Mark Zuckerberg has recently been facing surprise attacks from several directions, even beyond the upcoming Social Network movie.  Just when it seemed the ado over Facebook privacy was beginning to die down, another advocacy group has gotten riled up over certain business practices being utilized by the company.

This time, Greenpeace is criticizing the company’s decision to build a massive new data center at Prineville, Ore. The power supplier, PacifiCorp, according to GreenPeace, uses excessive coal and thus, a contributor to global warming. They are aiming for Zuckerberg and Facebook’s seemingly environmentally unfriendly decision, pointing out its flaws in order to set an example for the entire industry. Tech giant Google is already on the other side of this coin, receiving praise from Greenpeace for using renewable power resources.

Facebook’s Barry Schnitt, Director of policy communications, stands in defense saying the company’s decision was environmentally wise. Prineville’s naturally temperate, arid climate and the complex design will eliminate the use of a vast cooling system, a major energy drainer in data centers to prevent processors from overheating. This will compensate PacfiCorp’s higher percentage of coal combustion.

But to no avail, Greenpeace stays unsatisfied. The animated film “So Coal Network”  dedicated to stopping Facebook from proceeding threatens Zuckerberg of losing half a million friends on his social network if he ensues.  But who’s really doing the dirty work here?  Zuckerberg, or Greenpeace, which is piggybacking a major Hollywood production to get its own message across?

Facebook has pretty much always been under intense scrutiny from special interest groups, even overseas.  Long before the network gained 500 million users, Facebook was encouraged to promote certain teen behavior, discourage other types of teen behavior, and overall set a good example for its users.  So where does that leave Facebook now, and which causes should the social network actually promote?