With the news that Facebook has recently moved its data processing center to an Oregon office that will receive its energy primarily via coal has come great public outrage (most notably from Greenpeace).
Facebook responded by saying their new facility, which is due to open in 2011, will still be highly energy efficient.
No good, says Daniel Kessler of The Huffington Post, who explains that coal is the biggest polluter of CO2 into the atmosphere, and that many other tech companies have data processing centers that are fueled by alternative energy.
Firstly, Facebook is moving to arguably one of the "greenest" states in the country. Oregon's largest city, Portland, has long been a leader in the use of alternative energy and energy reduction through means such as public transportation. With so many options available in a state where green is practically the norm, how can a primarily coal powered data processing center be the only viable option?
Secondly, Facebook is an essentially paperless operation that prides itself in connecting youth. How can operating off of coal promote a positive image for the future. Facebook is one of the most useful and widely utilized websites in the world, and it has the chance to do all that without leaving a formidable carbon footprint.
What do you guys think? Is everyone, myself included, being to harsh on Facebook? Is it not as bad as it really sounds? Or, do we need to make sure we get on Facebook's case for this? Share your thoughts below.