4 ms·

That interview isn't bad. But take the first sentence of this article: 'Google Inc (GOOG.O) has asked the main U.S. energy regulator for authority to trade ele

by tmsh 17y ago

That interview isn't bad. But take the first sentence of this article: 'Google Inc (GOOG.O) has asked the main U.S. energy regulator for authority to trade electricity in the wholesale market, which will make it easier for the Internet search giant to obtain renewable energy to power its huge data centers as part of its green initiative.' http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN086928720100108?type=marketsNews http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN086928720100108?type=mar... Most other articles in Google News under the heading for 'google power' begin similarly. http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&cf=all&ncl=dj_LvJVwkKMUUtMPn9DnY73Ik_R2M http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&cf=all&... A more factual, 'actual events'-oriented article might begin: 'Google Inc (GOOG.O) has asked the main U.S. energy regulator for authority to trade electricity in the wholesale market, which will make it easier for the Internet search giant to obtain cheap energy.' I.e., real reporting shouldn't be about what Google 'plans' to do, or how good their intentions are. Real reporting is -- what have they done? What they've done is apply for status as a wholesale trader of energy so that they can get energy more cheaply. Maybe they have good intentions with green energy, maybe they have good intentions in China. But it's easy to confuse their intentions and miss what actually has been done. Though on the other hand, perhaps you're correct. Perhaps Google makes no claims to be 'humanitarian' or 'altruistic' etc. But by trying to pass the thing off as 'green' and 'carbon-neutral', it's easy to give them a free pass, i.e., some sort of unique status that will allow them to get energy more cheaply than everyone else.

pavs 17y ago
> But by trying to pass the thing off as 'green' and 'carbon-neutral', it's easy to give them a free pass, Their approach _is_ green renewal energy and their goal _is_ to go carbon-neutral; they are not trying to "pass" it as such or being pretentious about it. This _is_ how they are approaching it for real. Please read the interview link I provided. There is nothing altruistic and humanitarian or pretention about their intention; its just good business. Good PR is icing on the cake.
- tmsh 17y ago
  Ah, I now think you are generally right. It is good to keep a check on becoming too enamored with Google's plans though. I mention this because I actually do care a lot about Google's role in the next decade, etc. Like anyone who is ambitious, they are arguably sometimes a little too precocious for their own good. And sometimes they make mistakes, but sometimes they get away with things because we want to believe they are always doing the right thing. But that can encourage bad, unsustainable behavior. Speaking about things VERY GENERALLY, but I'd just as soon they avoid that. I'm thinking even as far back as Google's somewhat novel IPO. Or their Google Books situation. There's this idea that gets promulgated during these events that somehow they're doing things completely differently than a normal corporation. That there is nothing particularly 'corporate' in the traditional sense about what they're doing. I don't know. It just has never really sounded completely clear to me. But maybe that's just me.

by tmsh 17y ago

pavs 17y ago

> But by trying to pass the thing off as 'green' and 'carbon-neutral', it's easy to give them a free pass, Their approach _is_ green renewal energy and their goal _is_ to go carbon-neutral; they are not trying to "pass" it as such or being pretentious about it. This _is_ how they are approaching it for real. Please read the interview link I provided. There is nothing altruistic and humanitarian or pretention about their intention; its just good business. Good PR is icing on the cake.

tmsh 17y ago
Ah, I now think you are generally right. It is good to keep a check on becoming too enamored with Google's plans though. I mention this because I actually do care a lot about Google's role in the next decade, etc. Like anyone who is ambitious, they are arguably sometimes a little too precocious for their own good. And sometimes they make mistakes, but sometimes they get away with things because we want to believe they are always doing the right thing. But that can encourage bad, unsustainable behavior. Speaking about things VERY GENERALLY, but I'd just as soon they avoid that. I'm thinking even as far back as Google's somewhat novel IPO. Or their Google Books situation. There's this idea that gets promulgated during these events that somehow they're doing things completely differently than a normal corporation. That there is nothing particularly 'corporate' in the traditional sense about what they're doing. I don't know. It just has never really sounded completely clear to me. But maybe that's just me.