next target, the paper says, is its Arizona sapphire glass plant.

"We know that our customers expect us to do the right thing about these issues," said Jackson, noting that because it has already done a significant amount to utilize renewable resources better, the company's supply chain now makes up 70 percent of Apple's total carbon footprint. The new problem has become the focus for Jackson, starting with US manufacturing facilities more under Apple's direct control.

The company is said to be planning to convert the Arizona plant to use solar and geothermal power. "Apple would not directly comment on the Arizona factory, but the state's governor, Jan Brewer, has publicly praised the company's decision to relocate there and to use solar and geothermal in manufacturing," said the newspaper.

Jackson was again leading journalists on a rare tour of Apple's Maiden, North Carolina data center, which it uses for iCloud operations and as a model of what the company has accomplished so far. The data center uses about three times as much electricity as the town itself, enough to power roughly 14,000 homes on a yearly basis.

"If you are using your iPhone, iPad, Siri or downloading a song, you don't have to worry if you are contributing to the climate change problem in the world because Apple has already thought about that for you," Jackson said. "We've taken care of that. We're using clean energy." She added that on any given day, 100 percent of the power the data center needed is being provided through a combination of solar and biogas. Apple is currently building a third solar plant, roughly the same size as the first two, to keep it "off the grid" as much as possible, even in adverse weather.

That said, a facility such as a data center will always need the grid to be there as a fallback, noted a Duke Energy spokesperson. The energy company has courted data centers in North Carolina as a replacement for the drop in farming and textile manufacturing power needs, and sees the large energy requirements of data facilities as good for its existing grid infrastructure and, of course, profits. Working with Apple, Duke launched a program to encourage other major power users to leverage more renewable resource energy either through solar farms or credits, but none have signed up so far.

Renewable energy accounts for barely two percent of the power generated in North Carolina presently, though this is a doubling of the amount generated before Apple arrived on the scene. Jackson noted that the Maiden facility generates 160 million kilowatt hours currently. Though the long-term cost of renewable energy investments has dropped significantly enough to make it worthwhile, most companies are still unsure of the reliability and short-term cost of green power -- impressions that Apple's working example hopes to dispel.

Other tech companies are increasingly investing in renewable-resource energy as well. Google powers about a third of its data centers through green power, and Facebook's Iowa facility runs entirely off wind power, the company says. Microsoft has announced it will build a second wind farm in Illinois to help power its data centers. "There is an opportunity in getting ahead of the trend to move towards being self-sufficient on energy and in using clean energy," Jackson said. "It's something our customers value."

Consumer advocates claim that Duke is trying to have it both ways, by encouraging corporations that want to go green by offering cheap credits for renewable power, but actively discouraging homeowners from utilizing rooftop solar and other options. Apple itself still receives some criticism for still relying mostly on Chinese and Taiwanese suppliers that rely heavily on "dirty" energy such as coal and nuclear power.

Jackson, who has had a policy of confronting such issues head-on, said that Apple "is aware that almost 70 percent of our carbon footprint is in our supply chain. We are actively working on the facilities that we have here in the United States." In the video report, she also mentions that Apple believes "that part of our responsibility is to be responsible for our products -- and the material in our products, all the way through their life cycle."

"I don't want to make promises about how we're going to attack the supply chain [in terms of encouraging greener energy usage] ... and of course those are facilities we don't own, so we're going to have to work with our partners there to build capacity and figure out how to address it," Jackson said. However, it's evident that the current plan includes expanding initiatives on facilities Apple already owns or controls, such as the Arizona plant and its retail stores. The company's current headquarters was retrofitted for solar power, and the new forthcoming "spaceship" Campus 2 is being built with renewable energy as a core element of the design.

Jackson and Apple's commitment to the issues have won over previous critics, such as Greenpeace. The environmental group once protested over Apple's reliance on Duke Energy (which mostly offers nuclear and coal-based power), but has changed its tune as Apple's plan has unfolded. Greenpeace spokesperson David Pomerantz told the paper that Apple is "the gold standard in the state right now. There are a lot of data centers in North Carolina, and definitely none has moved as aggressively as Apple has to power with renewable energy."

by MacNN Staff



  1. Inkling

    Senior User

    Joined: 07-25-06

    Are Apple, Greenpeace and the others taking into account the real environmental impact of these "Green initiatives: the industrial byproducts of solar manufacturing in China, the huge swaths of what would otherwise be forest or grassland by solar farms, or the enormous impact of blocking or diverting normal winds patterns (not to mention the death of migratory birds). No, I don't think they do. It's just a fad, a silly self-righteous fad, a reason of affluent people to continue their expensive and wasteful lifestyles, with large homes, pricey cars, and far-flung vacations.

  1. hayesk

    Professional Poster

    Joined: 09-17-99

    Inkling, actually, yes they do. Are you taking into account the industrial byproducts of searching, drilling, extracting, refining of fossil fuels (not to mention the death of countless wildlife)? It's far worse than green initiatives.

    Just a reason for oil execs and their followers to continue their expensive and wasteful lifestyles, with large homes, pricey cars, and far-flung vacations.

  1. climacs

    Mac Enthusiast

    Joined: 09-06-01

    I will never understand the instinctive revulsion for green energy by the likes of Inkling. It's as if their manhood is threatened by not burning fossil fuels. It's also amusing to see how fossil fuel fans suddenly become environmentalists when their cause is to discredit green energy. Look, Inkling, there are always tradeoffs when it comes to energy. Yes, minerals must be mined in order to manufacture solar panels. Yes, solar power plants take up a certain amount of land (however you are full of sht in stating that forests are destroyed in order to build solar plants). Yes, some birds will die in the blades of wind turbines. Nuclear energy produces no carbon pollution but does use TREMENDOUS amounts of water and produces highly toxic radioactive waste for which we still have no permanent storage solution; also, Fukushima. Contrast these drawbacks of green energy to the very well known drawbacks of burning fossil fuels: carbon pollution which is dramatically altering the climate of our planet. The very high cost of military involvement in the Middle East in order to assure a reliable supply of petroleum to the world's economies. The funding of terrorism which is an inescapable by-product of purchasing petroleum from the Middle East nations. The environmental damage caused by oil spills. Your sht is WEAK.

  1. Jeff Simpson

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: 02-23-07

    Inkling, whine much? Yes this is all calculated. I've done my own calculations. I am a retired teacher. I deal in facts rather than self-righteous fact-lite pontificating. I am replying from a modest house powered 85% by solar. My PV system pays me an 18.2% ROI (return on investment). Not wasteful at all.

    In Apple's case, if you bothered to look, this panels STILL are grasslands, but you seem to be blinded by your own ill-informed opinion rather than looking at what really is.

    Want to walk your talk? Move next to a coal plant. Breathe the exhaust. Move to a mining area. Don't want to do either of those? Then shut up.

    It would be nice if you had an inking of the facts before posting.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.


Network Headlines

Follow us on Facebook


Most Popular


Recent Reviews

Ultimate Ears Megaboom Bluetooth Speaker

Ultimate Ears (now owned by Logitech) has found great success in the marketplace with its "Boom" series of Bluetooth speakers, a mod ...

Kinivo URBN Premium Bluetooth Headphones

We love music, and we're willing to bet that you do, too. If you're like us, you probably spend a good portion of your time wearing ...

Jamstik+ MIDI Controller

For a long time the MIDI world has been dominated by keyboard-inspired controllers. Times are changing however, and we are slowly star ...


Most Commented