Facebook has announced it will move away from coal and power its operations – including datacentres – with clean and renewable energy.
The move follows a two-year campaign by environmental group Greenpeace, which argued that the company's massive energy consumption was contributing significantly to climate change.
The agreement comes after Greenpeace united 700,000 supporters behind its Unfriend Facebook campaign to lobby the company to change its energy policies. "This move sets an example for the industry to follow," said Tzeporah Berman, co-director of Greenpeace's international climate and energy programme. "This shift to clean, safe energy choices will help fight global warming and ensure a stronger economy and healthier communities."
In April 2011, a Greenpeace report, How Dirty is your Data?, calculated that 53.2% of Facebook's electricity was generated by coal. Energy consumption by datacentres is growing rapidly and each of Facebook's US datacentres is estimated to consume the same electricity as 30,000 US homes.
Facebook said it wanted to develop its platform to work more closely with Greenpeace to "promote environmental awareness and action" after the two organisations published a joint statement on future collaboration.
Marcy Scott Lynn, of Facebook's sustainability programme, said it looked forward "to a day when our primary energy sources are clean and renewable, and we are working with Greenpeace and others to help bring that day closer. As an important step, our datacentre siting policy now states a preference for access to clean and renewable energy."
She added that Greenpeace had been "particularly effective" in using Facebook, saying: "We are excited to work with them to explore new ways in which people can use Facebook to engage and connect on the range of energy issues that matter most to them – from their own energy efficiency to access to cleaner sources of energy."
Facebook's commitment to renewable energy "raises the bar for other IT and cloud computing companies such as Apple, IBM, Microsoft, and Twitter", said Casey Harrell, senior IT analyst for Greenpeace International.
The environmental group has argued that IT companies, by increasing their electricity consumption while avoiding increasing demand for coal, could become a strong force in helping move countries to low-carbon economies.
In October, the company announced plans to build a "green" datacentre in Lulea in northern Sweden that would handle all data processing from Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Powered primarily from renewables, the planned facility will cover 30,000 square metres - about the size of 11 football pitches.
Comments
15 December 2011 2:24PM
You neglect to mention that FB is following Google's long-term policy of green energy (solar, wind, water). Google has been raising the bar in this area for years and FB is merely attempting to copy (as usual) what Google does.
15 December 2011 2:55PM
But what we all want to know is: how will this affect our privacy?
15 December 2011 2:56PM
If you want to save the planet the best option is to cancel your Facebook account. No account means no energy consumption.
15 December 2011 3:20PM
So are you saying that they shouldn't follow google with this approach?
What do you recommend they do?
15 December 2011 3:31PM
Well done Facebook. This needs to become the model for others to follow.
15 December 2011 3:35PM
Energy consumption is not the problem, it is energy generation from fossil fuels that is the problem. Were energy is generated from renewables, environmentalists would probably say you can waste as much energy as you like.
Identifying ways to reduce energy use is challenging but we're not asking people to stop their lives, only to find more efficient ways of doing things. For example, I used to have big thick towels to dry myself when having a shower, now I use a really small, thin towel. I get more in the washing machine and so the washing machine is used less. That is a saving. I encourage everyone to follow my lead and use small, thin towels!! :)
15 December 2011 3:56PM
The price of fashion
15 December 2011 4:00PM
Actually energy consumption [i]is[/i] the problem.
Environmentalists will not tell you to waste as much energy from renewables because even the wind farm has an effect on ecology, aesthetic beauty of the countryside etc. Well at least not this one.
So the move must be cleaner energy, and use less of it.
15 December 2011 4:01PM
Whoa, my html editing isn't what it used to be.
15 December 2011 4:23PM
Really, so when the renewable can't supply enough power there going to turn their datacentre off are they ? Or is it just another case of apply green wash and back-hand to a green NGO to ensure friendly coverage .
15 December 2011 4:33PM
WORDS ARE CHEAP.
I remember Richard Branson saying that for every one of HIS Planes that took off HE would PLANT A TREE !
No news of a Massive NEW Forrest anywhere that i've heard of.
I will not lower myself to go for all that Phoney stuff !
15 December 2011 4:45PM
Energy generation from fossil fuels is the problem, but as long as people still burn fossil fuels, energy consumption becomes a secondary problem. That is, saving energy will tend to reduce the amount of fossil fuels being burned, until renewables have closed the gap. Not even the most optimistic projections think that can happen before 2050.
If a person is heavily in debt, they can start working their way out of debt by making more money, or spending less money. As long as the debt continues to massively outweigh their income, they still benefit from spending less.
Fossil fuels still provide most of humanity's energy. In some sectors such as transport, the dependence on fossil fuels is overwhelming and will remain so for decades to come. It will be a long time before environmentalists (at least the kind who can do arithmetic) will say you can waste as much transport energy as you like.
Unfortunately, many environmentalists are as hooked on effortless motor travel as everyone else, which tends to make them hesitant to explain early and often why we need to unfriend it.
15 December 2011 4:54PM
Yes, fair point.. I've got a better one.
Use a condom.
15 December 2011 4:56PM
Mob rule rules.
Well done those Greenshirts.
15 December 2011 4:59PM
So they're building dedicated renewable generation capacity, are they? I doubt it - not with the amount of energy they need. They will get their electricity off the grid, just like anyone else, with the same generation mix as anyone else. Doubtless they will have signed up to some sort of tariff that notionally attributes their electricity use to renewables, but that is a convenient fiction.
15 December 2011 5:00PM
good news - I feel temporarily better
15 December 2011 5:31PM
Well done sub-editor, that was an excellent lesson in how to screw up a very simple sentence with the bare minimum of substiitutions. I hope your degree wasn't too expensive because you're not going to be able to pay for it any time soon with that sort of work.
15 December 2011 5:36PM
I see no signs of reducing energy use. A new school near my house floodlights the empty surroundings- my guess is 20Kw, for on average 12 hours a day= very roughly 60MW a year-for what? Not security, nobody watching! No cameras etc.. My employer leaves the lights on... Energy is far too cheap! These (cupid) stunts? convince no-one
15 December 2011 5:58PM
Regardless of why Facebook have taken this move is it a step in the right direction. Fair play to Greenpeace for their part in it.
15 December 2011 5:58PM
I see a lot more people driving 60mph on the motorway (presumably) to save fuel these days.
Or maybe it's just an ageing population...
15 December 2011 6:21PM
FB is merely attempting to copy (as usual) what Google does.
Thats a bit snide considering facebook isnt launching a search engine, whereas google is launching a social network site.
15 December 2011 8:06PM
..So Fb pays for green energy, gets a publicity boost, feels self righteuous. The World still generates just a much carbon based electricity. Someone else pays for the dirty stuff. Net gain for the Planet... zero!
15 December 2011 8:16PM
Good job. This proves that grassroots can work. We only need this on a mcuh more massive and bigger scale and we will solve climate change
15 December 2011 10:04PM
The renewable energy source that new data centers are being located to take advantage of is large scale hydro which may environmentalists despise.
Data centres use a ton of electricity and are fairly footloose, and so locate to parts of the world with large amounts of cheap hydroelectricity, like Oregon.
Building datacentres in the far North (like Lulea in northern Sweden) is a good idea. The average daytime maximum temperature in Lulea is only 5C. Low air temperatures reduce the cost and power consumption of air conditioning plant that data centres need to keep cool.
16 December 2011 7:59AM
Why do these blogs attract such a load of whiners. COME ON! Facebook is trying to phase out coal = good thing! They should be commended for taking such steps. Scientists like James Hansen have said there's no chance of mitigating dangerous climate change if we cling on to coal at all.
In our own lives we can try to do the same thing by changing our energy supplier to one that sources energy predominantly/entirely from renewable sources. Using these sources of energy creates demand and will promote their use in the future. Free market platitudes really. A change like that takes about half an hour and is the single most environmental step one individual can make for the least amount of effort.
It's all very well complaining about energy use, about how we should live in a yurt without heating but that ain't gonna happen!
Of course, if you're a Denialist, carry on with your head in the sand by all means!
16 December 2011 9:07AM
Greenpeace really has become a menace.
First they push the disaster that is biofuels and now they want to hamstring the civilised world by outlawing our main fuel for electricity.
Way to go.
Next time I am mugged by their chuggers I shall say I have used all my spare change on the increases in my electricty bills. That is if I can refrain from punching their smug faces.
16 December 2011 11:45AM
Hello Jack,
Greenpeace have been campaigning against biofuels for years. Check their website.
But I'm sure the rest of you post is entirely accurate.
How often have you been mugged by charity fundraisers?
16 December 2011 1:16PM
Oh dear Jack. Do you practise being wrong, or does this come naturally?
16 December 2011 9:03PM
Oh dear.
Is everyone's memory so short about Greenpeace?
Greenpeace have sent most of their biofuel love-ins to the memory hole however but this one still remains.
Doubtless not for long.
Bluecloud... So you are saying that Greenpeace are now campaigning AGAINST the biofuels they campaigned FOR for some years...or that they never campaigned for them? Please elaborate.
16 December 2011 9:06PM
I have been approached by Greenpeace chuggers three times on Tonbridge High Street.
Why do they all have rings in their noses?
16 December 2011 9:16PM
Oh look...via the Wayback archive I have managed to find the pages Greenpeace have disappeared about their love-in with biofuels.
16 December 2011 9:24PM
Bluecloud....
Please let me have your comments about the Greenpeace pages on the Wayback archive.
You can also take back the comment about being wrong.