“Greenpeace International placed Apple Inc. last in its rankings of major electronics makers for their environmental friendliness, while Chinese manufacturer Lenovo Group Ltd. jumped to the top of the list,” Toby Sterling reports for The Associated Press.
“An Apple spokeswoman said the company rejects Greenpeace’s ranking system and that its products are among the ‘greenest’ on the market, pointing to more technical ratings used by the Green Electronics Council,” Sterling reports. “‘We disagree with Greenpeace’s rating and the criteria they chose,’ Apple spokeswoman Sheryl Seitz said, reading a prepared statement. ‘Apple has a strong environmental track record and has led the industry in restricting and banning toxic substances such as mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium, as well as many BFRs (brominated flame retardants).'”
Sterling reports, “According to standards developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., Apple products are not especially toxic.”
“The Green Electronics Council, funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, runs a web site that allows buyers to judge products on a score comprised of 23 different categories established by the IEE, including the materials used, energy conservation and packaging. Apple scored generally better than Lenovo and Dell,” Sterling reports.
“All of the computer companies in Greenpeace’s study had failed to eliminate BPRs and toxic vinyl plastics, though some of the phone makers did,” Sterling reports. “In addition, Greenpeace’s study didn’t take into account that in terms of quantity, Apple produces less toxic waste than larger competitors.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: We’re all for a cleaner environment, but Apple ought to charge Greenpeace a PR fee. Mostly, Apple is guilty of being a very a popular brand name which these militant “environmentalists” use to generate free publicity.
Apple doesn’t sell dirty CRT monitors, like certain cheapo Windows-centric PC box assemblers. Apple uses rechargeable batteries in iPods, instead of having tens of millions of users constantly tossing AA batteries into landfills. Apple even offers purchasers of Apple Macs and Apple monitors free recycling of their old computer and monitor — regardless of manufacturer. The list goes on.
Information on Apple’s recycling programs and industry-leading environmental policies is available online at http://www.apple.com/environment
Related articles:
EPA does not support Greenpeace’s charges against Apple Computer – January 07, 2007
Apple places last in Greenpeace ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’ report – December 07, 2006
Mac Expo evicts Greenpeace campaigners – October 26, 2006
Is Greenpeace lying about Apple’s ‘toxic laptops?’ – September 25, 2006
What kind of green are ‘environmental extortionists’ really after? – September 06, 2006
Greenpeace ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’ report called ‘misleading and incompetent’ – September 02, 2006
Greenpeace criticizes Apple over toxic waste – August 29, 2006
Apple offers free computer take-back recycling program – April 21, 2006
Defiant Steve Jobs calls environmentalists’ claims ‘B.S.’ – April 22, 2005
Last in Greenpeace bend over-ness is more like it.
Greenpeace is a pile…
Well, I’ve lost all respect for Greenpeace. They should rename themselves Greenfraud. And, I’ve worked pro-bono for Conservation International, so, I can treehug with the best of them.
Obviously this jackass didn’t see this article from BusinessWeek:
Is Greenpeace Off the Mark on Apple?
Even the mainstream press knows Greenpeace is a bunch of glory seeking liars!
It is about time Apple cleaned its environmental record up – pretty embarrasing for Al Gore…
Ranked dead last by Greenpeace? I’ll take two!
I lost my respect for Greenpeace many years ago, when I realised that they preferred media-shout hysteria to cool and accurate presentation of the facts.
I can’t believe I used to pimp for these environmentalist strongarm scumbag whackos when I was younger.
Youth is truly wasted on the young.
Most other serious environmental organizations dislike Greenpeace intensly, because they’ve always gone in for cheap publicity tricks in order to boost their membership and donations.
This has been the case since the 1990’s, and, here in Germany, they’ve even been the subject of critical, investigative reporting – both on television and in the influential magazine ‘Der Spiegel’.
Al,
What’s going on here? Did you show Greenpeace your new movie?
Apple’s Board Member Al Gore + Al Gore’s Movie = Saving the Planet
What else does Greenpeace want! This just makes me want to take my old G4 tower and toss it into the local dump yard.
WMD
Used to support Greenpeace big time but over the last decade they have become far too silly. Like so many organizations who were once relevant, they’ve lost there focus and relvance. Look at the Sierra Club, primarily an organization comprised of D.I.N.K.s needing a tax write off. They’ve all jumped the shark or dolphin or tuna …
Hey Greenfleece, get out of the way and let businesses lead!
Communist, anti-capitalist, trust fund, dope head, tax-increasing, big government, teat-suckers.
Apple forever!
MDN, you forgot to mention the iPod Recycling Program.
Yes, it’s a way to force people to buy batteries through Apple, but it also forces the use to recycle.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
i saw an ad for greenpeace on the bbc, it was rather desaturated though.
After enquiring into the matter, their official response was that ‘we like things grey, with very little colour, as it matches the weather’.
Perhaps it would be wise for those of us that are on the left side of the fence, yet disagree with Greenpeace’s stance and tactics, to write letters calling for them to review their information on this.
This report brought to you by: Microsoft. Your Potential, our Hush Money.
Can I also point out that the amount of material that the ipod replaces in terms of cds, cassettes, having 3 big components of a stereo system full of exactly what GP is b****ing about, etc. Someone with an ipod and a couputer to store and present their media is using a tiny tiny fraction of what conventional media users use
Here’s Green Electronics Council “EPEAT” assessment system.
http://www.epeat.net/
Almost Apple products are rated very highly, and most are rated higher than all major PC makers.
Greenpeace is doing a reasonable job of getting “the word” out there. Unfortunately … well, they remind me of so many Mac Fanatics in their approach to the problem! Scream as loud as possible and incite controversy, maybe someone will listen. “My truth is the ONLY truth”, and all that. Except, it isn’t true. I’ve been a Mac Advocate for many years, but never a Mac Fanatic. Which may be why my calmer, saner messages are often read while those of the Fanatics are typically just dumped.
Ignore them, they won’t go away in either case. Apple will continue to improve … as long as Gore is on the Board.
DLMeyer – the Voice of G.L.Horton’s Stage Page
MW: society … how apt
And I rank Greenpeace dead last in mental capacity. In other words…who gives a sh*t what these idiots think.
As for Al Gore, his own personal environmental record is awful, so Apple should be the last thing that hypocrite needs to worry about….
Yarin,
You can’t be serious. Let businesses lead? Go watch the doc “Who Killed the Electric Car?” and then shoot yourself in the head. Go watch documentaries on the state meat industry. Makes you seriously want to vegan.
Sure Greenpeace has lost a lot of credibility with their tactics, but their message still needs to heard until we have a serious change in paradigm in North America, which will need the help of busineess, all environmental groups, religions, etc.
Greenpeace Report Misleading and Incompetent
Link:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/29C5599A-FCD8-4E30-9AD5-5497999ABA1B.html
Key Problems With the Greenpeace Report
Link:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/ABC6DFDA-9DE9-4EA8-A269-65EAAB628676.html
The above pretty much sums it up.
I refuse to believe that a forward thinking company like Apple is THAT environmentally unfriendly. Don’t the two kind of go together?
DLMeyer:
“Unfortunately … well, they remind me of so many Mac Fanatics in their approach to the problem!”
Never offer a strongly-worded generalization like that without expecting us to call bullshit unless you include references to these hordes of outspoken Mac Fanatics.
Unsuprising. Greenpeace is dead last in integrity and honesty.
Greenpeace should go after M$ with their new Vista software-
– Forced upgrade of hardware – think of all the forced waste
– Vista runs all the time – added global warming and electricity waste
Guess they haven’t looked at that.
Greenpeace Lies About Apple
link:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/E83D58B3-10E0-4A9C-8847-BCE665EE235C.html
One more link for anyone interested in this ongoing Greenpeace & Apple discussion.
Greenpeace ranks last in objectivity in my book.
They have always taken ignorant pot-shots at popular products. This is just their way to get free publicity.
It is a shame that they use an organization with such a noble mission statement just to coherce funds from corporate America.
Please note….they do not fund or educate engineers to be more environmental friendly they just point, blame, and coherce. I have yet to see the campus of the Greenpeace Institute for Alternative Technologies and Environmental Friendly Manufacturing Methods.
Just my $0.02
Greenpeace is not green itself… it is more like a communist community. So who cares what they say.
The original Greenpeace has long been annulled.
Greenpeace can eat Crow.
Don’t forget the nails you hammered into them before you hug a tree.
^ Wil — Let me guess: You’re a uber-lib who thinks businesses are all “EVIL”, right?
You really need to open your eyes. Just take a look at all of the links provided ON THIS FORUM ALONE about Greenpeace’s terrible record. What say you?
And don’t believe everything you see or hear in your “doc’s” either. The “electric car” wasn’t ready for prime time. And anyway, how do you think all of those “electric cars” were going to be charged? With pixie dust? Try “with electricity”, which comes from multiple sources, both quasi non-polluting (nuclear) and polluting (coal fired plants), among others.
And I suppose that the average consumer would be expected to bite the bullet when it came time for your vaunted “electric car” to have its battery replaced after just one-third to one-half the car’s lifespan, eh? You know, a cost of several thousand dollars for one of them there fancy batteries, pal. Until it’s ready for the real world, STICK your electric car.
Oh, and I don’t know WHAT the “state meat industry” is. At least, my socialist state of Massachusetts doesn’t run its own meat industry.
Business drives America, Wil. Study basic Economics 101. And SMALL BUSINESS is the BACKBONE of the country.
And anyway, if you’re so “anti-business”, why the hell are you on an Apple blog? Because Apple is . . . GASP! . . . a BUSINESS!!!!!
I don’t remember where, but in the last couple of months Greenpeace admitted that Apple wasn’t that bad. BUT not that bad wasn’t good enough for them. They admitted targeting Apple and holding them to a much higher standard than the average company cause they ‘thought’ Apple should lead the way.
Does anyone else remember that? Did anyone else see it?
Surely these must have an effect:
• iMacs come only in one box rather than 2 for most PCs (less energy in creation and landfill)
• iPods reduce manufacturing of CDs (less landfill)
• iPods encourage listening through earphones (less noise pollution vs ghetto blasters)
• AppleTV reduces manufacturing of DVDs and tapes (less landfill)
• Macs are useful for longer (less landfill)
typical liberal post by Wil above:
“…Go watch the doc “Who Killed the Electric Car?” and then shoot yourself in the head.”
If you don’t agree with liberals you don’t deserve to live. Where’s the love? What if you’re a conservative whale?
I’ve never held Greenpeace in any regard due to their junk-science scaremongering. There’s a huge difference between conservation/stewardship and the environmentalist/zooalater/man-is-a-cancer crowd. I’m firmly on the side of the former and thus, have no use for Greenpeace and their unhelpful antics. Heck, even U2 has had it with Greenpeace.
MDN word: “Change”. “I’ll never change the world, but I can change the world in me when I rejoice” — U2
This site is so funny. “I hate Greenpeace, I hate Bill Gates, I hate the BBC, I hate Europe, I hate Zune, I hate women, I hate Vista, I hate Steve Balmer…but don’t you just adore my Mac, dude?”
Greenpeace is a movement to raise funds. They do big publicity stunts as fundraisers. Some huge percentage of funds raised go to the organization, or for marketing expenses – only a fraction is used to “do good.”
The Sea Shepherds was created by some of the original, disillusioned greenpeace founders which puts ALL of its efforts into “doing good.”
I hate Grandtheft
DIAF, Greenpiss!
I am in science and I have been involved with transgenic plants (for development in a non-profit way to help third world countries). This was where I got my exposure to Greenpeace. My god…and people like DLMeyer (see post above) call us Mac fanatics. You do not know what a fanatic is until you have dealt with these people. They have an opinion and they wage campaigns of misinformation to support it KNOWING that it is not based in fact.
They need money to travel the world and pay for their cell phones. They do not represent the public nor the puvblic interest. Most environmental scientists have little or no respect for them.
Hopefully you greenpeace supporters here will not find my comment too fanatical!!!!!
It irks me, that Greenpeace use to have a reputation that I believed in. I use to think that this was an honorable organization, even if I didn’t always agree; but this pissing contest with Apple and just blatant efforts to use Apple’s name to generate publicity makes me recognize the current leadership as morally corrupt.
It’s just damn sad, disappointing, and maddening. When they move so far away from scientific evidence to aggressive media manipulation with pseudo surveys; really they just need to pack up and go home.
“Apple’s Board Member Al Gore + Al Gore’s Movie = Saving the Planet”
Ah yes, typical liberalism. As long as you make a loud statement, it doesn’t matter what you actually do.
Could somebody please explain how making a movie (which is full of ‘facts’ that major scientists disagree with) saves the planet? Perhaps if the planet is suffering from insomnia….
MDN word: Nuclear, as in nuclear power does far more than Al Gores movie to keep the Earth clean
I’m not sure if Greenpeace was *ever* relevant but they sure aren’t any more. Their cofounder Patrick Moore has said of them: “”a band of scientific illiterates who use Gestapo tactics” (http://www.activistcash.com/news_detail.cfm?hid=1468). This bunch of crackpots has made themselves into the laughingstock of thinking people everywhere regardless of personal views on ecology.
Another BusinessWeek article, new today, about Greenpeace being off the mark on Apple:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2007/04/there_goes_gree.html
MW = old, as in this Greenpeace BS is getting old
I really liked them when they protected baby seals and whales… they should go back to that.
YOU CAN FERTILIZE YOUR LAWN WITH USED MOTOR OIL
Quad Core,
Check your nuclear power figures. Remember, nuclear reactors are built with materials made with electricity from coal-burning plants. Then there’s the question of depleted uranium storage. Do I need to mention Three Mile Island?
To quote Kraftwerk: Chernobyl. Harrisburg. Sellafield. Hiroshima.
“…Go watch the doc “Who Killed the Electric Car?” and then shoot yourself in the head.”
And electric cars are recharged how? Fossil power plants are about 35% efficient at changing fossil fuel energy into electric energy. Their waste streams contain tons of NOx, CO, CO2, and sulfur as measured hourly. So called “renewable” sources for electric energy like wind and solar CANNOT ever account for more than a small percentage of our demand even with the best technology.
China? China!!!??? Where power plant, automobile, and factory stack emissions are UNREGULATED? Where human workers are treated no better than the factory farmed chickens and veal that the Vegans and Greenpeacers are so vocal about? Where there is no such thing as a water treatment plant? China, land of Lenovo? Give me a break!
Greenpeace had zero credibility to begin with. I’m not sure how you express that level now.
Greenpeace also rank Apple dead last in it’s list of companies who contribute to Greenpeace’s coffers.
mudflapper:
“Check your nuclear power figures. Remember, nuclear reactors are built with materials made with electricity from coal-burning plants.”
Um, coal and wind and solar and other nuclear plants. So what? In it’s 30 year lifespan Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant will have provided electricity to millions of people without spewing billions of tons of pollutants into the air and without burning 26,280,000 tons of coal. DCPP has no smoke stacks.
“Then there’s the question of depleted uranium storage.” Yes, what to do with the approximately 142 cubic yards of contaminated waste over DCPP’s 30 year lifespan? That’s approximately enough contaminated waste to fill an average two car garage.
“Do I need to mention Three Mile Island?”
As a matter of fact I wish you would. TMI is the ONLY major nuclear mishap in the US in the 50 years we’ve been using nuclear power. TMI resulted in no public exposure to radiation, no damage to nearby public or private property, and no appreciable release of any contaminants, unlike Chernobyl, which happened under a totalitarian communist government, like China.
I’ve never once seen an Apple computer sitting in the trash or on the street corner waiting to be discarded. Never. People just don’t throw Macs away.
How sad 🙁
“She said Apple failed to stop using several types of harmful chemicals in its manufacturing, and — unlike many other companies — has not set any timetable for phasing them out”
If other companies have set a timetable for phasing them out there’s no reason Apple couldn’t either. Somebody had to be last, it just happened to be Apple.
Greenpeace certainly isn’t anti-Apple, because Lenovo was towards the bottom of the last list and is now #1. Why shouldn’t Apple be making the same changes.
It’s not about concepts like iPods or LCD monitors, because EVERY OTHER MONITOR AND DAP maker is helping in that way too.
Maybe you should actually use your heads and read their criteria. My guess is none of you have. There mock Apple website is actually very good.
MDN: wish- I wish people, besides Greenpeace, would actually raise these concerns to Apple
As a vegetarian, and a green – greenpeace and PETA are both attention and money making propaganda whores.
I even stopped calling myself Vegan and use Strict Vegetarian because I dislike the connections to the radical whoremongers that the groups above have become…
Like all the rich “posers” they use recycled paper for toilet paper and hemp towels and think that they are saving the environment all the while driving their new hummer to $tarbucks from their all electric 2200 sq ft house lit up with incandescent bulbs… Cause the led and low draw fluorescent lights make their “bunny safe” makeup look “just too ghastly” against thier hand dyed south american native tribe hemp pull over top.
Go rot you posers!
Ok, it’s obvious that none of you have actually bothered to read the Greenpeace report. If you want to rant and rave like lunatics about something, at least have the decency to read it first.
The Greenpeace report uses criteria that Greenpeace has chosen that go BEYOND the requirements of the law.
Based on this set of criteria, Apple gets the lowest score because:
– Apple fails to embrace the precautionary principle, and its publications reflect a poor definition of the precautionary principle.
– Apple does not make public its full list of regulated substances. Other companies, such as Dell and Lenovo, do publish it.
– Apple provides no timelines for eliminating toxic polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Other companies have made public commitments with dates.
– Apple makes no commitment to phasing out all uses of brominated flame retardants (BFRs). Other companies have so committed.
– Apple performs poorly on product take back and recycling. For example, Apple does not take back ALL of its own products in ALL of the countries in which it does business. Other companies, notably Dell, already do this on a worldwide basis.
+ In its favor, Apple does report on the amounts of its electronic waste recycled.
In particular, the Greenpeace report says that Apple has made ZERO progress on the above issues since August 2006. That’s zilch, nada, nothing.
Apple has not disputed the factual accuracy of any of the above points.
Companies that care to do so can easily take steps to increase their rankings, e.g. publish a full list of regulated chemicals, commit to public timelines for eliminating PVCs and BFRs, and initiate recycling programs for all their products on a worldwide basis.
None of these steps is difficult or impossible to achieve. Proof positive is that the likes of Dell, Lenovo, and Nokia are doing these steps already.
The point is: Why can’t Apple take these steps, when its competitors have?
AlanAudio wrote: “Greenpeace also rank Apple dead last in it’s list of companies who contribute to Greenpeace’s coffers.”
Wrong. Not just a little bit wrong. But absolutely flat out, 100% wrong.
Greenpeace doesn’t accept corporate donations or government grants. AT ALL.
It is funded entirely by individual donations.
And Greenpeace screens individual donations to ensure they are not proxies for corporations.
@Qka; Thanks for the link, very insightful.
@AlanAudio; And there you go. Behind every rhyme there’s a reason.
Zeke,
Yes, that’s only enough waste to fill a 2-card garage. But that 2-car garage better be made to last because that deadly nuclear waste will sit inside it for millions of years.
I would love to endorse nuclear power. Really. But, at least at this point in the development of the human race, nuclear power is bigger than us. We just can’t contain it with our current technology. We may be safe for the time being, but what about our grandkids and their children, etc?
Every American home should have panels on its roof and a windmill in its backyard. We need to tax the sh!t out of Hummers and redneck trucks that get 10mpg.
And our president should probably learn how to pronounce NUCLEAR.
Macs (and iPod) also get “recycled” in the best possible way. When the first owner is done with it, it gets re-sold to live another day. You should see the price of used iPods on eBay, even when they are broken. I’m sure some Macs end up in the landfill, but a lot less by percentage than your typical PC. (Let’s now count the Lisa landfill project.)
2-card garage? Argh. Sorry about that typo in my last post.
Artist, you have a point there. I can’t remember the last time I saw a Mac in the garbage. At least since the beige G3 days.
Greenpeace is right. Period. Get over it.
I just tried to keep a striaght face while saying those words…I FAILED!
They are the kind of wacko ‘activists’ that give people truly concerned about the environment a bad name. They are tree huggers- crazy tree huggers.
It’s quite telling that not one post critical of Greenpeace has made any substantive argument on the merits of the issues that Greenpeace has raised.
Instead, all we get are insults, rantings, and ad hominem attacks.
Not one of you seem to understand that Greenpeace is evaluating companies by criteria that are ABOVE AND BEYOND the legal requirements.
Not one of you seem to understand that Apple has made ZERO PROGRESS on the issues identified by Greenpeace.
Not one of you seem to understand that Apple has not disputed the factual accuracy of Greenpeace’s points.
So are all of you just Apple fanboys, or is there a grownup among you?
If so, what is your response to Greenpeace’s central point: If Dell, Nokia, Lenovo et al can make substantive changes, why can’t Apple?
Yaris, I hate to say it but…you ignorant slut.
Did you not read my post?. Like I wrote above, Greenpeace tactics have undermined their message. But the message is good and it is the work of enviromental groups like WWF, Sierra Club, and yes, even Greenpeace before they went kooky, that FORCED business to make changes. The changes they made was through education and lobbying both business and government. Believe me, I know alot about GP since they started my city, Vancouver.
As for being lib, there is no way in hell I would ever vote Left, not including the fact they (the NDP) torpedoed our province economy throughout the 80’s and 90’s. And thanks for the mini-lecture about small business driving the economy, but I knew all that since I work for a local Mac reseller. But in case you haven’t figured out yet, small business is greatly influenced by the decisions of Big Business (looked at the gas prices lately, Sparky?)
If you think big business is going to spend money and time educating the public about how shoddy their practices are, how they could be improved, and how they are going to regulate themselves you’re a bigger fool than I originally thought (check out the recent Rolling Stone issue on the pork industry). But hey maybe GP’s extreme tactics are need for people like you, who have their late capitalists’ heads so far up their asses, they can’t see the harm of capitalism does without some form of regulation from the government.
magic word = “high”, as in, you must have been high when you read my original post.
Greenpeas has lost my support! ; )
They act like Apple does nothing. There are so many blatant horrible polluting companies that DO NOTHING for real. I feel like GP must have hidden ulterior motives. Is Gates funding them?
This:
http://www.apple.com/environment/
is more than most companies do you F-TARDS!
RTFA – you’re supporting Greenpeace and telling us to behave like grown ups ? Ever looked at the sorts of publicity stunts they arrange ?
Yeah – really grown up !
Okay, who here has actually read the thing besides RTFA?
AND….the Sierra Club doesn’t agree with Greenpeas:
QUOTE: California—April 21, 2006
“Earlier this week, Apple has been named a “Forward Green Leader,” one of the top ten environmentally progressive companies recognized by the Sierra Club and its investment advisor, Forward Management.”
So who’s right?
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/apr/21takeback.html
The high profile consumer organizations always get infiltrated and eventually overcome by the business lobbies. Always consult many sources and make your own mind up, especially pay attention to ordinary people who make the effort to get the word out even when it costs them time and money rather than the corporate shills who benefit financially.
See this video about something rather more important,
The Future of Food:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=849146694200968214
Oh and the electric car, well there are cars that run on water, use your favorite search engine for something like water powered car. There are other ways to make electricity without fossils, nuclear etc, here’s another interesting video:
Phenomenon Archives: Heavy Watergate, The War Against Cold Fusion:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2229511748333360205
You shouldn’t automatically agree with these but you should be informed about alternatives.
We Mac users do use the alternative, because it’s better and cheaper, and we know that the mass populations have been fooled. We know business executives constantly rank Microsoft in the top ten which is most likely just down to their profit margins and how much money their executives have made. We know mediocrity of product and abandonment of consumer benefit is prevalent in computing, should it come as a surprise that it is also the case in other fields.
One more link for a site full of good info about stuff everyone should be concerned about:
http://www.newstarget.com/
Greenpeace: the Zune SHIT is more environmentally friendly than the metal and plastic iPods. Makes sense for this bunch of idiots.
AlanAudio:
I asked for a substantive answer on the specific points that Greenpeace is raising about Apple, especially compared with its competitors.
Do you have any real response? Or do you just reply with more attempts to smear the organization?
@RTFA
Instead of preaching to people, perhaps you should do a critical analysis of the “article’ itself as you seemed to have sopped it all up. If I recall, the brominated flame retardants (BFR) issue was dealt with awhile back and that it was shown that Apple uses little or none at all. Greenpeace was caught in a deliberate lie about it which killed their credibility.
Perhaps the extremely heavy bias here against Greenpeace should tell you something or perhaps you have your hands over your ears as well. I have found most Greenpeace supporter’s critical analysis skills leave something to be desired.
RTFA – “Or do you just reply with more attempts to smear the organization?”
That’s Greenpeace’s sole tactic when it comes to Apple. Inconvenient facts are disregarded. Why do you insist that Greenpeace should be treated differently to how they treat Apple ?
If the grievances were genuine ones, I would most certainly be having a go at Apple, but I really can’t see the problem and while I can see that Apple is a tempting high profile target, there are plenty of other companies that have a considerably worse record when judged on any meaningful criteria. If Greenpeace genuinely think that Apple are the worst of the worst then that speaks volumes about Greenpeace’s credibility.
You can make any case you want by being ultra selective with the facts you choose to consider. That’s all that Greenpeace are doing. They discredit themselves much more than they discredit Apple.
I do pay attention to environmental issues and used to actively support Greenpeace in the distant past, but they have changed into something else. That change happened long before they got Apple in their sights.
Buster,
I’m not preaching — I’m asking for substantive responses to the question raised by Greenpeace: Why shouldn’t Apple be accountable if it fails or refuses to take steps that their competitors are well doing?
Yours is the first response that even attempts to be substantive. Congratulations.
Ok, on to the substance: Greenpeace’s beef about Apple and BFR is not whether Apple uses BFRs, or uses a lot or uses a little.
Rather, the issue Greenpeace raises is that Apple refuses to publicly commit itself to a timeline for eliminating all BFRs from its products. Again, Apple’s competitors have already made such commitments, but Apple consistently has declined.
Summary: It’s one thing to assert that Apple uses little BFRs. It’s quite another to say that Apple refuses to take steps to eliminate them entirely, which its competitors are already doing. The former is not a defense against the latter.
AlanAudio:
I still don’t see any meaningful response to the specific points being raised.
Which is: Why should Apple not be held accountable if it consistently refuses to take environmental measures that its competitors are already doing?
I don’t know about you, but I think it’s a Good Thing ™ for corporations to publicly commit themselves to a timeline for eliminating PVCs and BFRs from their products.
Are you opposed to asking corporations to make such public commitments? If so, why?
http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/ – this just makes me mad because they stole the apple page… sort of.
RTFA
Greenpeace’s lab tests provided results entirely opposite to their “Greener Guide” rankings which they distributed earlier!
Their tests found 262 ppm of TBBPA in the internal fan assembly of the MacBook Pro i.e. one quarter of the amount legally allowed of the restricted flame retardants.
HP was non-compliant yet Apple was ‘shat’ upon as the worst offender.
Since it is now known that TBBPA doess not bioaccumulat, it is not considered a big deal.
As for Apple not saying it is trying to reduce…that is bullshit. They refused to be blackmailed into a timeline by such a lying farce of an environmental group. I am an environmentalist and I do NOT blame Apple for ignoring them. I would to..
OMFG…
How many times will GP get to recycle the same damned press release before someone realizes there’s no news here.
No anything, actually.
They are #2 on the “don’t click here” list, just behind Dvorak.
Oh, and I DID actually read GP’s last report. Apple didn’t say the things they wanted to hear. There was no difference in actual use of chemicals, just in promises.
That was so bogus, IMHO that I won’t bother to read again.
Apple is a company that speaks with actions, not words. That’s my kind of approach.
GP then uses these criteria and rankings to give the impression that Apple uses more toxics, etc. etc. Sure is effective for generating headlines.
We should call it “pulling a Dvorak”.
1) Number of foam cups thrown away by coffee-drinking IT guys who are reinstalling Windows in the middle of the night: 2,000,000
2) Number of computers with nonrecyclable plastic that are being thrown away because they won’t work with Vista: 10,000,000
3) Plus, Al Gore uses Keynote, so that should count for something.
Buster,
“Their tests found 262 ppm of TBBPA in the internal fan assembly of the MacBook Pro”
This is true. Greenpeace did indeed find 262 mg/kg of TBBPA in the MacBook Pro’s fan assembly.
Source: Table 4, Page 10, “Toxic Chemicals in Computers Exposed”, Greenpeace Research Laboratories, Technical Note 05/06 Report, September 2006. Available online at http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/toxic-chemicals-in-computers.pdf
(For those who don’t know, TBBPA is tetrabromobisphenol A, which is one of many brominated flame retardants, or BFRs.)
What you didn’t add was that the very same Greenpeace report shows that Apple had the highest level of TBBPA of *all* the five laptops tested. The HP laptop had 86.7 mg/kg of TBBPA. The Dell laptop had 7.8 mg/kg of TBBPA. The Sony laptop had ZERO (i.e. undetectable at a method detection limit of 0.5 mg/kg)!!!
In other words, the Apple laptop had 33 TIMES the amount of the Dell laptop. And the Sony laptop beat them all with none.
Is this not a cause for concern? Why shouldn’t Apple look at this result and say – whoa, we should re-tool our supply chain to start eliminating these BFRs?
“HP was non-compliant yet Apple was ‘shat’ upon as the worst offender.”
Uh, no. In regards to TBBPA, the HP laptop had LESS than the Apple laptop, and the Greenpeace report clearly reflects that. (See Table 4 on page 10 of the report mentioned above.)
Where HP did fall down was its laptop had the highest amount of lead (surface concentration of 4.5% to 13%, whereas all the other laptops had zero.) HP also had the highest amount of PBDEs (yet another class of brominated flame retardant). Unfortuantely for HP, it had claimed to have eliminated PBDEs years ago – and yet it had the highest amounts of all the five laptops.
Greenpeace’s report rightly criticized HP for the high concentrations of lead and PBDE in its laptops, and it rightly pointed out that Apple had the highest levels of TBBPA of all five laptops.
Greenpeace’s report equally criticized other companies when the data indicated it.
So where is the evidence that Apple was singled out for criticism or “shat upon”? I find no evidence of this when I read the 20 page report.
“As for Apple not saying it is trying to reduce…that is bullshit. They refused to be blackmailed into a timeline by such a lying farce of an environmental group. I am an environmentalist and I do NOT blame Apple for ignoring them. I would to..”
Really? That’s an incredible admission on your part. Please explain why Dell, Lenovo, Nokia, et al can commit to a timeline (2009), but Apple can’t or shouldn’t? That is preposterous.
Yet another Steve:
Actions speak louder than words, you say. True enough.
But words set the standards for accountability. The virtue of a public commitment is that if you say you’ll do XYZ by tomorrow, then you had better do XYZ by tomorrow.
Example: Remember Steve Jobs’ proclamation that the G5 processor would reach 3 GHz in a year? That was a public commitment. And IBM let Apple down. The opprobrium then rightly fell on IBM (and to a lesser extent on Apple) when they failed to make the grade.
What Greenpeace is asking Lenovo, HP, Acer, Sony, Nokia, Apple, and all the other electronics hardware manufacturers is to make public commitments to specific timelines for replacing hazardous chemicals from their products.
Dell, for example, has publicly committed to eliminating BFRs from its products by 2009. And it has published detailed modifications to its supply chain that it expects its supplies to adhere to. This is a good thing!
And you can bet your boots that if Dell doesn’t eliminate BFRs from its products by 2009, that Greenpeace and other organizations will let you know about it.
These kind of efforts can do wonders to motivate corporations to do the right thing.
And I would submit, that eliminating PVCs and BFRs from electronics product is, indeed, the right thing.
RTFA, thou art an idiot (sorry to point that out)
You are living in a fantasy world, a world where IF a company makes a “promise”, it should be rewarded more then another company that actually DOES something good.
Greenpeace is in it’s terrorist mode (as normal). As with all terrorist they should be handled in the one positive way–death A.S.A.P.
8, are you deliberately twisting my words?
I never once said that actual results are less important than public commitments.
If a company makes a public commitment and THEN FAILS TO TAKE ACTIONS TO KEEP IT, the problem is not the original commitment, but the failure to deliver on it.
So what part of public commitment, public actions, and public accountability do you have a hard time understanding?
RTFA
Committing and doing are two different things….to think otherwise is a little naive. As for Apple can’t….they just won’t talk to GreenPeace….is that so hard to understand?
As for my earlier comment…methinks you missed the point. Greenpeace put out two reports which contradict each other. Which one do you believe….better still why do you pick one over the other? Gut feeling?
Buster: “Committing and doing are two different things….to think otherwise is a little naive.”
Yes, they are two different things. One is words, one is deeds. (When did I ever say otherwise?)
But they’re BOTH important. A public commitment sets the expectation that public action will follow. And if that public action doesn’t follow, then we can have public accountability.
“As for Apple can’t….they just won’t talk to GreenPeace….is that so hard to understand?”
Yes, it is hard to understand.
The issue is not whether Apple will talk to Greenpeace in a conference call. The issue is whether Apple will make a commitment TO THE PUBLIC (not Greenpeace) on a timeline for removing these hazardous chemicals.
Apple’s competitors are making public commitments. Why shouldn’t we expect the same of Apple?
“As for my earlier comment…methinks you missed the point. Greenpeace put out two reports which contradict each other. Which one do you believe….better still why do you pick one over the other? Gut feeling?”
What contradiction?
One report uses laboratory test to get a bottom-up snapshot of the detectable chemicals in laptops as of September 2006.
The second report is an audit of whether a vendor’s publicly stated claims match up with their publicly measurable actions. (This is akin to a security audit of an operating system: What claims does the vendor make, and does the vendor actually meet those claims?)
Both approaches are valid, and both are important. One methodology does not exclude or supersede the other.
funded by the EPA? that’s explained a lot right there. These guys are nothing but tools or stools take your pick…all I can say is F%^$%$%#%$ck off and get lost already. I am sick to death of these idiots
I was going to say “good thread”.
Then, you see a post like “Dave’s”.
Are you one of those tools who call in and say
“Good afternoon, Rush, major 24/7 ‘ditto’s”
(Whatever TF that means).
Bush is so PRESIDENTIAL. What an orator.
BTW, where IS Osama Bin Laden?
Dave? Is he in IRAQ?
HELPING THE SUNNI AND SHIITE WITH THE CIVIL WAR?
EH? DITTOHEAD? YOU TAKIN’ OXYCONTIN, TOO?
OR COUGH MEDICINE? (MAJOR CODIENE DITTOES).
…and then you read a post like Always Right, who attacks another poster for making an idiotic comment…and then fires back with just as much BS. Wow.
neven said:
DLMeyer:
“Unfortunately … well, they remind me of so many Mac Fanatics in their approach to the problem!”
Never offer a strongly-worded generalization like that without expecting us to call bullshit unless you include references to these hordes of outspoken Mac Fanatics.
—–
I never said all Mac advocates were “Mac Fanatics”, just that there are a large number of Mac Fanatics. Possibly fewer now that quite a few of the sheep have come to understand the reality that is Mac, but still quite a few. We still get quite a few overly sensitive, reactionary “MDN takes” these days, and we have a couple of detractors who COUNT on this response when they post some pro-MS or anti-Apple drivel in order to drive up their hits. That has been a topic of discussion right here!
If some of this doesn’t embarrass you, you may be one of them.
Blind fans judging environment is negligable, because environmental interest group dares critisize their God.
I’m keeping this thread to show to all potential switchers what type of wankers they will be dealing with if they do.
Enough to put any sane person off, to be honest.