PDA

View Full Version : Recycling: Not Apple's Core Value


MacBytes
Apr 27, 2006, 02:46 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Apple Services
Link: Recycling: Not Apple's Core Value (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060427154633)
Description:: Despite its image as a progressive corporate citizen, Apple Computer had one of the worst recycling records in the American PC industry -- until last week.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Photorun
Apr 27, 2006, 03:43 PM
Another all negatives are applied to Apple but not others. Gateway for years was atrocious, Dell sells junk that's a total P.O.S. practically upon arrival, not to mention two years when it's useless, at least Apple computers are usually good for much longer, not my word for it mind you, JD Power ranked them lasting longer than peecee for useability. Either way, Apple may not be green, but they are by far no less green than Dull, Chumpaq, Grateway, or the other worthless peecee makers out there.

xenotaku
Apr 27, 2006, 03:55 PM
lol, that was the most fanboying reply I have ever read in my life. Apple should suck it up and live up the expectations most of its customers would want.

bobdgil
Apr 27, 2006, 03:56 PM
I fail to see how setting a recycling "goal" would change anything. What's the point? It wouldn't make me any more or less likely to send them my old computer. Simply offering the program is good enough IMO.

steve_hill4
Apr 27, 2006, 04:00 PM
From experience, I've found the company with the most packaging, (and the one with the most unecessary packaging), is Sony. We once had one machine that had one component surrounded by packing, in a box, in polystyrene, (styrofoam for the us), and that was all wrapped in another box.

And this was just one of about four main boxes within the delivery box.

bobdgil
Apr 27, 2006, 04:15 PM
From experience, I've found the company with the most packaging, (and the one with the most unecessary packaging), is Sony. We once had one machine that had one component surrounded by packing, in a box, in polystyrene, (styrofoam for the us), and that was all wrapped in another box.

And this was just one of about four main boxes within the delivery box.
The article was actually about recycling electronics, not packaging, but I agree that packaging should be considered just as much as recycling the product itself when criticizing companies for not being "green."

thegreatluke
Apr 27, 2006, 06:26 PM
The article was actually about recycling electronics, not packaging, but I agree that packaging should be considered just as much as recycling the product itself when criticizing companies for not being "green."
If you go by packaging then, Apple would be #1 for most efficient.

Take a look at the MBP box. So thin and small, it only contains enough space for the MBP and all its goodies, and a small layer of insulation to help it survive the trip from Shanghai to your front door. Another good example would be the Mac OS X/iLife/iWork boxes. Those things are barely bigger than the CD cases that are in them. In all my experience, Apple's packaging has always been the smallest and most efficient possible.

nagromme
Apr 27, 2006, 11:45 PM
It's not about "fair" or "good enough"--it's about the fact that these challenges and protests do genuine good. They have pushed Apple to do better, and successfully so. So I thank them, and hope they keep it up. I also thank Apple for what they have done (new smaller software packages, gradually improving recycling programs, holes in the polysterene, etc.), and look forward to them doing even more.

SPUY767
Apr 28, 2006, 07:14 AM
What this article fails to point out is the fact that unlike a commodity PC like a Dell, people do not typically throw their macintosh out on the curb as soon as they get a new computer. Granted, I am the exception, but In addition to all the computers in my sig, I have a PM 7200, a PM 6300, and an LC Pizza Box all in working, fully functional condition with their respective era's operating system. The bottom line is that Macintoshes DO last longer, and that's not a fanboy statement. They last longer for the same reasons that my '02 525i feels just as taught as the day it rolled off the showroom floor, and my '04 Grand Prix daily driver is falling apart after scarcely 2 years. Apple places a priority on quality construction rather than razor thin margins.

timswim78
Apr 28, 2006, 08:13 AM
I fail to see how setting a recycling "goal" would change anything. What's the point? It wouldn't make me any more or less likely to send them my old computer. Simply offering the program is good enough IMO.

A recycling goal is not designed to make you (an individual) more or less likely to recycle your computer. Instead, a recycling goal is designed to keep Apple accountable to their claims of wanting to improve the environment, through recycling.

If a company sets a recycling goal, then they can be held accountable to that goal by their peers, environmental organizations, consumers, and etc.

gerardrj
Apr 28, 2006, 10:51 AM
A recycling goal is not designed to make you (an individual) more or less likely to recycle your computer. Instead, a recycling goal is designed to keep Apple accountable to their claims of wanting to improve the environment, through recycling.

If a company sets a recycling goal, then they can be held accountable to that goal by their peers, environmental organizations, consumers, and etc.

How?? HP set a goal of 1 billion pounds by the end of 2007. In 2005 they took in 104 million pounds. At that rate or at any reasonable rate of growth they won't hit 1 billion.
So what? What happens when they don't? There's no law broken, there's no fine, there'll be no boycott. Accountability means there are negative consequences for your failure.

It's a political BS anyway. Recycling is a waste of time and money.

gerardrj
Apr 28, 2006, 11:05 AM
lol, that was the most fanboying reply I have ever read in my life. Apple should suck it up and live up the expectations most of its customers would want.

The problem is that the "...expectations of most of its customers..." are formed with incorrect information. The main push for recycling is that the landfills are going to fill up. That idea is a material fabrication; it is false. The US has enough unused/unusable land to keep us land-filling for centuries with no impact on populated areas. Certainly long enough for us to figure out how to build a Mr. Fusion.

The idea that recycling saves resources and money is also a fabrication. If recycling a computer was profitable there would be no need for a "take back program", companies all over would be popping up to buy your junk computers. The only material that is profitable to recycle is metal like aluminum and steel (and you see the "sell your cans here companies all over). It's cheaper and more environmentally friendly to produce most all other materials from virgin resources (new lumber cuts, new mining, etc).
The only resource I know that iknow used in computers that is running short on supply is oil for all the plastic.

What will happen to the landfills?
First, they'll be treasure-troves of information about us for future *ologists studying us as an ancient civilization.
Later they might be subsumed in to the Earth's core and melted to later be redistributed through volcanic activity.
In the end they will be engulfed along with all the inner planets and consumed as fuel in our Sun's last gasps of life.

timswim78
Apr 29, 2006, 01:15 PM
It's a political BS anyway. Recycling is a waste of time and money.

Why exactly is recycling a waste of time and money? There are some very nasty chemicals in computers that should not be sent to landfills and incincerators.

gerardrj
Apr 30, 2006, 12:11 AM
Why exactly is recycling a waste of time and money? There are some very nasty chemicals in computers that should not be sent to landfills and incincerators.


Recycling is a waste of money because it costs money to recycle. Lets say the total cost to cut down a tree, process it and make a sheet of paper is $1.00. The cost to make the same piece of paper from recycled stock is $1.50. Those sorts of numbers are occur in every recycling program except metals. If you can make an aluminim can from raw ore for $1.00, then it would cost about $0.40 to make it from recycled aluminum.

In 2002, New York City was in a budget crunch. They figured out they could save $40 Million by terminating the recycling of plastics alone.

Landfills are sealed and essentially leakproof. If there is a leak it is detectable and the runoff can be contained.

Of all the things in a landfill, the infinitesimally small amount of toxic substances in my computer are the least of my worries.

As for incinerators, they burn at insanely high temperatures neutralizing almost any substance they burn. The exhaust is then scrubbed and monitored. Your car probably puts out more toxic pollution in one mile of driving than an incinerator does in an entire month of operation.

If recycling were profitable, your city/state would not have to mandate that you do it and it would not cost you anything; you'd do it because you got paid for it. The facts pointing to the waste that is a recycling program are all around us, we just don't bother to look at the evidence objectively.