PDA

View Full Version : Greenpeace Rates Apple 4th Worst Eco-Friendly Tech Business, Apple Responds


Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Aug 29, 2006, 10:47 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Late last week, environmental watchdog Greenpeace released their Guide to Greener Electronics (http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-guide.pdf) (pdf) which rates how eco-friendly different tech companies are based on publicly available information. Apple scored 4th lowest, beating only Leveno, Motorola, and Acer. Among the top-scorers were Nokia and Dell.

For a company that claims to lead on product design, Apple scores badly on almost all criteria. The company fails to embrace the precautionary principle, withholds its full list of regulated substances and provides no timelines for eliminating toxic polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and no commitment to phasing out all uses of brominated flame retardants (BFRs). Apple performs poorly on product take back and recycling, with the exception of reporting on the amounts of its electronic waste recycled.

News.com has received a statement (http://news.com.com/2100-1014_3-6110513.html) from Apple responding to the Greenpeace claims.

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. We have also completely eliminated CRT monitors, which contain lead, from our product line.

Apple does note that their LCD monitors do contain small amounts of mercury, which they are working to find a suitable alternative for. Apple began an expanded computer recycling program (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060421114406.shtml) in April 2006. Apple has had an iPod recycling program (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/06/20050603152950.shtml) in the US since 2005.

Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups (2005 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/04/20050422090010.shtml), 2006 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060427190638.shtml)).

Fredo Viola
Aug 29, 2006, 10:51 AM
This is a real bummer to me. I pride myself on making as little an impact on the environment as I can, but make my living using computers to make music... and I use all Apple products... so I'm feeling really guilty about this right now.

blueflame
Aug 29, 2006, 10:52 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?

prady16
Aug 29, 2006, 10:55 AM
I sure do appreciate Dell for this!
If only they had making better quality products as their first priority!

miloblithe
Aug 29, 2006, 10:56 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?

Corporate Social Responsibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility

dextertangocci
Aug 29, 2006, 10:56 AM
How can Apple be 4th lowest:eek:

At least their products are good quality, unlike Dell's crappy computers.

BTW, Apple was 4th lowest out of how many?

Lau
Aug 29, 2006, 10:57 AM
It's a tough one. I'd like to think that we could vote with our wallets over something like this, but unfortunately I need a computer, and there's no way I'm not using OSX.

I'd like to think we could still complain about it, but "Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups" makes me think that they don't really give a toss, which is bad, mmkay.

I don't really see why if Dell can do it, Apple can't.

aricher
Aug 29, 2006, 10:57 AM
It's a very sad reality indeed.

geerlingguy
Aug 29, 2006, 11:00 AM
I think Apple's done a pretty good job, at least from a non-insider perspective. And the fact that they are exteremely open and friendly sharing their environmental information (http://www.apple.com/environment/) is something to consider as well. It is not always easy for the public to find out about a particular company's information from their website.

Obviously, though, Apple is a corporation, and, like most others, they will many times sacrifice environmental standards to save costs. All major companies (at least in the U.S.) do itóno matter how 'hip' or 'environment-friendly' they may seem. It's an outcome of consumerism.

iMikeT
Aug 29, 2006, 11:01 AM
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?

Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?

Tymmz
Aug 29, 2006, 11:02 AM
That's weird.


A couple years ago the number one german ECO-magazine "÷ko Test" put the iBook at the pole position of (non-) toxic laptops.

They compared the materials and the exhaust fumes.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think I remember that fact correctly.

ArizonaKid
Aug 29, 2006, 11:02 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?

Organizations are responsible for the impact they have on community resources that impact everyone. Apple is going to have bad news sometimes, so accept it.

DeepDish
Aug 29, 2006, 11:03 AM
How do we know this Greenpeace report is accurate?

Sometimes activist organizations will target big name companies just to get more attention.

Apple is more green than dell. period.

Makes me question the whole report if greenpeace thinks dell is more green then apple.

bunch of hewwie

nagromme
Aug 29, 2006, 11:03 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
They expect them to do better--at least as well as other companies do, and ultimately better than that.

And we should thank Greenpeace et al for putting this kind of pressure on companies: it helps all of us. These are serious issues, and they are issues that CAN be solved without companies ceasing to do business ;)

I'm glad for what Apple has done so far, and I'm glad people are pushing them to do more.

The "never criticize a business, their profit matters more than anything in the world" attitude is a little extreme if you stop to think about it. By that logic, we should accept products without warranties, toys that shatter into sharp pieces, batteries that catch fire, poisons in foods, slave labor, pollution... ANYTHING so long as it is in some corporations interest.

But corporations aren't the only thing that matters (despite their hold on certain governing bodies ;) ).

iMikeT
Aug 29, 2006, 11:04 AM
It's a tough one. I'd like to think that we could vote with our wallets over something like this, but unfortunately I need a computer, and there's no way I'm not using OSX.

I'd like to think we could still complain about it, but "Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups" makes me think that they don't really give a toss, which is bad, mmkay.

I don't really see why if Dell can do it, Apple can't.



Did I read that correctly?

Lau
Aug 29, 2006, 11:05 AM
Apple is more green than dell. period.

Makes me question the whole report if greenpeace thinks dell is more green then apple.

Do you have evidence of this just out of interest? I too was surprised to read this, so I'd be interested if you had evidence the other way.

Edit:

Did I read that correctly?

Sorry, I may not have been clear. I meant it as in I would much prefer to use OSX over Windows or Linux, and so would find it difficult to choose, say, a Dell because it ran Windows and I would find that unpleasant, even if Dell had a better environmental record.

DeepDish
Aug 29, 2006, 11:06 AM
Do you have evidence of this just out of interest? I too was surprised to read this, so I'd be interested if you had evidence the other way.


zero evidence, other than my gut feeling.

But come on, Dell more green than Apple? Something is not right here.

Tymmz
Aug 29, 2006, 11:06 AM
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?

Apples does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?

?tree-huggers? ?interfere with business? !we don't want to start that discussion!


Do you have proof for your statement, that Apple is doing their best?

brepublican
Aug 29, 2006, 11:07 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Yeah its a business. But you gotta give back to the community. Whats the point in reaping huge profits off consumers then destroying the earth? It's not that drammatic, but if every company were like Apple, it'd definitely not bode well for the environment :mad:

ArizonaKid
Aug 29, 2006, 11:08 AM
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?

Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?

As a business professional, there most certainly is a capitalistic argument for environmentally friendly businesses.

I will provide the link this time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons


This is something Apple can improve. So why not go for it?

iMikeT
Aug 29, 2006, 11:10 AM
?tree-huggers? ?interfere with business? !we don't want to start that discussion!


Do you have proof for your statement, that Apple is doing their best?



Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.

Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.

Chupa Chupa
Aug 29, 2006, 11:10 AM
This should be a Page 2 story at best. Let's be clear about what this bit of propaganda is... We know Greenpeace is anti-technology, anti-capitalism. They know Apple is not only a huge success story, but also has a big presence in consumer's minds. Everyone knows Apple and iPods. Clearly Greenpeace, like the iPod labor camp story before it, is USING Apple to forward their own agenda of killing technology and thwarting capitalism and innovation.

danielwsmithee
Aug 29, 2006, 11:10 AM
Do you have evidence of this just out of interest? I too was surprised to read this, so I'd be interested if you had evidence the other way.I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs. I'm serious people buy a new Dell every few years because they are garbage. Do you honestly think people give them back for recycling. They sell them on ebay or craigslist, and the new owner after about a year puts them in the dumpster. With Apple people keep their machines much longer, and are much more likely to recycle them because they are smaller and easier to take to a recycling center (no CRT). This alone makes Apple greener then Dell.

Lau
Aug 29, 2006, 11:11 AM
zero evidence, other than my gut feeling.

But come on, Dell more green than Apple? Something is not right here.

Hmm. Gut feeling's all very well, but Apple obviously do a great job of marketing themselves as a friendly green company and we may go round believing that without evidence, and it looks as if the figures don't back them up.

I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs.

That's a good point, actually, it's much better to make a long-lasting product than a crappy one that's recycled when it breaks. It's a shame that iPods are effectively disposable though. To be able to replace the battery in particular, and possibly the hard drive, would make it a much more longer lasting product.

Foxglove9
Aug 29, 2006, 11:13 AM
Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:

Fredo Viola
Aug 29, 2006, 11:14 AM
it's such a progressive issue, you'd think Apple would be all over it. I mean, AMD is making good marketing use of being energy efficient. It seems smart of them and makes them appear more cutting edge. Certainly Apple would do great to embrace this issue and make their products more eco-friendly. But you think about how the shell of your Mac can't really be reused to house new major computer components (such as mb, etc...). This seems wasteful. Think of all the packaging that is just being wasted. It's actually kind of shameful.

blumpy
Aug 29, 2006, 11:14 AM
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.

AlBDamned
Aug 29, 2006, 11:14 AM
zero evidence, other than my gut feeling.


Then that's nothing but semi-diluted Apple fanboi-ism which is, in my opinion, a lot worse than any Dell computer.

Given Greenpeace's mission and credibility, I think it's safe to assume that all manufacturers featured were graded on the same criteria. So at least in this survey, it's quite believable that Apple has dived compared to its competitors.

Apple does promote a hip, cool and socially aware image, but as a business it's quite far removed from that ideal.

Tymmz
Aug 29, 2006, 11:15 AM
Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.

Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.

and the article says: "...performs poorly on product take back and recycling...
and maybe that's very important for Greenpeace. And I don't even know, if Apple takes back any electronics at all.

MacinDoc
Aug 29, 2006, 11:15 AM
The reason Apple "performs poorly" on recycling compared to Dell is that Apple computers, on average, remain in use approximately twice as long as Dell computers. Instead of being recycled, they are still being used. Apple does, after all, have a free recycling program. And there is no way that making computers that are replaced more frequently is more environmentally friendly.

It also seems that most of Greenpeace's complaints focus around Apple's refusal to provide Greenpeace with information on what materials are used in manufacturing its products.

Greenpeace does not have an exactly spotless record when it comes to ethics. Makes you wonder if it gets its computers from Dell at a discount.

Small White Car
Aug 29, 2006, 11:15 AM
:rolleyes:

Great ideas, folks.

Dell is doing something better than Apple? Well then the report must be wrong!

Problem solved, good job guys!

DeepDish
Aug 29, 2006, 11:16 AM
Hmm. Gut feeling's all very well, but Apple obviously do a great job of marketing themselves as a friendly green company and we may go round believing that without evidence, and it looks as if the figures don't back them up.


danielwsmithee is right.

Dell boxes have a shorter life span and need to be replaced more often. Dell sells a lot more CRTs than Apple does.

At work, we never throw out a mac. But the pc boxes get replaced often.

This report is about getting "big press"

Squonk
Aug 29, 2006, 11:18 AM
I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs. I'm serious people buy a new Dell every few years because they are garbage. Do you honestly think people give them back for recycling. They sell them on ebay or craigslist, and the new owner after about a year puts them in the dumpster. With Apple people keep their machines much longer, and are much more likely to recycle them because they are smaller and easier to take to a recycling center (no CRT). This alone makes Apple greener then Dell.

I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.

But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?

If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...

Nuc
Aug 29, 2006, 11:20 AM
Given Greenpeace's mission and credibility, I think it's safe to assume that all manufacturers featured were graded on the same criteria. So at least in this survey, it's quite believable that Apple has dived compared to its competitors.
Yea they're really credible...:rolleyes:

Nuc

sprakope
Aug 29, 2006, 11:21 AM
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.

Actually, the last shareholder meeting had the vote to start the computer recycling program. The board of directors recommended that the shareholders vote "No" but the shareholders decided that the recycling program was important.

I love Apple as much as the next guy, but that recommendation was irresponsible and backwards. Apple deserves this bad press.

[edited to fix the quote. i quoted the wrong post]

DeepDish
Aug 29, 2006, 11:22 AM
My family, two parents and two kids, have purchased 6 ipods over the years.

Replaced batteries on two of them.

Never thrown any of them away.

Still use all of them. Why would anyone throw an out dated ipod away?

topgunn
Aug 29, 2006, 11:24 AM
Would you be more or less likely to believe this report if it was released by the EPA?

AlBDamned
Aug 29, 2006, 11:24 AM
danielwsmithee is right.

At work, we never throw out a mac. But the pc boxes get replaced often.


How come Dells last half as long? Because they're "better made"? Do they not actually function any more? Or is it that you don't throw and Apple out because of sentimentality?

The only reason we\ve dumped computers at work is because they're not worth upgrading. In the last six months that's included one dell, two PowerMac G4s (although I claimed them) and six iMac G3s. They simply weren't up to (business) task anymore. The oldest computer we have in the office is actually a Dell that we use for one program.

DeepDish
Aug 29, 2006, 11:26 AM
How come Dells last half as long? Because they're "better made"? Do they not actually function any more? Or is it that you don't throw and Apple out because of sentimentality?

The only reason we\ve dumped computers at work is because they're not worth upgrading. In the last six months that's included one dell, two PowerMac G4s (although I claimed them) and six iMac G3s. They simply weren't up to (business) task anymore. The oldest computer we have in the office is actually a Dell that we use for one program.


Not out of sentimentality. The other pcs are so cheap, sometimes it is easier to just buy a new one.

CompUser
Aug 29, 2006, 11:28 AM
You can't always win :rolleyes: :cool: :D

CRT monitors also consume more power than LCDs.

alexf
Aug 29, 2006, 11:30 AM
Shame on you, Apple. Corporate greed wins again - so what else is new?

At least this report should get them moving... It took publicity to get them to finally start their iPod and expanded computer recycling program; had nobody said anything then these programs would probably not exist.

Thanks to Greenpeace, Apple will hopefully belatedly get its act together.

Machead III
Aug 29, 2006, 11:32 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?

I'm not sure you understand the situation we're in right now.

If we don't radically change the way we live and produce energy, and I mean radically, then before the Century is out the fate of our species and the majority of all life on Earth may be sealed.

Do you understand? Humanity may be destroyed. We're not talking about a natural disaster or two here, we're not talking about something like an economic depression, we're talking about a major, if not total anihilation of our species.

So you'd better start holding Apple, and everyone else, including yourself, accountable where responsible and start forcing change.

mi5moav
Aug 29, 2006, 11:34 AM
I used to be a member of greenpeace for about 8 years, 3 of which I was diehard. However, over the last few years I've really gotten sick and tired of them spouting stuff they really have no clue what the hell they are talking about. From friends and acquaintences I can personally vouch that Apple is trying very hard to be echo friendly. Of course if Greenpeace would say Apple is doing fine Greenpeace wouldn't get much attention... but by saying Apple is doing a lousy job, which I know for fact isn't fact...they get there name on the fron page. Though, I believe in the soul of greenpeace I reallly think that they need to go about this an entirely different way. They have a great rallying cry for 15-30 year olds and they can amass a huge lobying group if they actually put their best foot forward instead of these stupid gimmicks they have been pulling the last few years.

RedTomato
Aug 29, 2006, 11:36 AM
I try to have a low environmental footprint (sometimes I fail, but I try to be aware of when and why I fail) and I do hope Apple improve their game.

As one poster said above, the Apple board are on record as reccomending preventing the start of their computer recycling program. That kind of appalling head-in-the-sand-ism doesn't give me high hopes for their other green credentials.

I think the low rating is a combination of several things :

1. Apple stupidly refusing to release info that would improve their ratings.
2. Vast overpackaging on their products. Apple products typically come inside a white bleached box inside a white bleached box inside another white bleached box. Dell probably uses recycled unbleached cardboard for their packaging. To be honest, when I opened my powerbook packaging, while I appreciated its nice design, I was also staggered at what a waste of space and resources it was.
3. Maybe, possibly, the Greenpeace survey didn't take into account the lifespan length of Apple computers as being designed to last longer than similar PCs.
4. Millions upon millions of Ipods. Many overpackaged, and intended to be thrown away when the battery goes... (yes some people have replaced them, but it's not a designed feature)

I have sort of noticed that many 1960s hippies or ex-hippies have a very me-me-me attitude - they meditate, go to workshops, do nice things etc, and it's all to improve themselves. Rarely do they think about actually improving others or the world in general. That's one advantage that the post-hippies generation has - they have a better ecological awareness (if I can be so general.)

I'll put my flame-pants on now and wait for you to contradict me.

alexf
Aug 29, 2006, 11:36 AM
My family, two parents and two kids, have purchased 6 ipods over the years.

Replaced batteries on two of them.

Never thrown any of them away.

Still use all of them. Why would anyone throw an out dated ipod away?

Try to think in the long term: where do you think these iPods will end up in 20 years? I highly doubt anyone will still be using an iPod they bought a quarter century ago.

I am afraid that, in that sense, iPods are very disposable.

Although the situation is becoming much more urgent with the rapic climate changes that are happening in the world faster than predicted, much of environmentalism is about thinking in the long term, and the environmental impact that company products and policy can have.

And in this regard, Apple indeed scores very low, which only goes to show that they are really no different than a typical corporation that cares far more about its immediate profit than the earth and its future generations.

AlBDamned
Aug 29, 2006, 11:39 AM
Yea they're really credible...:rolleyes:

Nuc

This report will be ripped to shreds if there are inconsistencies and to say Greenpeace are targeting Apple and not Dell for some corrupt reason is slightly pathetic.

And, one of the main gripes was Apple's refusal to give specifics on machine "ingredients", which is a bad move for a company that wants to be socially responsible.

Apple's spokesman is also a bit misguided when he says Apple has led the industry in reducing toxic chemicals from its products. A) It might be true in a couple of instances, but other companies (such as Nokia and Fujitsu Siemens) have actually done a hell of a lot more - especially in their European facilities. B) It's also a lot easier to do this when your product line totals around 5 computers, a few screens and a music player.

Remember Apple's iPod factory report? That has been criticised as being a shadow of the truth and glossing over ugly truths and missing out key details. So what makes you think that Apple is all goodness?

Yes it offers recycling in the US but does it offer it in the UK? No - but it will do come April next year because it will be forced to.

And why can UK users no longer buy iSights or Airport express base stations from Apple? Because new laws have come in restricting the use of hazardous substances in products. Sadly, Apple hasn't pulled its finger out and replaced those products with more environmentally friendly products.

Apple is not perfect, neither is Greenpeace. But look a little deeper and you'll have a better understanding of the story. Companies are taking this report seriously and it's rocking the industry. That's because companies do, or are beginning, to take the actual issue seriously. Apple's fast but weak response is testament to that and it once again demonstrates they have a lot of work to do on this front - despite their claims.

ReanimationLP
Aug 29, 2006, 11:41 AM
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.

Seriously.

Lau
Aug 29, 2006, 11:42 AM
...

Good post, AlBDamned. :)

Said a lot of things I wanted to say, but a lot more eloquently. My brain is mush this afternoon. :p

Machead III
Aug 29, 2006, 11:44 AM
Just look at peopel today, even in this forum. Just 5 years ago there would be far less worried faces around, we left that to the lab coats and their crackpot theories.

I guess it was the recent natural disasters and the heatwaves that did it.

Well, if that's what's got you worried, then good. I hate to say it, but you need to be very, very worried. You thought this summer was hot? Think what it will be like in 10, 20, 50 years.

Think what it will be like in a 100.

Life on Earth is notoriously sensitive to temperatures. We were sweating like pigs with the increase of only a fractions of a degree.

By 2100 if we don't implement vast changes, and this is even if we maintain the rate we're at now, the Earth will have warmed by about 4 degrees C.

At this point human life expectancies will have probably halved. Give it another 100 years or so and that's it, game over, we're done, another species added to the no doubt vast list of intelligent species throughout the universe that have destroyed themselves in the pursuit of wealth.

dizastor
Aug 29, 2006, 11:45 AM
Apple gaining marketshare, picking up momentum...

Stock scandal...
Battery recall...
Greenpeace report...

what's next?

Steve Jobs' departure?

alexf
Aug 29, 2006, 11:45 AM
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.

Seriously.

A lot of people (and companies, such as Apple).

Seriously.

crees!
Aug 29, 2006, 11:46 AM
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.

tutubibi
Aug 29, 2006, 11:47 AM
From Apple's response:

"We have also completely eliminated CRT monitors, which contain lead, from our product line"

Yeah, it was done to help environment :D .

AlBDamned
Aug 29, 2006, 11:47 AM
Not out of sentimentality. The other pcs are so cheap, sometimes it is easier to just buy a new one.

So it's more about how effective, money-wise, it can be to buy a new computer. Doesn't really have much to do about their performance or longevity.

GooMan
Aug 29, 2006, 11:48 AM
I could not care any less.

Although, I do know of one thing Apple does that hurts the environment. They make me drive 3 hours to get to the closest Apple Store and 3 hours to get back home plus sitting in all the traffic in Atlanta. However, I drive a Nissan Armada (of course it has a V8) so I'm not too worried about gas consumption. ;)

darkwing
Aug 29, 2006, 11:51 AM
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies. I'll gladly buy my Merom MBP and sell my Rev E 17" pbg4 as soon as Apple makes it available to me. :)

brianus
Aug 29, 2006, 11:53 AM
You can't always win :rolleyes: :cool: :D

CRT monitors also consume more power than LCDs.

Great avatar, CompUser. I thought my system had just slowed to a crawl! :D

nagromme
Aug 29, 2006, 11:58 AM
A lot of people seem to believe Greenpeace has fabricated their data. (Which would be pretty stupid since it can be checked!) But if so, why not put Dell at the bottom for publicity purposes? That makes more sense than Acer if this is all lies instead of research.

And I don't see people offering their OWN research :rolleyes: People are just saying Greenpeace is lying because they WANT it to be lies.

I sympathize. I want Apple AND the rest to be at the top of the scale. I want it all to be lies.

But wanting something is not enough to change reality.

Luckily, there IS something that can change reality: ACTUAL change. THAT is what will make the Greenpeace-phobes right: when Apple and the others change to become what you wish they already were. We all wish it, and I believe it will happen. Recognizing the problems is an unpleasant but necessary step on the way.

alexf
Aug 29, 2006, 12:00 PM
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies. I'll gladly buy my Merom MBP and sell my Rev E 17" pbg4 as soon as Apple makes it available to me. :)

Oh yeah? Please kindly explain to all of us just what the "real agenda" of these "evil groups" such as Greenpeace is...

With all due respect, are you asleep?

alexf
Aug 29, 2006, 12:02 PM
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.

Thank you for the very intelligent and enlightening comment. People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.

nbs2
Aug 29, 2006, 12:06 PM
I'm sure that if I cared about Greenpeace, I might care about this news. But honestly, I really could not care less about them. So I don't care.

People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
Not caring about the morons at GP, PETA, etc has nothing to do with the underlying issues. I care about eating a good hamburger, but McD's "can suck my left toe."

AlBDamned
Aug 29, 2006, 12:08 PM
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses.

Sure, I guess calling them the greenest company will really hinder Nokia's business - or indeed any of the companies that got rated near the top. :rolleyes:

The fact is this report says something which, as Apple fans, many of us don't like. However, if there was a comparable Lenovo forum, they'd all be saying the same thing –*"the report is rubbish"? Does it make it true? No.

What if Apple still came fourth from bottom, but Dell was third from bottom. Does that make the report more credible? No.

The fact that this report is gaining traction across multiple tech sites, not just MacRumors, plus the fact that Apple speedily responded proves that the issue is real. Did Apple reject outright the report's claims and say they are actually just as good as Nokia and whoever else? Did they come out and say, "greenpeace is b/s"? No. They said "we don't agree with the grading system used, it's not reflective of our other efforts" or some such politician-esque answer.

It could just as easily have been Apple at the top if they were up to scratch with regard to the materials used in their products, then you same critics would be loving the report. For example, if tomorrow Greenpeace ran a report on the grading of tech company recycling programs and put Apple at the top, what would that say? That Apple was good in one area and bad in another so they need to do more.

Stop being fickle and naive and understand the bigger picture. :rolleyes:

alexeismertin
Aug 29, 2006, 12:10 PM
I hate people who are soo stuck up Apples arsehole that rather than accept Apple are poor environmentally, still stick up for a computer company.

It might not affect you, or the people on your street, or your city but somewhere in the world the impact of Apples actions are being felt.

I'll accept its not just Apple but this site is about Apple so lets not compare or excuse to justify Apples actions.

Big profits Big responsibilty

MacBram
Aug 29, 2006, 12:15 PM
...Apple performs poorly on product take back and recycling...
Yeah, Apple's problem is a bit like Land Rover's - 78% of the vehicles they have ever made are still on the road. (I know my old Apples are.) Dell, by contrast, performs very highly in product take back and recycling. :)

Spectrum
Aug 29, 2006, 12:16 PM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
How do we know this Greenpeace report is accurate?
...bunch of hewwie
This should be a Page 2 story at best. Let's be clear about what this bit of propaganda is... We know Greenpeace is anti-technology, anti-capitalism. They know Apple is not only a huge success story, but also has a big presence in consumer's minds. Everyone knows Apple and iPods. Clearly Greenpeace, like the iPod labor camp story before it, is USING Apple to forward their own agenda of killing technology and thwarting capitalism and innovation.Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
Yea they're {Greenpeace} really credible...:rolleyes:
Nuc
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
I could not care any less.

These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies.
No One cares what Greenpeace thinks. They are nothing but the military wing of the Sierra Club. The only thing I can't stand more than Greenpeace is the ELF.
Seriously.

Greenpeace can shove it.
Groups like this {Greenpeace} want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
In other news: Greenpeace ranks #1 in psycho environmentalist organizations... film at 11.
I think people are missing the point....Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:

I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?

Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
Edit: Added a couple more gems.
Edit: One more.

alexf
Aug 29, 2006, 12:17 PM
I could not care any less.

Although, I do know of one thing Apple does that hurts the environment. They make me drive 3 hours to get to the closest Apple Store and 3 hours to get back home plus sitting in all the traffic in Atlanta. However, I drive a Nissan Armada (of course it has a V8) so I'm not too worried about gas consumption. ;)

Yep, just another wasteful American. Same sad story.

TEG
Aug 29, 2006, 12:26 PM
No One cares what Greenpeace thinks. They are nothing but the military wing of the Sierra Club. The only thing I can't stand more than Greenpeace is the ELF.

Seriously.

TEG

gugy
Aug 29, 2006, 12:27 PM
Yep, just another wasteful American. Same sad story.

Yes, and on top of that they elected 2 times G. W. Bush an "Oil" president.
Unfortunately things don't look good.

bryanc
Aug 29, 2006, 12:28 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?

Hear, hear! What's up with all of you Apple Boosters? I think my Macs are great, and OS X is clearly the best OS on the planet today, but this report is very disappointing.

Rather than turning a blind eye to the irresponsible policies at Apple, and saying the Greenpeace is just anti-technology (they're big supporters of many innovative energy technologies, BTW), why not do what you can, as an Apple customer, to change the way Apple does business.

I've submitted feedback to Apple in the past about their wasteful packaging, and have been pleasantly surprised not only by their considerate replies, but the fact that they've changed their packaging to be less wasteful. Apple listens to their customers. If they know we care about the environment, they'll change their practices to be more sustainable.

I would like to have seen Apple respond to this as a challenge, by saying that they appreciate the constructive criticism and look forward to implementing changes in their practises and achieving top marks in the next Greenpeace analysis. If enough Apple customers make it clear that this should be a priority, it will become one.

Cheers

radio893fm
Aug 29, 2006, 12:29 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?

Are you really surprised? The Apple FAN BOYS won't ever see the light. Whatever Apple does is simply RIGHT for them, even if it means killing the world.

Sad...

Redneck1089
Aug 29, 2006, 12:30 PM
Greenpeace can shove it.

wdogmedia
Aug 29, 2006, 12:37 PM
Let's not forget that these are the same people championing the reduction of C02 emissions under the banner of "stopping climate change," when a) nature is producing three times the C02 than humans are, and b) C02 is itself responsible for about 3-9% of the greenhouse effect (global warming).

The other 90%+ of the greenhouse effect (the REAL reason the Earth's climate is warming) is caused by....drum roll....naturally occuring water vapor! Does anybody see Greenpeace protesting steam?

Let's also not forget that 30 years ago (when manmade pollution was FAR worse than it is today) these same people were warning us of a coming Ice Age.

I'll stop short of mentioning their (admittedly unproven) ties to the ALF....

Bregalad
Aug 29, 2006, 12:38 PM
If there was a standard way to account for the damage being done to the planet it would open a lot of people's eyes. In a major metropolitan area there are tens of thousands of patients admitted to hospitals for air pollution related ailments every year. Those are real costs in both medical expenses and people's health, something else that should have a price attached to it.

Unfortunately there's no way to punish a corporation for bad practices like you can an individual. Tax a company and they'll attempt to pass the costs onto their customers. Tax them more and they'll file for bankruptcy costing shareholders and the displaced employees a bucket of money. After all the whole purpose of incorporation is to avoid taking responsibility for your actions.

mrwalker
Aug 29, 2006, 12:39 PM
As a Norwegian I can say that Apple has way more credibility than Greenpeace over here. We have seen what they are all about. Greenpeace is a bunch of spoiled city kids that has no idea what nature is.

Machead III
Aug 29, 2006, 12:39 PM
Yep, just another wasteful American. Same sad story.

The number of people like him in the world is analogous to a cancer cell count for life on Earth. If they aren't pretty much non-existant within the next 50 years, Game Over.

crees!
Aug 29, 2006, 12:40 PM
I'm sure that if I cared about Greenpeace, I might care about this news. But honestly, I really could not care less about them. So I don't care.


Not caring about the morons at GP, PETA, etc has nothing to do with the underlying issues. I care about eating a good hamburger, but McD's "can suck my left toe."

And this is how I feel too. Enviromental concerns.. sure lets deal with them.. Greenpeace.. go to hell. Might as well take the time to put the ACLU, Sharpton, & Jackson on my go to hell list too.

Clive At Five
Aug 29, 2006, 12:40 PM
no no no no no.

The things that are bad for the environment are also used intensively in the PRODUCTION of materials used in computers, the Mo-Boards, the Processors, anything solid state. Sure the things contain trace amounts of Lead and other crap but they aren't nearly as harmful to the environment as, say MAKING a microprocessor. Thus, I have no idea why on Earth Intel isn't #1 based solely on the sheer volume of byproduct they produce.

And if Greenpeace is going after PC makers, Dell, again just by their VOLUME, dwarfs Apple in toxins used in their products. Apple, however, makes a noticable effort (i.e. free disposal w/a new Mac, iPod) to ensure that people don't just toss their computers in a way that will hurt the environment. Dell has a service as well, but it isn't free.

I think Greenpeace just spun the roulette wheel and it landed in Apple's disfavor.

I care about the environment, but Greenpeace is out of hand. It's the little things like free disposal that make the difference. It might be what keeps some people from slipping pieces of old computers in their trash can week-by-week.

... oh come on, like you've never done that...

-Clive

crees!
Aug 29, 2006, 12:41 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). And do I care? Nah. Not one bit.

Stampyhead
Aug 29, 2006, 12:42 PM
When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
Anyway, I'm sure Apple and a whole load of other companies could do better in regards to environmental issues, but it always seemed to me that Apple was doing a pretty good job. I remember the iPod recycling program in their stores where you could bring in your old iPod and get 10% off a new one. I have also noticed that lately Apple has greatly reduced the amount of packaging on their products. Of course they still need to use styrofoam to keep the computers for getting damaged when they are shipped, but in some cases their packaging is almost half the size it used to be.
So although I'm sure they could do better, I think credit should be given where it is due.

darkwing
Aug 29, 2006, 12:44 PM
Oh yeah? Please kindly explain to all of us just what the "real agenda" of these "evil groups" such as Greenpeace is...

With all due respect, are you asleep?

I just gave examples in my post. Groups like this want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.

emil.lofman
Aug 29, 2006, 12:45 PM
Greenpeace can shove it.

Now that's an appropriate handle you've got there!

One question for you, and all other posters that in some words or other wants Greenpeace to f off...

Do you think that

a) Greenpeace is lying

or

b) it's pretty cool that the human race will soon be extinct?

sjo
Aug 29, 2006, 12:48 PM
As a Norwegian I can say that Apple has way more credibility than Greenpeace over here. We have seen what they are all about. Greenpeace is a bunch of spoiled city kids that has no idea what nature is.

Yeah, cause you just HAVE to hunt whales and eat whalemeat in Norway in order to survive, such a poor country with poor people. How dare Greenpeace oppose your ancient way of life?

ObsidianIce
Aug 29, 2006, 12:50 PM
not sure this is totally accurate...seems like greenpeace is complaining that they don't know what in apple products....so who's to say it does contain the items that Greenpeace is complaining about? Not to mention Greenpeace...can be more than a little over the top at times...not saying Apple's perfect....but we're only seeing one side of the coin here.

emil.lofman
Aug 29, 2006, 12:53 PM
I just gave examples in my post. Groups like this want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.

I think you've missed something here. Greenpeace did not, infact, state that Apple is solely responsible for killing the environment.

When China and India begins polluting as much as most western countries do per capita, that's when we're in trouble.

I would guess the industries in India and China are exporting quite a lot of goods to the western world, which makes us morally responsible. To make a real bad analogy, a prostitute with no customers is not a prositute.

Greenpeace probably doesn't have much of a chance to raise awareness on environmental issues in either China, a country were there is no freedom of speech, or India, were a large part of the population is preoccupied with being really, really poor and therefore has no time to spare for macrumors.

You seem really intelligent by the way - you'll probably do great in high school.

cadillaccactus
Aug 29, 2006, 12:54 PM
I have been a devout mac user for a while now. I get wrapped up in the apple-is-always-right mindset plenty of the time. But greenpeace is a neutral third party evaluating a number of tech companies. While GP may hold companies to a high standard, and judge critically, there is no reason for us to assume that they rated one company in a spearate fashion.

I would like to see a more formal reponse from apple.

kingtj
Aug 29, 2006, 12:54 PM
The fact is, Apple computers make up well under 8% of the total world computer marketplace. FAR less if you include all the mainframes and minicomputers in that estimate.

If Apple did absolutely *nothing* special to please environmentalists... no recycling programs whatsoever, etc. - it would have relatively little impact on the overall situation. The fact is, they DO take some steps towards being environmentally responsible anyway.

Truthfully, it's a much more serious issue if a *large* computer supplier like Dell scores badly in this area. They pump out MANY more PCs on corporate desktops all over the world. Apple has to showcase it when they can find a business that bought thousands of their computers at a time. For Dell or IBM, they could point to that in several companies in any major American city.

Groups like Greenpeace border on fanatical....



This is a real bummer to me. I pride myself on making as little an impact on the environment as I can, but make my living using computers to make music... and I use all Apple products... so I'm feeling really guilty about this right now.

Clive At Five
Aug 29, 2006, 12:59 PM
Yeah, cause you just HAVE to hunt whales and eat whalemeat in Norway in order to survive, such a poor country with poor people. How dare Greenpeace oppose your ancient way of life?

Have you read what you just wrote? Who said anything about hunting whales? Eating whale meat? Or being poor?

No one.

Conclusion? You're bigoted.

There's no denying that Greenpeace is further towards "Extremist" than towards "Moderate." That's the jist of what he's saying, and he's right.

-Clive

digitalbiker
Aug 29, 2006, 12:59 PM
This is a real bummer to me. I pride myself on making as little an impact on the environment as I can, but make my living using computers to make music... and I use all Apple products... so I'm feeling really guilty about this right now.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Ultimately by supporting a technology company you are helping the environment. History has already shown that enhancements in technology have almost always had a positive benefit for the environment along with enhancements to quality of life.

For example:
1) Old technolgy cars were seriously inefficient, wasted energy, polluted more, etc. Current technology cars are much, much better. Future technology such as fuel cells are several times more efficient.

2) Tele-comuting has already had a positive effect. Now people are driving less, working at home more.

3) Battery technology has gotten far more efficient with fewer environmentally hazardous materials than older battery tech. New battery tech. such as the new capacitor batteries may be completely chemical free.

4) Modern power plants are far more efficient and environmentally friendly.

and the list goes on in almost every industry where technological improvements have been made.

Buying computers from Apple provides inscentives for Apple to build better faster more efficient computers along with their competitors. These computers are then used in some way to improve almost every other industry.

joeboy_45101
Aug 29, 2006, 01:00 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?

Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.

I agree. Trust me I am no fan of GreenPeace's tactics, but what benefit does GreenPeace get out of making this report? And why do so many conservatives like to say that the enviromentalists' are just making this stuff up to get money. ENVIROMENTALISTS' DON'T MAKE SH#$ FOR MONEY! Now, if you think about Big Oil or Chinese sweatshops they've got every reason to say this stuff is untrue because they could lose a lot of money from it.

Oh, and for all the people that make the claim, "destroying the environment is neccessary to keep business profitable", maybe we can go fishing in the Aral Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_sea) sometime and work our differences out. Oh wait we can't!

Spectrum
Aug 29, 2006, 01:01 PM
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
People with selfish views harm ALL other people and the planet. By contrast, people with selfless views only harm those with selfish views. Thus, the fewer are the selfish, the better the world will become for the majority of the people.

jaduffy108
Aug 29, 2006, 01:01 PM
It's a very sad reality indeed.

### imo, a "reality" of Apple's choosing. They should be a leader in this area! No excuses. Period. Dell? that's embarassing.

wdogmedia
Aug 29, 2006, 01:01 PM
Come on, people, let's cut Greenpeace some slack, here. Their fanaticism only goes to certain lengths...the reason they protest Apple and other U.S. businesses is because if they actually protested in places where pollution was a major issue (like China), they'd all get shot. :)

Xenious
Aug 29, 2006, 01:03 PM
Greenpeace ranks #1 in psycho environmentalist organizations... film at 11.

Teddy's
Aug 29, 2006, 01:06 PM
Last week I discovered a magazine based in Toronto (www.digitaljournal.com) They base their reports in the old saying that all tulips must grow the same height. They have been hitting "google's related news" (v.gr. the Sweatshop issue) and getting traffic to their websites. So, maybe the same kind of guru is running Greenpeace.
After what I have read about the enviroment friendly policy in Apple's website, I do not trust that Greenpeace report.
They are a lot of really awful companies in the world. Greenpeace: give me a break!

After 3 hours: Still, meh!

acslater017
Aug 29, 2006, 01:06 PM
This should be a Page 2 story at best. Let's be clear about what this bit of propaganda is... We know Greenpeace is anti-technology, anti-capitalism. They know Apple is not only a huge success story, but also has a big presence in consumer's minds. Everyone knows Apple and iPods. Clearly Greenpeace, like the iPod labor camp story before it, is USING Apple to forward their own agenda of killing technology and thwarting capitalism and innovation.

Greenpeace is not exactly 'agenda-less'. But that seems sort of paranoid to say that they're clearly trying to kill technology, capitalism and innovation. If they wanted to target Apple, or get a lot of publicity, they surely could have done something more dramatic than put them fourth from the bottom of a list.

And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...

Spectrum
Aug 29, 2006, 01:09 PM
And do I care? Nah. Not one bit.
That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Send my regards to your great-grandchildren will you?

adroit
Aug 29, 2006, 01:14 PM
Not that this would make a big difference but according to the following Greenpeace's posted report:

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-guide.pdf

Apple actually scored 8/27 (or round up to 3/10) instead of 2.7/10 as what the website posted. Fujisu-Simens Rankins is also wrong. Their score is 7/27 (or 2.7/10).

I think they got the two scores mixed up. So this would bring apple up one spot to a tie with Toshiba, setting them in the middle of the pack. ;)

bigmc6000
Aug 29, 2006, 01:15 PM
Greenpeace is not exactly 'agenda-less'. But that seems sort of paranoid to say that they're clearly trying to kill technology, capitalism and innovation. If they wanted to target Apple, or get a lot of publicity, they surely could have done something more dramatic than put them fourth from the bottom of a list.

And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...

I happen to have taken way too many IE classes (that's industrial engineering not MS's IE - yuck) and I'd have to tell you the things that Greenpeace is complaining about are dwarfed in comparison to the large issue of CRT's and the contents within. Ever look at the default Dell system? They ALL have CRT's. Most of the time you can get a free upgrade to flat panel or some cheap upgrade or something but they still come with CRT's. In my opinion the stuff greenpeace is complaining about "withholds its full list of regulated substances and provides no timelines for eliminating toxic polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and no commitment to phasing out all uses of brominated flame retardants (BFRs)." are much lower on the list than the absurd volume of lead being shipped by Dell CRT's. Something else to note - the most likely reason greenpeace is pissed of is becaue of this "withholds its full list of regulated substances." Does that really have anything to do with how environmentally friendly they really are? No - does that make greenpeace mad that they aren't being "respected" by Apple? Yes. Enough to make them 4th worst? Absolutely...

digitalbiker
Aug 29, 2006, 01:16 PM
Greenpeace is not exactly 'agenda-less'. But that seems sort of paranoid to say that they're clearly trying to kill technology, capitalism and innovation. If they wanted to target Apple, or get a lot of publicity, they surely could have done something more dramatic than put them fourth from the bottom of a list.

And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...

While I have no information regarding Greenpeace having a grudge against Apple, I would be interested in knowing how Dell managed a higher ranking.

From an outsiders view, I can't really see the difference, envronmentally speaking. I mean,

Apple computers aren't significantly less efficient than Dell computers. I can't image Dell computers being constructed with significantly different materials than Apple.
Both Apple and Dell use the same defective Sony batteries, etc. etc.

So why is Dell near the top and Apple near the bottom?

It sort of does lean one to speculate that maybe someone in Greenpeace is pissed-off at Apple for popularizing the mp3 player and creating even more landfill havoc.

wdogmedia
Aug 29, 2006, 01:18 PM
Can we talk about Greenpeace's environmental track record for a minute?

- They mourn the millions of gallons of gasoline burned by cars, but refuse to support diesel fuel, which, while slightly more polluting than gas, is nearly twice as efficient, meaning collective fuel consumption would be cut dramatically.

- They champion E85, which provides only about 70% of the efficiency of gas and requires nearly a gallon of gas to manufacture per gallon of E85.

- Ditto the above for hydrogen-based fuels.

- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.

So who is Greenpeace accountable to?

swingerofbirch
Aug 29, 2006, 01:19 PM
I cannot speak at all to the Greenpeace report or what Apple does--I simply don't know enough.

But, I have always thought that computers are somewhat wasteful in how often they are replaced. A school will at once replace hundreds of computers. And I as a consumer will replace a computer and iPod every couple of years.

On the other hand, things like televisions hang around a bit longer.

I wonder in the scheme of things though if using oil and coal as sources of energy isn't a much larger problem. I don't really know. I just always assumed it was.

Spectrum
Aug 29, 2006, 01:21 PM
Something else to note - the most likely reason greenpeace is pissed of is becaue of this "withholds its full list of regulated substances." Does that really have anything to do with how environmentally friendly they really are? No - does that make greenpeace mad that they aren't being "respected" by Apple? Yes. Enough to make them 4th worst? Absolutely...
You make an interesting point. My counter: Why are Apple not releasing the full list of regulated substances? Do they have something to hide?

sjo
Aug 29, 2006, 01:22 PM
Have you read what you just wrote? Who said anything about hunting whales? Eating whale meat? Or being poor?

No one.

Conclusion? You're bigoted.

There's no denying that Greenpeace is further towards "Extremist" than towards "Moderate." That's the jist of what he's saying, and he's right.

-Clive

Whalehunting is sort of implied, but in order clarify: in Norway Greenpeace is discredited largely because they are against whalehunting which, for Norwegians, is part of their policy of trying to keep their large countryside inhabited. Greenpeace is against whalehunting so Norway, as many on this forum, see fit to try to discredit them as being "bigoted" or "extremists" or "treehuggers" instead of providing facts.

Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 2006, 01:24 PM
I consider myself a tree hugger, but this is rediculous. Greenpeace will only make the enviromentally concerned people look like idiots if they begin to rate every single industry. They should concentrate on the big issues instead of coming down on computer manufacturers. CFC is one thing, but this???

Stella
Aug 29, 2006, 01:29 PM
There seems to be plenty of people who appear not to care about the environment, which is an extremely sad point of view.

In the last 200 years we've cut down vast amounts of trees ( the Lungs of the earth ), polluted the seas, the atmosphere , killed off many species of animals, etc. Over all that, all you people are saying "SO WHAT?".

Get a ****ing life.

If this planet dies, we die. This planet is a sick one, and we have to stop polluting - what ever happens to this planet, happens to us. We pollute this planet and that has consequences on every living thing on this planet like a domino affect.

I suppose you don't care about your children. This is not OUR planet to do what we want, its our future childrens planet. The way we are going - we will royally **** this planet up for them and they will have to live with it. There will be plenty of wars over scarce resources such as Food, water, farming land etc. This will make todays problems with terrorism a walk in the park.

calvin66
Aug 29, 2006, 01:31 PM
While I'm sure Apple and everyone else has a long way to go with regard to clean manufacturing practices, I'm not sold on Greenpeace's approach to the ratings.

If you look at their scoring system, it is a compilation of Greenpeace's subjective evaluation of a variety of practices by each company. Much of what Dell gets credit for is timelines for changing its business practices, and openness with regard to information on hazardous substances in the manufacturing process. When you look at what they are doing (rather than what they are saying), Dell and Apple score the same--a +2 (partially good) on amounts recycled, and a 0 (bad) for PVC & BFR free products. The report doesn't say how it quantifies these rankings, nor the underlying data regarding the score....which is kinda funny given their harping on full disclosure for all the companies mentioned.

It turns out Greenpeace is like everybody else--manipulating the data to support its goals. It sure doesn't help their credibility.

wdogmedia
Aug 29, 2006, 01:33 PM
You make an interesting point. My counter: Why are Apple not releasing the full list of regulated substances? Do they have something to hide?

Because it's not required, and not the law. If Apple was not complying with current EPA regulations, they'd be investigated by the US Government. Greenpeace is asking them to go beyond current laws, which are quite stringent as is.

bokdol
Aug 29, 2006, 01:35 PM
i think alot of people care about the environment.. but alot of people dont care about greenpeace. in my eyes greenpeace has become a joke. i dont know mush about them but it does not seem like they do anything helpfull but to yell at the top of there lungs at people that can get them the most amount of publicity.

the way i see it is. apple is really popular in the public eye. so they become a natural target for anyone that wants their voice heard. well at least thats how i see it.

the last time i heard somethign from greenpeace was back in the 90's.

Spectrum
Aug 29, 2006, 01:37 PM
Can we talk about Greenpeace's environmental track record for a minute?
- They mourn the millions of gallons of gasoline burned by cars, but refuse to support diesel fuel, which, while slightly more polluting than gas, is nearly twice as efficient, meaning collective fuel consumption would be cut dramatically.But diesel has significantly more particulate matter in it - bad for respiratory health - particularly in cities.

- They champion E85, which provides only about 70% of the efficiency of gas and requires nearly a gallon of gas to manufacture per gallon of E85.How much gas does it take to manufacture 1 gallon of gas? What if the E85 started being manufactured without using energy from oil?


- Ditto the above for hydrogen-based fuels.In the future, H-based fuels can be manufactured with renewable energy sources. Gas/oil is never going to be a sustainable route because the raw products are finite.


- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.Out-right banning GM is a mistake. But putting the control of GM foods into the hands of powerful multinationals - and not in the hands of the people of Africa - would be a bigger mistake.

So who is Greenpeace accountable to? You and I. Just like everybody is.

Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 2006, 01:40 PM
There seems to be plenty of people who appear not to care about the environment, which is an extremely sad point of view.

In the last 200 years we've cut down vast amounts of trees ( the Lungs of the earth ), polluted the seas, the atmosphere , killed off many species of animals, etc. Over all that, all you people are saying "SO WHAT?".

Get a ****ing life.

If this planet dies, we die. This planet is a sick one, and we have to stop polluting - what ever happens to this planet, happens to us. We pollute this planet and that has consequences on every living thing on this planet like a domino affect.

I suppose you don't care about your children. This is not OUR planet to do what we want, its our future childrens planet. The way we are going - we will royally **** this planet up for them and they will have to live with it. There will be plenty of wars over scarce resources such as Food, water, farming land etc. This will make todays problems with terrorism a walk in the park.
I couldnt agree more, but...
Statements like that of Greenpeace take the focus from the big issues. Our extreme use of fossile fuel or cutting down the rain forest is a much MUCH more urgent problem.
From an enviromental impact perspective, the your choice of computer is pretty much as a fart in hurricane. We can make a much bigger difference by e.g. get more fuel efficient car.

Spectrum
Aug 29, 2006, 01:42 PM
Because it's not required, and not the law. If Apple was not complying with current EPA regulations, they'd be investigated by the US Government. Greenpeace is asking them to go beyond current laws, which are quite stringent as is.
But if they really are environmentally conscious, they have no risk at all in releasing this information. If it is good news, it would bolster their standing. Put them at number one in the Eco-company category. Free publicity. So: what is stopping them?

wdogmedia
Aug 29, 2006, 01:50 PM
But diesel has significantly more particulate matter in it - bad for respiratory health - particularly in cities.

Not after the 2007 US regulations go into effect. Even with current regulations, though, diesel has less particulate matter per mile traveled than pump gasoline, if you factor in the increased efficiency.

How much gas does it take to manufacture 1 gallon of gas? What if the E85 started being manufactured without using energy from oil?

I should have clarified, sorry. I meant to say that E85 requires the same amount of oil-based energy to create as the gas refining process.

In the future, H-based fuels can be manufactured with renewable energy sources. Gas/oil is never going to be a sustainable route because the raw products are finite.

True. But the assumption of energy innovation is a mistake, given the failure of oil-alternatives over the past 100+ years. This does not mean that looking for alternatives is fruitless (the opposite is true), but giving up on fossil fuels before an alternative is found is a gross error.

Out-right banning GM is a mistake. But putting the control of GM foods into the hands of powerful multinationals - and not in the hands of the people of Africa - would be a bigger mistake.

God forbid that someone gets richer by ensuring that my family doesn't die.

EDIT: Can I just clarify that it's nice to discuss these things without suggesting that Greenpeace "F Off" or that Apple is causing World Destruction?

bryanc
Aug 29, 2006, 01:55 PM
...
The other 90%+ of the greenhouse effect (the REAL reason the Earth's climate is warming) is caused by....drum roll....naturally occuring water vapor!
...
Let's also not forget that 30 years ago (when manmade pollution was FAR worse than it is today) these same people were warning us of a coming Ice Age.

I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.

But, to get back on topic, I do think Apple should release well-documented information regarding what they are doing to reduce their environmental impact, and how they're going to change in the face of these criticisms.

Apple is supposed to be 'Different', and these challenges regarding the treatment of their labour force, and their environmental policies, should be viewed as opportunities to be a good example (and thereby earn more customer loyalty), rather than something to be spun and handled with PR.

Cheers

Rend It
Aug 29, 2006, 01:59 PM
I see a lot of people in this thread are either blindly making excuses for Apple, or for the industry in general. I am most surprised that there is any Hg (mercury) anywhere in Apple's line. Likely, there's a Hg-vapor lamp for the LCD backlights.

An actual link to Apple's materials usage:

http://www.apple.com/environment/materials/

I'm not really sure what Greenpeace's deal is with the PVC and BFRs. What about the thousands of miles of PVC pipe in use in homes and elsewhere? As for BFRs, it's pretty damn important to make sure an object doesn't catch fire. Again, there are plenty of nasty non-asbestos fire-abatement materials used in building manufacturing. I'm not making excuses for Apple, but I think some perspective is called for here. I assume that Greenpeace's major issue is the toxicological effect these substances have on the environment. However, in terms of the actual amounts used, the electronics industry probably uses much less than the construction industry. True, there are probably companies leading the way in green building materials, but it certainly isn't an industry standard.

Apple is in compliance with RoHS; otherwise it couldn't sell computers in CA or in Europe. That means that they have probably stopped using Pb-based solders (which contained 40% Pb!). I'm dissappointed with the Hg issue, but it is a relatively small amount (less than 3.5 mg per lamp). Hopefully, the industry will soon find a replacement for these lamps, as well as the conventional printed circuit board materials. More importantly for Apple, I hope that they show more of a leadership role in this area than they have in the past. :(

moose.boy
Aug 29, 2006, 02:00 PM
How the hell can nokia be one of the top companies - here in the UK, the phones it makes are seen as throw-away. If you get the average pay as you go user upgrading every 9 months or so, the amount of waste produced is ridiculous.

Also nokia is based Scandinavian country (finland i think) and i'm sure there are tougher laws on environmental issues over there than the US/UK. Therefore, is what nokia does because of it's own volition, or because they are forced to.

jaduffy108
Aug 29, 2006, 02:08 PM
Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.

Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.

### "what they can"? ..and that's enough for you? That's what every company says. If we don't shift our values...we won't be here to debate them anymore! Geez. God I glad I'm in europe now. US values are sooo f'd up. Apple should be a leader in socially responsible business practices. *I* would pay more for their products as I do for Patagonia, etc.

jaduffy108
Aug 29, 2006, 02:11 PM
I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.

But, to get back on topic, I do think Apple should release well-documented information regarding what they are doing to reduce their environmental impact, and how they're going to change in the face of these criticisms.

Apple is supposed to be 'Different', and these challenges regarding the treatment of their labour force, and their environmental policies, should be viewed as opportunities to be a good example (and thereby earn more customer loyalty), rather than something to be spun and handled with PR.

Cheers

### Well said!

macenforcer
Aug 29, 2006, 02:12 PM
The earth is going to end up a burnt chunk of concrete unless all construction and production of materials stops today. Its is never going to happen so just start looking for other planets.

Rend It
Aug 29, 2006, 02:14 PM
But diesel has significantly more particulate matter in it - bad for respiratory health - particularly in cities.

That's what particulate filters are for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_Particulate_Filter

Low-sulfur diesel fuel standards are being phased in now, to make the US diesel more like that available elsewhere, like Europe, where diesels are much more common. At this point in time, diesel represents the most feasible option in terms of improving our individual utilization of fossil fuels in cars. A Jetta TDI is easily capable of 40+ mpg. Ideally, it would be a hybrid with diesel. Eventually, with the same hardware, we can move to biodiesel, and further reduce our oil dependencies.

Doraemon
Aug 29, 2006, 02:15 PM
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.

That by far the stupidest thing, I have read in a very long time. It's plain absurd.

Sheebahawk
Aug 29, 2006, 02:16 PM
that needs to be accounted for... the lifespan of an apple computer. Its about 3 times that of a dell, at least in my experiance. I've saved all my old macs cuz they still work.

BoyBach
Aug 29, 2006, 02:18 PM
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.


Do be frank you're talking crap! :mad:

There is more than enough food being produced and, more importantly, wasted to ensure that nobody goes to bed with an empty stomach. The reason millions, not thousands, of Africans have died, and continue to do so, are varied and complex.

But to simplify, as you have, surely the blame lies with corrupt African governments that line their own pockets with Western aid whilst their population die of disease and hunger? To 'save' Africa, the leadership needs to be strong, and it's main aim must be the well-being and protection of it's citizens.

GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.

Doraemon
Aug 29, 2006, 02:19 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?

So am I.

theheadguy
Aug 29, 2006, 02:21 PM
Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
Obviously, they aren't.

They don't even release timelines for many things while other companies do. Apple can defend itself, they don't need you or anyone else to stick up for it when you aren't informed on what they are doing. Just as people complain that Greenpeace doesn't know what they are talking about, many people defending Apple are totally clueless also. It's just important to know that if you really care about the situation. :rolleyes:

macenforcer
Aug 29, 2006, 02:25 PM
You know its not just apple, its intel and many other companies. You see it is not profitable to make something last nowadays. Remember when TV's could be repaired? Not anymore.

Ever wonder why every time a new mac comes out or any computer comes out you need to buy all new ram? Its not really that much faster. How about the CPU's? When a new one comes out why can't I just put it into my old computer and go. Socket this and socket that, they are all just sockets. Why does the Xeon need a different socket than the Core 2 DUO? Same CPU basically. Although with core intel has kept the same sockets as Pentium Ds but you need a new chipset.

We as a society could reduce the amount of computer waste by half immediately if a standard was devised to allow upgrades to work without purchasing all new computers. Heck, apple could just sell motherboard upgrades for its entire line of old computers and that would be great. No company will ever really do what it takes to save the environment because that costs them $$ in the end.

Humans are a cancer on the planet. Look at pics of the earth from space. Its disgusting.

Earth is going to look like Cybertron (Transformers home planet) folks. Just give it time.

GulGnu
Aug 29, 2006, 02:26 PM
I'm not sure you understand the situation we're in right now.

Do you understand? Humanity may be destroyed. We're not talking about a natural disaster or two here, we're not talking about something like an economic depression, we're talking about a major, if not total anihilation of our species.


Indeed - repent sinners, etc. etc. It's an old game - and the catastrophe is always just so far into the future that the doomsayers can never be held to account once the apocalypse fails to materialize... How convenient!

Plus, it's always nice to have the "preserve freedom of speech!" and 'Viva Che!' in the same sig - lends a nice air of irony to the post!

wdogmedia
Aug 29, 2006, 02:26 PM
I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.

30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.

I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?

I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.

Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.

No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?

And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)

theheadguy
Aug 29, 2006, 02:27 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Absolutely. People act as if this world is expendable. As soon as you mention Greenpeace, morons seem to go on auto-pilot and once they do that you can't stop them.

bokdol
Aug 29, 2006, 02:28 PM
Do be frank you're talking crap! :mad:

GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.


i think what he is trying to say is. greenpeace is against genetic modification. even if that modifaction is helpful to the environment.
as in the case of the enviropig

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11786176/site/newsweek

clearly greenpeace has something against science and genetic modifiaction. even if it is helpful to people and or the world. while i dont know much about this pig it soulnds like a good idea. maybe i need more research.

wdogmedia
Aug 29, 2006, 02:30 PM
Do be frank you're talking crap! :mad:

There is more than enough food being produced and, more importantly, wasted to ensure that nobody goes to bed with an empty stomach. The reason millions, not thousands, of Africans have died, and continue to do so, are varied and complex.

But to simplify, as you have, surely the blame lies with corrupt African governments that line their own pockets with Western aid whilst their population die of disease and hunger? To 'save' Africa, the leadership needs to be strong, and it's main aim must be the well-being and protection of it's citizens.

GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.

Notice the words "indirectly" and "thousands" in my post, not "directly" and "millions." You are correct that GM foods will not save Africa, and also correct that African goverments are as corrupt as they come.

But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.

BoyBach
Aug 29, 2006, 02:31 PM
Groups like Greenpeace border on fanatical...


And nobody on these forums are bordering on the fanatical in the defence of Apple Computers?

wtfk
Aug 29, 2006, 02:32 PM
Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
There's little reason to. Penn & Teller blasted them real good on their TV show "Bulls hit! (http://tinyurl.com/s4gfc)" on Showtime.

mrblah
Aug 29, 2006, 02:33 PM
I swear, some people will excuse Apple of genocide if given the chance. How is it that Apple is doing "everything they can" when Dell is doing so much better? They both make the same things! Same with Motorola and Nokia. We even have some conspiracy theorists thinking Greenpeace is out to get Apple (although they seem to miss the part where Acer scores worse, and happens to be a PC maker). Its simply impossible to try and excuse Apple when a company like Dell does better, not caring about companies destroying the environment is one thing but trying to pretend Apple is actually doing a good job is another.

I'mAMac
Aug 29, 2006, 02:34 PM
Hey, if they correct this problem and be more environmentally friendly (which I hope they do) it will be just one more reason to be a proud mac user :)

mdriftmeyer
Aug 29, 2006, 02:34 PM
Where is SUN? Brother, Samsung, Kodak, Minolta, SONY, etc?

I don't see any Television manufacturers? Philips? JVC? etc?

theheadguy
Aug 29, 2006, 02:35 PM
I swear, some people will excuse Apple of genocide if given the chance. How is it that Apple is doing "everything they can" when Dell is doing so much better? They both make the same things! Same with Motorola and Nokia. We even have some conspiracy theorists thinking Greenpeace is out to get Apple (although they seem to miss the part where Acer scores worse, and happens to be a smaller PC maker). Its simply impossible to try and excuse Apple when a company like Dell does better, not caring about companies destroying the environment is one thing but trying to pretend Apple is actually doing a good job is another.
You're spot on. Some people can't face the facts. It hurts their feelings to realize Apple can do some things very poorly.

wtfk
Aug 29, 2006, 02:36 PM
As soon as you mention Greenpeace, morons seem to go on auto-pilot and once they do that you can't stop them.
Do you think Greenpeace's behavior might have something to do with that?

I'mAMac
Aug 29, 2006, 02:36 PM
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.

I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?

I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.

Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.

No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?

And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.

mdntcallr
Aug 29, 2006, 02:38 PM
i am sure apple will get better at recycling.

they are making improvements already. shouldnt be an issue.

wdogmedia
Aug 29, 2006, 02:41 PM
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road.

Absolutely 100% false.

According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.

Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )

macenforcer
Aug 29, 2006, 02:42 PM
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.


Exactly. There are more people. So if people today create 1/2 the pollution they did 20yrs ago but now there are twice as many people there is no change.

We are doomed! :D

wdogmedia
Aug 29, 2006, 02:43 PM
The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.

Interesting cyclical logic....heat makes the sun shine stronger....hmmmm. I think what you're trying to say is that methods for creating electricity put pollutants in the atmosphere, which is true.

So....should we just not heat our homes then? You first.

Even early man built fires to stay warm.

macenforcer
Aug 29, 2006, 02:44 PM
Um....should we just not heat our homes then? You first.

Even early man built fires to stay warm.


Yeah but he should have been using Taun Tauns. ;)

I'mAMac
Aug 29, 2006, 02:44 PM
Um....should we just not heat our homes then? You first.

Even early man built fires to stay warm.
Im not saying stop using energy. I'm saying use a different source. Wind, water, sun. theres plenty of other ways to heat your home out there. Geothermal too

I'mAMac
Aug 29, 2006, 02:45 PM
Exactly. There are more people. So if people today create 1/2 the pollution they did 20yrs ago but now there are twice as many people there is no change.

We are doomed! :D
You understand my point :D

Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 2006, 02:45 PM
Notice the words "indirectly" and "thousands" in my post, not "directly" and "millions." You are correct that GM foods will not save Africa, and also correct that African goverments are as corrupt as they come.

But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.

Cowinacape
Aug 29, 2006, 02:45 PM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?

Basically I agree with you, who really gves a rats rumpuss what Green Peace has to say about anything any more, where do there ships dump their bilges when they have finished trying to save the world from it's self?

Hard to take opperations like Green Peace seriously, when their primary motive for being in operation is making money. When they no longer spend about 85% of their budgets on administration, for their fancy corporate offices and top end wages, then maybe what they have to say might be worth something.

The Green Peace, that exsists now in mearly a shell of it's former self, that started just up the coast from where I live, and acctually had purpose and meaning when it was founded. Now it is just a machine, like the rest of the corporate world.

wdogmedia
Aug 29, 2006, 02:47 PM
It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.

Ditto stem cells. :)

I'mAMac
Aug 29, 2006, 02:48 PM
Absolutely 100% false.

According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.

Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW

BoyBach
Aug 29, 2006, 02:48 PM
Notice the words "indirectly" and "thousands" in my post, not "directly" and "millions." You are correct that GM foods will not save Africa, and also correct that African goverments are as corrupt as they come.


I stand by comments regarding this statement.

But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.


You may be right about GM produce, as long as they are not the 'terminator' type crops.

But, the problem still remains that the multi-nationals will have to deal with the governments, and so long as some governments are actively seeking to kill masses of their population through civil war and starvation, no amount of aid or science can help unless there is a change of leadership first.

wdogmedia
Aug 29, 2006, 02:48 PM
Im not saying stop using energy. I'm saying use a different source. Wind, water, sun. theres plenty of other ways to heat your home out there. Geothermal too

I agree with you there....I'm just saying that humans don't have near the impact on global warming that we supposedly do. Deforestation and endangering other creatures is a different story, though.....

Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 2006, 02:50 PM
The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps.
Care to explain that for the rest of us? In what way has UV radition to do with heat radiation?

gugy
Aug 29, 2006, 02:50 PM
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW


What an intelligent statement.:rolleyes:

Phil A.
Aug 29, 2006, 02:51 PM
The one thing that struck me on the report is the amount of marks given to companies who have committed to a timescale. For example, Apple have committed to removing all BFRs but given no timescale and are marked as "bad". Dell have committed to removing all BFRs by 2009 and are marked "Good". Don't get me wrong, it's good that companies are giving time scales, but they don't really mean jack until they're implemented (the UK committed to the Kyoto protocol and will miss it's commitments by miles), and I think it's a bit misleading to give any company full marks simply because they have given a date that may be missed. I would have preferred to see those marked as Partially Good because clearly a commitment isn't as good as actually delivering on promises.

wdogmedia
Aug 29, 2006, 02:51 PM
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW

The post I was replying to said that there were 100x the cars today, which is 100% false. That the population has nearly doubled since then is true.

I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.

Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though.... :)

Pale Rider
Aug 29, 2006, 02:52 PM
Notice that one of the things that Greenpeace ranked companies on is the precationary principle: "The company fails to embrace the precautionary principle." I for one would prefer that my technology companies not embrace the Luddite, er, precautionary principle. As principles go, it is philosophically bankrupt, and not a scientifically credible basis for making technological and sociological decisions.

As for the anti-American sentiment out there, please, that bigotry is almost as productive as the fanatacism you purport to oppose. Greenpeace wears no halo; neither do corporations. Neither does the French government that used the South Pacific for nuclear testing; neither does the German government, nor the Chinese pollution complex. I want Apple to be even better at what it does and for which it has been lauded--longer life cycle products and aggressive recycling programs (notwithstanding what Greenpeace said). But like many here, I find the notion that Dell is more "green" than Apple so inherently laughable--look at why Greenpeace says Dell is more green, not because of reality, but because of how Dell interacted with them--that I cannot take this report seriously. "Greenpeace doesn't like Apple's attitude" might as well have been the report title. And on that note, I probably feel better about Apple accordingly.

Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 2006, 02:53 PM
Ditto stem cells. :)
stem cells is not altering the original genetical code. HUGE difference

wdogmedia
Aug 29, 2006, 02:54 PM
stem cells is not altering the original genetical code. HUGE difference

The point is that Greenpeace opposes ALL R&D into GM foods, just as G.W. opposes ALL R&D into stem cell research, including research to use stem cells w/o harming the fetus.

I'mAMac
Aug 29, 2006, 02:55 PM
The post I was replying to said that there were 100x the cars today, which is 100% false. That the population has nearly doubled since then is true.

I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.

Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though.... :)
lol kidding about nuking it. and yes stem cells are a different story i dont know which post I read.

I'mAMac
Aug 29, 2006, 02:57 PM
if anyone was wondering, Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell. wow stem cells are a life saver :)

Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 2006, 02:59 PM
The point is that Greenpeace opposes ALL R&D into GM foods, just as G.W. opposes ALL R&D into stem cell research, including research to use stem cells w/o harming the fetus.
First, R&D should never be banned. However, we should not implement everything we find out in our labs. It is a huge difference in getting to know how we can alter the genetical code and actually do it in a grand scale. THAT if anything will be our end.
Stem cells is an entirely different story. That is a political/religious question about when life begins and also OT.

york2600
Aug 29, 2006, 02:59 PM
If you head over to Apple's environmental page and read through it (which I have done several times) you'll see that much of what they claim to be doing for the environment is actually more along the line of what is called natural capitalism. That's not to say it's bad, but don't let them fool you into thinking they have the environments best interests at heart. They're looking out for the bottom line. They make claims about LCDs, but manufacturing energy and toxic inputs on LCDs vs CRTs is a pretty poor argument (read LCD vs CRT report by EPA to see exact figures). Apple can claim a lot of environmental victories, but many of them are simple side benefits of the movement in their product line. LCDs use less energy and have lower cooling costs in lab environments. Core Duos take less energy than G5s. These are true, but Apple didn't switch to save the world.

Dell has come under a lot of pressure recently for their poor environmental track record. From their lack of a takeback program to their recycling of components using prison labor. They're been forced to clean up their act. They have a pretty amazing takeback program. Apple has a really horrible one. I've used both. Apple needs to step up here. They have a program that seems to exist simply so they can say it's there. Apple has also pulled products from the European market instead of redesigning them to meet new toxics standards. Dell switched suppliers and kept their products world wide. Greenpeace should be targetting Apple here. I hope Apple reacts. Good quality products, with a long lifespan a low environmental impact benefit everyone.

Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 2006, 03:00 PM
if anyone was wondering, Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell.
Dont you think people can google it for themselves if they feel a need to know?

AlBDamned
Aug 29, 2006, 03:01 PM
Don't get me wrong, it's good that companies are giving time scales, but they don't really mean jack until they're implemented (the UK committed to the Kyoto protocol and will miss it's commitments by miles)

That's not true. The UK will miss the targets that Tony Blair committed [us] to. Blair's standards were almost double the standard Kyoto targets. We'll miss the Blair targets (surprise surprise) but we should hit the Kyoto targets. See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4849672.stm).

Of course, much of Kyoto is rendered moot because the US refuses to ratify the treaty because "it will harm the economy." :rolleyes:

wdogmedia
Aug 29, 2006, 03:03 PM
First, R&D should never be banned. However, we should not implement everything we find out in our labs. It is a huge difference in getting to know how we can alter the genetical code and actually do it in a grand scale. THAT if anything will be our end.
Stem cells is an entirely different story. That is a political/religious question about when life begins and also OT.

We're both in agreement here....I wasn't implying that we send of bags of GM rice to Africa without making sure it was safe, I was only saying that it's wrong not to research an idea that could (in theory) save so many lives.

For the record, I'm also not a fan of stem cell research if it kills the fetus, but I think it's maddening that GW won't fund research into harvesting stem cells WITHOUT killing the fetus....mind-blowing.

MacinDoc
Aug 29, 2006, 03:07 PM
For those who don't know what the Precautionary Principle, it is a belief that essentially states that everything should be assumed to be harmful until proven otherwise. Therefore, it applies mostly to innovators and producers of new products that have not been made before. Apple, being an innovative company, introduces new technologies. Dell, on the other hand, copies what others have done. So, the only way that Apple could adhere as closely to the Precautionary Principle as Dell would be to become another Dell, and to only copy what other manufacturers were already making. So, including this principle in Greenpeace's analysis of the environmental friendliness of tech firms is laughable at best, conspiratorial at worst.

Am I saying that Apple could not do better as a steward of the environment? No, but I suspect that Dell, which should be stopping its distribution of CRTs (which consume much more power than LCDs and contain lead) and designing products to have a longer lifespan, is more in need of improvement than Apple is.

Spectrum
Aug 29, 2006, 03:11 PM
It is a huge difference in getting to know how we can alter the genetical code and actually do it in a grand scale. THAT if anything will be our end.
We've been modifying the genetic code of organisms (plants/animals) for centuries by selective breeding. GM is a more refined way of doing these same things, but more rapidly, as well as permitting the introduction of new genetic traits not possible through standard cross-breeding strategies.
It has the potential to end a great deal of suffering in the world from starvation. Not to mention potentially huge environmental savings from reduced use of pesticides, less irrigation, and transport.

However, this immense power needs to be deployed carefully and responsibly.

Phil A.
Aug 29, 2006, 03:13 PM
That's not true. The UK will miss the targets that Tony Blair committed [us] to. Blair's standards were almost double the standard Kyoto targets. We'll miss the Blair targets (surprise surprise) but we should hit the Kyoto targets. See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4849672.stm).

Of course, much of Kyoto is rendered moot because the US refuses to ratify the treaty because "it will harm the economy." :rolleyes:

That's kind of my point - the UK committed (or was committed) to unrealistic goals and will fail to meet them. Anyone can commit to anything - actually delivering on those commitments is completely different

BoyBach
Aug 29, 2006, 03:23 PM
Why are so many of these posts so vehemently anti-Greenpeace? What have they done, or alleged to have done, that I've missed?

AlBDamned
Aug 29, 2006, 03:25 PM
That's kind of my point - the UK committed (or was committed) to unrealistic goals and will fail to meet them. Anyone can commit to anything - actually delivering on those commitments is completely different

Well that's more to do with Blair being uninformed and making decisions because he likes to sound better than he is. If Blair hadn't been a pillock and stuck to the realistic, achievable timeline that everyone else stuck to, then it would have been achievable. Why he said we'd double those targets is beyond most people except the monkey labour spin doctor that suggested it.

What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.

This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.

As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?

AoWolf
Aug 29, 2006, 03:25 PM
To be honest I really don't care what green peace thinks. I wonder if you took all advancements that have benefited humanity made on macs versus all the work greenpeace has ever done who would come out on top. We definitely need to watch out for the environment but we need to do it logically not emotionally. Greenpeace is nothing but a group of eco-terriests in my opinion.

Stella
Aug 29, 2006, 03:28 PM
And it may still happen. If the north atlantic Gulf Stream ceases, northern Europe will be in an effective ice age. Currently, its behaviour is changing...

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=north+atlantic+keep+warm&btnG=Search&meta=


30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.


Even if, which I doubt, your theory of water vapour is correct - that does not give us the excuse to pollute this planet as we see fit. All industry and humans must clean up their act - literally.

iGary
Aug 29, 2006, 03:34 PM
You know what I hate about crap like this?

People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"

Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.

Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.

BoyBach
Aug 29, 2006, 03:36 PM
Greenpeace is nothing but a group of eco-terriests in my opinion.


Is that a logical or an emotional statement?

iJaz
Aug 29, 2006, 03:37 PM
Bah, who cares, I used to dig Greenpeace but they are just rubbish nowadys.

Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 2006, 03:37 PM
We're both in agreement here....I wasn't implying that we send of bags of GM rice to Africa without making sure it was safe, I was only saying that it's wrong not to research an idea that could (in theory) save so many lives.

For the record, I'm also not a fan of stem cell research if it kills the fetus, but I think it's maddening that GW won't fund research into harvesting stem cells WITHOUT killing the fetus....mind-blowing.
Ok, it looks like we agree. My point was just we should be careful so we don't kill off the planet while trying to save it.
Back to the topic; I think Greenpeace's statement is counterproductive. We have huge problems here on this planet and we just dont have the time to "polish the brass". I am afraid that people think that as long as they do something for the enviroment they are home free. That is just not true.
We dont save the planet by buying "greener" computers. True, it helps. But things are so f***d up right now, that we need to concentrate on the big issues, e.g. rainforest being chopped down, extinction of species, and most of all our consumption of fossile fuel.
Diverting the focus away from these issues, is almost as bad as ********** up the earth in the first place. Greenpeace has developed to something quite different than it started out as.

Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 2006, 03:40 PM
You know what I hate about crap like this?

People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"

Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.

Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
Excellent summary.

Xapplimatic
Aug 29, 2006, 03:46 PM
Why not target the bigger fish first? Too hard a target? Microsoft in its CD replication factories, Dell in its TV/monitor and board manufacturing facilities surely put out hundreds of tons of more toxic wastes than all of Apples productions combined. Why not start there?

wdogmedia
Aug 29, 2006, 03:52 PM
Even if, which I doubt, your theory of water vapour is correct - that does not give us the excuse to pollute this planet as we see fit. All industry and humans must clean up their act - literally.

Some of what I said was theory, but every factual statement I gave was just that - factual. No climatologist would argue with any of the facts I gave...it's just that, as with statistics, the interpretation of the fact differs.

And no, we have no excuse to pollute the planet....human actions proven to disrupt the environment (deforestation, toxic runoff, killing off animal species, etc.) should be stopped whenever possible. We are responsible for taking care of this planet, but at the same time we have to realize when advancements have been made. Our cars, boats, factories and city skies are infinitely more environmentally-friendly than they used to be, but if 30 years of industrial and personal "clean-up" have done nothing to stem global warming, it's only natural to wonder if maybe it's not us causing the problem.

In other words, if we've streamlined our machinery to be 99% more efficient, is it worth it to spend the billions of dollars to get rid of that last 1% if our original effort has done nothing to the greenhouse effect?

Stella
Aug 29, 2006, 03:53 PM
Why not target the bigger fish first? Too hard a target? Microsoft in its CD replication factories, Dell in its TV/monitor and board manufacturing facilities surely put out hundreds of tons of more toxic wastes than all of Apples productions combined. Why not start there?

Really, I thought it was a survey that happened to find Apple not so Green amongst other companies. Anything that puts Apple in a bad light is automatically deemed as "Singling out Apple".

I for one welcome this kind of thing - it names and shames.

Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 2006, 03:55 PM
Why not target the bigger fish first? Too hard a target? Microsoft in its CD replication factories, Dell in its TV/monitor and board manufacturing facilities surely put out hundreds of tons of more toxic wastes than all of Apples productions combined. Why not start there?
This shouldnt be about finger pointing.
The issues are real and we are in a dire need for a solution...fast.
One thing is sure though, the difference in enviromental cost between the "greenest" computer and the worst computer is insignificant in the big picture. There are much more urgent enviromental issues that we need to handle.

Knowing how many well-educated people there are in enviromental movement, Greenpeace's statement sounds, to me, more like a cry for additional funding than a cry to save the planet.

Lord Blackadder
Aug 29, 2006, 03:55 PM
I dislike Greenpeace - their list may or may not have some relevance but this is one messanger I wouldn't mind shooting.

I'mAMac
Aug 29, 2006, 03:57 PM
Care to explain that for the rest of us? In what way has UV radition to do with heat radiation?
This is just logic. uv AND heat are more potent due to o-zone decimation. Let me see if i can think of an example...............................erm ok car windows filter out uv rays and are tinted so they keep out some heat. If the window is closed you are a little more protected and a little cooler, if it is open you are a little more unprotected and hotter. (in summertime when the temperature is hotter and the earth is tilted towerd the sun)

Phil A.
Aug 29, 2006, 04:00 PM
Well that's more to do with Blair being uninformed and making decisions because he likes to sound better than he is. If Blair hadn't been a pillock and stuck to the realistic, achievable timeline that everyone else stuck to, then it would have been achievable. Why he said we'd double those targets is beyond most people except the monkey labour spin doctor that suggested it.

What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.

This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.

As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?

I completely agree that a company that has a timeline for implementing change should be marked higher than one that says "we'll do it" but gives no dates. I still maintain, however, that companies should not be given full marks until they've actually delivered on their promises - at the present moment neither company is actually doing anything to protect the environment in those areas

I'mAMac
Aug 29, 2006, 04:01 PM
Dont you think people can google it for themselves if they feel a need to know?
sorry for trying to provide easy info...

mpstrex
Aug 29, 2006, 04:02 PM
Last I heard, Greenpeace makes millions of dollars a year. Non-profits are corporations. And like any large company that is into expanding to other parts of the globe and setting up seperate offices throughout the world, they need to have local politicians interested in their specialities. They donate to many political organizations.

And Apple IS eco-friendly, or so I thought--Al Gore is on the board. I got the impression he was sort of into the environmental movement...

deconai
Aug 29, 2006, 04:04 PM
Greenpeace are terrorists. I have seen them endanger human life for the sake of an environment that does a pretty good job of taking care of itself. I laugh at their hitlists. Hahahahaha. :|

Capitalism thrives on being able to recycle resources, but it must be profitable in the first place to become feasible. You can't expect companies to take large hits on their bottom line to appease the Greenpeace crowd (not that they couldn't afford it, that would just go against the policy of capitalism). You can, however, expect them to do whatever is in their power to make business as efficient and clean as possible, mostly because it's cheaper in the long run. That's what Apple does. We really can't ask for anything more, unless we're willing to see them pack up and move to India.

deconai
Aug 29, 2006, 04:06 PM
And Apple IS eco-friendly, or so I thought--Al Gore is on the board. I got the impression he was sort of into the environmental movement...

Actually, he's on the Al Gore movement. ;)

Lau
Aug 29, 2006, 04:07 PM
You know what I hate about crap like this?

People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"

Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.

Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.

I know where you're coming from, but surely it's a good thing to try and get the companies we use to improve their environmental policy? If Dell does recycle more than Apple, then maybe Apple should recycle more. If Apple's stuff lasts longer, Dell should make their stuff last longer. And yes, at the same time, we should be putting pressure on companies to reduce food packaging and use less power and fuel. I don't really see it as a competition between companies, more that if one company does something environmentally better than another, the other should try and match it, you know?

I'mAMac
Aug 29, 2006, 04:07 PM
You know what I hate about crap like this?

People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"

Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.

Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
I actually produce some of my own food. but it doesnt matter. Im not pointing fingers we are all the problem. If Greenpeace REALLY wants to make a difference they should actually do something instead of sitting back and say how anti-environment everyone is. and people should try to make use of other sources of energy. I forget town it was but somewhere in Minnesota, a man discovered that if he took cattails(not real cat tails, the kind you find near a lake) and compress them into small pellets he could use them to power his house. Later on he found that enough of them could power his town. I dont know how he did it i'll google it. but people should be doing things like that, innovation and utilization.
EDIT: just found out that they do make energy with them but it wont last that long. idk i guess there isnt enough :(

BoyBach
Aug 29, 2006, 04:08 PM
Greenpeace are terrorists.


:eek:

Why the vitriol against Greenpeace? It appears that a lot of people on this forum HATE them. What have they done to deserve this?

mpstrex
Aug 29, 2006, 04:09 PM
Actually, he's on the Al Gore movement. ;)

NO! Al Gore is in it for himself? I thought he was a selfless guy, out for the environment. I mean, his movie DID make over $20 million and the budget was REAL low, and the majority of the crew worked on it for free...

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=inconvenienttruth.htm

wdogmedia
Aug 29, 2006, 04:10 PM
I'd just like to inject here that Apple is apparently complying with all U.S. environmental regulations and, to my mind anyway, has no corporate responsibility towards the environment beyond that. They are certainly not bound by the law to have CPU and iPod recycling programs, for example.

If they were breaking environmental law, that would be entirely different. Their social responsibility towards the environment is to act within the law, which they are doing.

puuukeey
Aug 29, 2006, 04:13 PM
Branding != values
Zen packaging != Green company
Artsy propaganda != artist friendly
people in black turtle neck != leftist zen hipsters

This being said. computers are not the biggest ewaist problem. We should be scared of CDs. the very definition of a good CD is the opposite of biodegradable.

I'mAMac
Aug 29, 2006, 04:15 PM
:eek:

Why the vitriol against Greenpeace? It appears that a lot of people on this forum HATE them. What have they done to deserve this?
I dont hate them i like what they are TRYING to do, they just aren't doing it.

Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 2006, 04:18 PM
This is just logic. uv AND heat are more potent due to o-zone decimation. Let me see if i can think of an example...............................erm ok car windows filter out uv rays and are tinted so they keep out some heat. If the window is closed you are a little more protected and a little cooler, if it is open you are a little more unprotected and hotter. (in summertime when the temperature is hotter and the earth is tilted towerd the sun)
Hmmm... I don't want to be rude but you really should have some basic knowledge in physics before you make statements like that.

I'mAMac
Aug 29, 2006, 04:22 PM
Hmmm... I don't want to be rude but you really should have some basic knowledge in physics before you make statements like that.
bad example. ok so you think that o-zone deterioration has NO effect on global warming? come on. if no direct effects then there are indirect effects.

Di9it8
Aug 29, 2006, 04:25 PM
I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs. I'm serious people buy a new Dell every few years because they are garbage. Do you honestly think people give them back for recycling. They sell them on ebay or craigslist, and the new owner after about a year puts them in the dumpster. With Apple people keep their machines much longer, and are much more likely to recycle them because they are smaller and easier to take to a recycling center (no CRT). This alone makes Apple greener then Dell.

We are still using on a daily basis a G3 WallStreet laptop, the battery is gone but otherwise it is quite reliable. This long life must make Apples greener as we have disposed of 1 Toshiba and 2 IBM machines in the same time span :rolleyes:

iGary
Aug 29, 2006, 04:28 PM
I know where you're coming from, but surely it's a good thing to try and get the companies we use to improve their environmental policy? If Dell does recycle more than Apple, then maybe Apple should recycle more. If Apple's stuff lasts longer, Dell should make their stuff last longer. And yes, at the same time, we should be putting pressure on companies to reduce food packaging and use less power and fuel. I don't really see it as a competition between companies, more that if one company does something environmentally better than another, the other should try and match it, you know?

My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.

I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.

You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.

I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D

I'mAMac
Aug 29, 2006, 04:29 PM
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.

I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.

You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
right. why don't they invent something that doesnt pollute so we can all use it. (yeah right)

BoyBach
Aug 29, 2006, 04:30 PM
I'd just like to inject here that Apple is apparently complying with all U.S. environmental regulations and, to my mind anyway, has no corporate responsibility towards the environment beyond that. They are certainly not bound by the law to have CPU and iPod recycling programs, for example.

If they were breaking environmental law, that would be entirely different. Their social responsibility towards the environment is to act within the law, which they are doing.


Maybe. But Apple are global company and they are subject to the laws of the various countries in which they sell their products.

In the EU there will soon be WEEE directive that governs the disposal of so called "E-waste" (televisions, computers, phones, etc), that will seriously affect manufacturers and retailers. So will Apple continue along their current trend of simply not selling products in these territories or will they redesign them? Because, eventually these sorts of laws will be passed all around the world, including the US.

Reactive or proactive - which is the better business?

wdogmedia
Aug 29, 2006, 04:32 PM
In the EU there will soon be WEEE directive that governs the disposal of so called "E-waste" (televisions, computers, phones, etc), that will seriously affect manufacturers and retailers. So will Apple continue along their current trend of simply not selling products in these territories or will they redesign them? Because, eventually these sorts of laws will be passed all around the world, including the US.

Apple needs to abide by the laws of whatever country it sells products in (I know, I ended with a preposition, I'm tired). In order to survive, Apple will need to adapt along with changine environmental law....I'm certainly not suggesting that Apple break the law.

I'm only saying that as of right now, Apple's not actually doing anything legally wrong.

EDIT: And as far as being "proactive," Apple is somewhat bound by its suppliers, at least in a manufacturing sense. Batteries from Sony, processors from Motorola, IBM and Intel, hard drives from Toshiba, etc.

I'mAMac
Aug 29, 2006, 04:34 PM
We also dont need to buy an escalade that gets about 10 miles to the gallon and then drive it EVERYWHERE. take a walk, ride your bike. every little bit helps

Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 2006, 04:35 PM
bad example. ok so you think that o-zone deterioration has NO effect on global warming?
First of all, I did study physics before, but this is not my area eventhough I work in research. But I do know this, the actual causuality between the deterioation of the ozon layer and global warming is very complex.
The experts in this area all agree on CO2, caused by oxidation (burning) fossile fuel, is by far the most significant factor in the change of our climate.

Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 2006, 04:40 PM
We also dont need to buy an escalade that gets about 10 miles to the gallon and then drive it EVERYWHERE. take a walk, ride your bike. every little bit helps
THAT is something we agree completely on. :D ;) I bike back and forth to the university every day. I save money both on gas and gym at the same time as I do something for the environment.

wekes
Aug 29, 2006, 04:47 PM
I remember getting my old Power Mac 7500 in an ugly brown box with a message on it saying that apple wasn't using dyed boxes in order to help the environment. That's fine with me. However, I retrospect, I promptly dumped that box in the trash and acutally still use my newer and prettier dyed Apple boxes as storage containers in my storage room--something I never would have done with the ugly, wimpier brown one. So much for the borwn box helping the environment.

IMHO, Greenpeace is not to be trusted. They are highly-biased activists who, like most activist groups (right or left), have the unstated, main goal of needing to justify their continuing existence. Greenpeace, in particular, is notorious for having blinders on to the point they don't have any perspective in the real world beyond the utopian fantasies. I'm all for having reasonable, workable policies that are responsible and benefit society, but letting Greenpeace be the dictator of what those policies should be is naieve and dangerous.

I'mAMac
Aug 29, 2006, 04:50 PM
THAT is something we agree completely on. :D ;) I bike back and forth to the university every day. I save money both on gas and gym at the same time as I do something for the environment.
Good we need more people to do that :) And i do agree with you about burning fossil fuels. Contributes the most.

Lau
Aug 29, 2006, 04:52 PM
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.

I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.

You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.

I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D

It's definitely true that educating people how to (and actually convincing them to) make a difference is incredibly important. And I'm not a huge fan of Greenpeace, but if the figures are true, Apple (along with a lot of other companies could do better, and should.

However, I think environmentalists should be pointing fingers everywhere. At the same time. In my opinion, half the reason we're in this state is people saying "Well, big compainies pollute, so why should I care", "Well, other countries pollute, so there's no point in me bothering", "Well, the supermarket's easier to shop at, so it's not my fault", etc. If we all just got on with it, at the same time, without worrying about whether so and so was better or worse, we'd be a hell of a lot better off.

todstiles
Aug 29, 2006, 04:57 PM
You people that are quoting and referencing information on wikipedia are really funny. Since when is anything that is written there taken as fact?

And you have to take statements from Greenpeace for what they are worth. You are talking about an organization that thrives on attention. Of course they are going to make outlandish statements. It's the only way anyone would ever know they exist.

Let's not put too much stock in this. There are absolutely no facts to back this up. As usual Greenpeace has nothing to show me. Nothing.

Groovey
Aug 29, 2006, 05:12 PM
From Greenpeace.org

It is disappointing to see Apple ranking so low in the overall guide. They are meant to be world leaders in design and marketing, they should also be world leaders in environmental innovation." said Kruszewska.


And this is something I gotta agree with. I don't believe that people in Greenpeace are sitting around doing nothing and just making things up, such as ranking corporations blindly with no research data at all. In my opinion realizing such issues doesn't make anything worse, just makes it possible for things to get even better. Sounds probably quite optimistic, yes, but gotta keep the spirits up. I also have bought all my Apple-stuff in the belief that they are somewhat more eco-friendly too. They make excellent computers, and soon to be even more perfect! :D

KingYaba
Aug 29, 2006, 05:30 PM
GreenPeace's new agenda: Save the iPods :rolleyes:

Groovey
Aug 29, 2006, 06:03 PM
GreenPeace's new agenda: Save the iPods :rolleyes:

Something like that. They probably put pretty much weight on iPod's battery issues together with their sales amount. Waiting for that green-colored "Limited Edition Greenpeace iPod".

Spectrum
Aug 29, 2006, 06:07 PM
You know what I hate about crap like this?

People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"

Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.

Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
I understand your sentiment, but really, there are options. If people don't take them they are just being lazy/irresponsible.

How about starting by:
Buying biodegradable washing liquids/toiletries
Walking to get the milk.
Buying Organic.
Buying your electricity from a vendor that sells renewable energy.
Not buying pre-packaged foods.
Refusing to have what you do buy to be double bagged, thank-you-very-much.
Even - shock horror - take your own bag. Try one of these (http://www.onyabags.co.uk/index.htm)

KingYaba
Aug 29, 2006, 06:27 PM
Not all organic foods are actually organic.

redkamel
Aug 29, 2006, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.


man I just had to post....the nerd in me...

Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.

While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.

Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.

Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.

Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.

When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.

Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.

Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.

mpstrex
Aug 29, 2006, 07:22 PM
What about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article

Cooling, warming, cooling, warming...Sheesh, it's almost like it's mother nature, NOT us. Doesn't she know it's US! And that little ice age in the 16th to 18th centuries? what's that all about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age

Again, sheesh. It's like mother nature is doing it herself!!! And jeez, how about the greenhouse effect? I thought it was bad until my college Blue Planet teacher told us that if we didn't have it, the planet would be one big snowball. None of the students knew what to think, after years of telling us greenhouse effects are bad. Thank god all those carbon dioxide emissions are breathed up by plants...

Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 2006, 07:43 PM
What about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article

Cooling, warming, cooling, warming...Sheesh, it's almost like it's mother nature, NOT us. Doesn't she know it's US! And that little ice age in the 16th to 18th centuries? what's that all about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age

Again, sheesh. It's like mother nature is doing it herself!!! And jeez, how about the greenhouse effect? I thought it was bad until my college Blue Planet teacher told us that if we didn't have it, the planet would be one big snowball. None of the students knew what to think, after years of telling us greenhouse effects are bad. Thank god all those carbon dioxide emissions are breathed up by plants...
ehm, it is slightly more complex than that.
Think of earth as one big very very complex dynamical system. You change one varible and all the other variables will change too. If you are lucky the system will converge back to the original equilibrium. However, if you change a/some variables sufficiently much, the system will:
a) converge to a new equlibrium
or
b) oscillate
All serious climate researchers claim that we are about to change a/some variables sufficiently much (read. CO2) The fact that we already have chopped down large protions of the rain forrest doesnt help us since CO2 are used in photosynthesis.

emac kinda guy
Aug 29, 2006, 08:19 PM
Why do these businesses have to interfere with me? We are all now showing bromated fire retardants in our blood. Who was here first and who is interfering with whom?

Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?

Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?

P.S. have not read the whole thread yet - I hope I'm not repeating something someone else has said.

dialectician
Aug 29, 2006, 08:42 PM
How do we know this Greenpeace report is accurate?

Sometimes activist organizations will target big name companies just to get more attention.

Apple is more green than dell. period.

Makes me question the whole report if greenpeace thinks dell is more green then apple.

bunch of hewwie

You sound like George Bush...

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Period.

dialectician
Aug 29, 2006, 08:46 PM
IMHO, Greenpeace is not to be trusted. They are highly-biased activists who, like most activist groups (right or left), have the unstated, main goal of needing to justify their continuing existence. Greenpeace, in particular, is notorious for having blinders on to the point they don't have any perspective in the real world beyond the utopian fantasies. I'm all for having reasonable, workable policies that are responsible and benefit society, but letting Greenpeace be the dictator of what those policies should be is naieve and dangerous.

Who says Greenpeace should dictate the policies? But if Dell can do it, Apple can, also...

imacintel
Aug 29, 2006, 08:51 PM
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?

Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?

This is where I agree with you. I don't call myself a tree hugger. Sure, I love the earth and planet but sometimes people take it too far.

Spectrum
Aug 29, 2006, 10:46 PM
Not all organic foods are actually organic.
Care to enlighten us?

Stella
Aug 29, 2006, 10:54 PM
This is where I agree with you. I don't call myself a tree hugger. Sure, I love the earth and planet but sometimes people take it too far.


Sure, go and destroy this planet - you know, the thing that sustains life for you.

Hell, some people take things too far.... the entity that supports life... yea.....

Stella
Aug 29, 2006, 10:58 PM
You sound like George Bush...

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Period.

Exactly, George Bush is a complete and utter moran. He thinks that ( american ) people shouldn't change their life styles.

Well, a few more Caterinas ( spelling ) will change their views.

The seas are heating up which means more hurricanes.... and I'm a firm believer that humans are in part ( not totally ) responsible for global warming ( that may actually result in Global Cooling ) - you've only got to look at weather statistics since the first industrial revolution. Patterns of weather, seasons have significantly changed since then.

Why is it that the majority of scientists have come forward with positive data proving global warming ( human influenced ), and then GW Bush with his small band of 'advisors' come along and reject their findings...

... :rolleyes: ...

digitalbiker
Aug 29, 2006, 11:11 PM
The experts in this area all agree on CO2, caused by oxidation (burning) fossile fuel, is by far the most significant factor in the change of our climate.

This just isn't true!

It depends on which experts you ask. Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming. Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.

Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models. But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.

Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.

I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.

ezekielrage_99
Aug 29, 2006, 11:17 PM
I think people are missing the point....

Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.

I know I don't :cool:

radio893fm
Aug 30, 2006, 12:49 AM
Thank God Apple users just amount 3% -or something like that- in the computer industry (forget about the ipod)...

If everybody thought like most people in this board, the world would be a more scarier (if possible) place to live in...

pink-pony115
Aug 30, 2006, 01:01 AM
ooooooooooh no is the world coming to a end?

R-E-L-A-X fello MR peeps :cool:

Groovey
Aug 30, 2006, 03:48 AM
I think people are missing the point....

Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.

I know I don't :cool:

Is 99 for your year of birth? It's not like there's ten of them. You've probably had too many nightmares about Woodstock.

Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 30, 2006, 04:22 AM
Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?

Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.

bousozoku
Aug 30, 2006, 07:19 AM
It does concern me but I've yet to dispose of any equipment. Everything about our daily lives abounds with waste, doesn't it?

I recycle whenever I can, but just because something has a recycling symbol doesn't mean that the company overseeing local recycling will accept it because they might not have the facilities to process it.

My car obviously pollutes more than I like even though the catalytic converter has been replaced and using air conditioning (car or home) uses chemicals that also pollute.

I don't trust Greenpeace any more than I trust our government. They're on opposite ends and neither cares about the truth. Either can be bought.

Having seen videos of Greenpeace in operation, I wonder if their "operations" are environmentally-friendly, whether it be a simple protest or an attack on a whaling ship.

After all this, Apple indeed need to get the lead out and clean up their act. Seeing as how the AirPort Extreme Basestation and iSight were recently removed from the EU shows that they have work to do.

ezekielrage_99
Aug 30, 2006, 07:27 AM
Is 99 for your year of birth? It's not like there's ten of them. You've probably had too many nightmares about Woodstock.

Which woodstock are we talking about? I hope the new one in the 90's that one was sweet.

ezekielrage_99
Aug 30, 2006, 07:29 AM
Thank God Apple users just amount 3% -or something like that- in the computer industry (forget about the ipod)...

If everybody thought like most people in this board, the world would be a more scarier (if possible) place to live in...

I wonder if Dell rated highly because of that battery thing :confused:

ezekielrage_99
Aug 30, 2006, 07:42 AM
Is 99 for your year of birth? It's not like there's ten of them. You've probably had too many nightmares about Woodstock.

For your information I'm 26 work, I have a Masters, I'm a officer (imagery information analyst) for the defence force. In my line of work I get this inanely useless "hippy crap" 24 hour a day 7 days a week, kind of sick of hearing the same doom and gloom stories.

The majority of the people who put these studies out usually have ZERO idea of how to combat the problems, they say it's bad and when you ask how can we do something about it they have not a clue. Hence influencial people have a problem taking certain groups seriously, and hence my overly cynical response.

BoyBach
Aug 30, 2006, 07:56 AM
I'm a officer (imagery information analyst) for the defence force. In my line of work I get this inanely useless "hippy crap" 24 hour a day 7 days a week


The army is full of hippies? :eek: :D

Or are you spying on hippy communes? <shifty eyes>

:D

ezekielrage_99
Aug 30, 2006, 08:12 AM
The army is full of hippies? :eek: :D

Or are you spying on hippy communes? <shifty eyes>

:D

Nope just blowback from the general public, got to love orders that come from the top :rolleyes:

I work with the general public a fair bit, handing out info and media packs to the press.....

zarusoba
Aug 30, 2006, 08:48 AM
The fact is that there is no industry or organisation that does not depend on healthy ecosystems for its survival and growth. Therefore, even those who lack any moral imperative to protect the environment must surely choose to do so out of sheer logic.

Greenpeace's report is not necessarily correct. Lest we forget that old adage: "You can't believe everything you read." However, organisations like Greenpeace fulfill an essential role and provide an opening for debate and for the development of effective environmental standards.

The Montreal Protocol that prohibited CFC production is an example of a successful environmental treaty that benefits everyone by placing appropriate limitation on industry.

"Wealth can provide no shield from pollution."
Ronald Wright, "A Short History of Progress" (http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey/massey2004.html)

reden
Aug 30, 2006, 09:35 AM
I was looking through Apple's enviromental contributions about 3 weeks ago and there was nothing that I didn't like. I think Apple is really putting good efforts to help the enviroment. It's very tough to create a self-sustained company and recuding their footprint on this world as a computer company.

Also, what these enviroment companies fail to realize is that Apple computers are different. People keep these computers for longer periods of time, they almost become novelty items. When the hell have you heard someone post a DELL LISA on EBAY? You know how people recycle their Macs for the most part? They pass them on to someone, schools, their local YMCA because it's always a useful piece of equipment that lasts for a good amount of time. They also reduce their footprint by not breaking down as much as their PC counter parts.

Of all the Macs I've owned in the past 10 years, I've NEVER had to take my Mac to get it fixed such as a replaced motherboard or anything like that. Macs last longer, they are useful for longer periods of time, etc. LEARN TO EVALUATE THAT GREENwhatever. I've owned a G4, an iMac, a pizza-box powerpc, and I know where all these computers are located, and they still function. I know they're not in some dump.

deconai
Aug 30, 2006, 09:53 AM
A few years ago in college, my Geology professor (he works at NASA developing new energy technologies and teaches during the Summer as a side job) told us that Mother Nature is actually the largest contributor to greenhouse gases through the release of methane attributed to volacones. In fact, one volcano puts out more methane gas than the entire USA. Apparently humans are only responsible for a fraction of a percent of the greenhouse gases found in the natural atmosphere.

Face it, global warming is a buzz phrase quickly falling out of fashion. The temperature changes we are experiencing are part of a cycle, nothing more.

The real problem that humans create is the rapid consumption of the earth's natural resources. We need to remember to recriprocate this consumption with preservation.

Spectrum
Aug 30, 2006, 10:08 AM
I think people are missing the point....
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
Congratulations! You just got added to the list (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2772247#post2772247).

mpstrex
Aug 30, 2006, 10:25 AM
What about this:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/

or this:

http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2006/08/black_hydrogen.html

or this:

"Science politicized is science betrayed. Adamant focuses on advances in science and international security, and how the rhetoric of motives distorts them in public television, often thoughtless think tanks, and both sides of the aisle in a Congress where lawyers outnumber scientists 30 to 1.

"It also affords respite from the Science Wars by surveying bizarre things that surface in the 36,000 ostensibly learned journals to which Harvard's library's subscribes." -Physicist Dr. Russell Seitz

mpstrex
Aug 30, 2006, 10:27 AM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?

Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
Edit: Added a couple more gems.
Edit: One more.

Bigoted? Wow. I mean, yeah, some of those were crossing the line, but if I exercise my freedom of speech and say that many environmentalists subscribe to ideals and faith vs. facts, does that mean I'm a bigot? Jeez, I've been called worse when I say my opinions. People can say what they want; others certainly do when it comes to Conservatives and the Israelis (Nazis, Zionists, war mongers, etc.--and that's just IN the USA). I don't subscribe to hatred, but before you start labelling anyone who disagrees with your opinions and beliefs a bigot and irresponsible, think about how you're trying to stifle our freedoms of speech. Again, a few of those crossed the line, but I hope you aren't trying to stop us from talking.

RogueWarrior65
Aug 30, 2006, 10:31 AM
Greenpeas never gave a damn until Apple was a red-hot company again. Same thing with Creative. You waited THIS long to bitch and moan about your intellectual property?

No lawyer ever gives a crap unless the target has lots of money.

mpstrex
Aug 30, 2006, 10:32 AM
And for the record, of the 12+ Apples and 3+ iPods I've owned, I've:

1. Donated my 1994 Apple Performa (?), of which I got a lot of mileage out of, to a company that fixed it, removed my data for me, and gave the computer to women who were abused.

2. I've sold all my other Apples to new owners who used them for school, work, etc.

3. I have an old Power Book I sold to my old roommate, whose new roomies dropped it (and his new PC notebook, whoops), and I have it back. I may just sell it to an Apple guru who can repair and use it.

4. My old iPod (Gen 2, 2002) is about to become a special OS X bootable disk; my wife's mini now belongs to her Dad; my other iPod (gen 3 or 4--last black and white one) my wife uses; and I love my iPod video.

No need to throw any of it away, no need to recycle it if others can use it, and I can take the money and buy new Apples or pay some bills, etc.

kurtsayin
Aug 30, 2006, 10:40 AM
Who cares what greenpeace says about anything anyways?! They are a bunch of whack jobs who have been caught numerous times for fraud and are CONSTANTLY under investigation for fraud. This means they have a very specific agenda: Not to make the world greener when they find a problem, but to make problems in order to feel effective - even when it is entirely unnecessary.

Besides, if Apple were to somehow change their operating procedures in order to comply with the "green" standards, they will do nothing but lose money through another transition period which will slow their growth, lessen their capital resources, and make for slower product upgrades and releases - which will hurt the company detrimentally!

Besides, what does PVC really do anyways? It is a water-resistent, non-corrosive, plastic compound. It isn't toxic- per-say. It is only toxic when burned, and only to people in direct contact with the fumes - which is basically nobody. The real reason green peace wants to push this issue right now is because they think they are part of some eco-revolution that will bring down all corporations and make it so we all live happily in tee-pees without our manufactured products. Frankly, I am happy with my ibook and my motorola phone, and buick lesabre, and my flat screen tv, and I think everyone else is too, so tell green peace to just mind their own business and go live out in one of our MILLION ACRE FORESTS if they don't like progress and technology!

mpstrex
Aug 30, 2006, 11:09 AM
Something just dawned on me. Like when Macrumors (or someone) posted that Rush Limbaugh was selling his broadcasts for MP3 players, people here were divided. And it's the same thing with Greenpeace. We're fighting over idealistic opinions.

Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.

Groovey
Aug 30, 2006, 11:32 AM
Something just dawned on me. Like when Macrumors (or someone) posted that Rush Limbaugh was selling his broadcasts for MP3 players, people here were divided. And it's the same thing with Greenpeace. We're fighting over idealistic opinions.

Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.

Totally agreed. I think one part of the problem is that idealism quite often seems to drive people to have extreme opinions, or else it feels like they wouldn't be standing behind their own point of view. Everyone should at least try to realize the other side of the game no matter whether you're "huggin' trees with a joint" for GP or "shooting crappy hippypeople" for the government.

Peace out!

mpstrex
Aug 30, 2006, 11:36 AM
And don't forget, Groovey, that only a small percentage of Americans are considered more of the hard-line political peeps.

AlBDamned
Aug 30, 2006, 11:38 AM
From Cult of Mac's blog (http://blog.wired.com/cultofmac/) on the issue:

I have now had the chance to read through Greenpeace's "Guide to Greener Electronics," and there are a few things that should be clarified about where Apple ranks.

First of all, the article I linked this morning claimed that Apple and Lenovo were at the bottom of the charts. Well, that's not true. Lenovo scored an appalling 1.3 out of 10 while Apple pulled a marginally more successful 2.7 out of 10. In between were Motorola and Acer.

The criticisms of Apple are fair, I would say, though I think there's some nuance to what HP is doing with recycling that tends to make it look unfavorably better than others. Why? Ink cartridges and printers. HP has a lot more to take back than any other company, so their commitment to percentage of sales taken back is actually a possibility.

Given that Apple actually offers free computer recycling with the purchase of a computer, something that Dell does but HP does not, it's odd to say they're doing less to keep computers out of the waste stream. On the other hand, Apple has no takeback goals, so it really does balance out.

The other criticisms of Apple are on target, however. The company is secretive, and that meets they tend to be secretive about their environmental planning as well. They have a regulated substances list, but it isn't public. They're committed to eliminating PVCs, but won't say when. Ditto for BFRs.

It's not necessarily that Apple's environmental record is legitimately bad, but they do a very poor job of informing their customers about their environmental efforts. Silence is suspicious here, folks.

Free2B
Aug 30, 2006, 11:39 AM
Maybe someone has mentioned this, but I find it extremely ironic that Greenpeace is hitting up Apple, where none other than Al Gore is on the board!! Can Apple really be that bad? (oh, they were 4th worst out of about 20 companies.) So, either Al Gore doesn't put his money where his mouth is, or Greenpeace is just trying further its anti-corporate agenda. Maybe both???