Seems more strategic than humanitarian, though mainstream reporters rarely seem to see through it. That said, I like and admire a lot of what Googles does. And I think they have a lot of good intentions.
It's just that when you try to pass off your actions as humanitarian, when really that is not the whole story, it always comes back to bite you in the end (simply because any type of duplicity adds entropy into the system). Pulling out of China and missing those huge opportunities, financially and morally, is an example of something that might trip them up in the long run.
What gave you the impression that their investment in power was humanitarian? Where did Google claim that their decision in investing in green power was altruistic?
They are very upfront about this being an investment in R&D where the primary focus will be to be carbon neutral for their data-centers and offices, which might lead to other business opportunity.
Just because you have a wrong interpretation of actual events, doesn't make them wrong.
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.'
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.
> 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.
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.
There are two ways to look at this - the most up-voted comment, "Having ulterior motives doesn't necessarily make something wrong" and the most down-voted, "Seems more strategic than humanitarian."
i think you're right to raise the issue of transparency. see, for example, the article here on how snow falls can no longer be so easily mis-reported - information is becoming more freely available, and the costs of being contradictory are probably going to rise.
[seems we're back at the "voting stuff down i don't agree with" rather than "voting stuff down that's not good conversation". i think you made a good point, so i've voted you back up to unity.]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870485490457464...
Seems more strategic than humanitarian, though mainstream reporters rarely seem to see through it. That said, I like and admire a lot of what Googles does. And I think they have a lot of good intentions.
It's just that when you try to pass off your actions as humanitarian, when really that is not the whole story, it always comes back to bite you in the end (simply because any type of duplicity adds entropy into the system). Pulling out of China and missing those huge opportunities, financially and morally, is an example of something that might trip them up in the long run.