Round 2 goes to Facebook.

Round 2 of a fight between Greenpeace and Facebook. The skirmish which started with Greenpeace and others calling out Facebook for not using renewable energy for its new "green" data center. Yet the fact seems that Greenpeace isn't as green as they preach to be.

And that's Facebook's stance as well: "Facebook's commitment is, regardless of generation source, to use electricity as wisely and as efficiently as possible," a company spokesman told Miller.

Pot, meet kettle...

Anyways, Greenpeace have been hypocrites for a long time...hell, they still have a small fleet of large diesel-powered ships, IIRC. Not to mention that they swerve into "WTF?!?" territory on a regular basis when someone does something they don't like...

Renewable energy. And what might that be. Most renewable energy is actually worse for the environment with current technology. Well lets look at the more common ones...

Wind Power - Well these require fiberglass, aluminum, resins, a lot of copper and rare Earth magnets. Well the metals for the rare earth magnets are obtained through strip mining and toxic purification methods... mostly done in China. The resins are typically iso-cyanides and fiberglass is considered a class one carcinogen similar to espestose. They are also horrible inefficient and require lots of maintenance. Also only certain geographical locations can make use of them.

Solar Power - Well these are horribly expensive and inefficient and also require very toxic manufacturing processes. They also do not last forever and are typically replaced about they time they actually pay for themselves. You are also restricted to certain location for more enough sunlight.

Hydrogen Fuel Cells (or most fuel cells) - These are actually not that efficient. The fuel is usually either made from fossil fuels or requires lots of energy to make... again usually made from fossil fuels. They also tend to have very high operating temperatures, making them either impracticle or dangerous.

Hydro Electric - Well this is fine and dandy, but there are only a certain number of rivers that a hydro electric dam can be built. You are forever changing the ecology of that river and the flood plains and you haver the potential of great disaster.

Of all power sources that are the most environmentally friendly... in nuclear power. It produces the lest amount of environmental impact and with current technology is safer and massively more efficient. The problem is the tree huggers also do not want nuclear power. Even though there are trace amounts of radioactive material in almost anything you burn and the typical coal plant releases more radioactive material into the atmosphere in a month than the 3 Mile Island incident. It is also very cost effective.