A Greener Apple

[TheSailerMan]

Today on Apple's homepage, another open letter (though is likely targeted at Greenpeace) from Steve Jobs has been posted, entitled "A Greener Apple."

In the letter, Jobs discusses what Apple is currently doing to help the environment, how they are doing things better than their competitors, and Apple's plans to become even more environmentally friendly.

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/

It looks like we will be seeing new, LED-lit displays from Apple in the near future, just as recent rumors have said.

[TBi]

Jobs knows the money in the future will be spent on green computers as people become more environmentally aware. I don't think we would see this if it wasn't for that shift in peoples attitudes.

[thejadedmonkey]

I can see it now.. LCD backlights and a 965 graphics card in the MacBook.. 6+ hours battery, why did I get my Macbook Pro again?

[Shadow]

"Take that GreenPeace!" :D

[apachie2k]

I just saw this aswell and noticed no attention on macrumors? what time did this go up? must have been just now! anways gald to see it

[miniConvert]

Wow, after reading all that I feel a little more proud to be using an Apple :D Like I needed an excuse! :D

Thanks Steve. I guess one of the benefits of being so secretive is that when you're finally open about something it really has an impact. I hope this gets as many headlines as it deserves :)

[Queso]

I hope this gets as many headlines as it deserves :)
I can imagine the one on the BBC website already...

"Apple admits to using Lead and Arsenic in Macs" :rolleyes:

[Peace]

Right On Steve!!

You tell em..

New LCD displays at WWDC!!

This topic should be dugg

[Small White Car]

Good for Steve for realizing the difference between secrets that need to be kept and things that should be shared. This was a great thing for them to do.

That being said, the un-named “environmental group” that forced this move are still a bunch of whiney media-whores who, I’m sure, will soon take credit for the changes talked about within this letter.

Best to keep in mind that the only thing they accomplished here was the creation of the press release itself. The things it talks about are obviously already in the works and have been for many years.

As much as I enjoyed reading it, I sure hope we don’t see them take credit for the actual changes outlined within the document. I’m not holding my breath on that one, however.

[jonharris200]

It's yet another pre-announcement! :eek:

This is, seriously, great news from Apple. However, I am interested to hear what people who know more about environmental issues than I do make of SJ's latest essay.

[4np]

I say: new revision MBP's! :)

[F.D.]

I can imagine the one on the BBC website already...

"Apple admits to using Lead and Arsenic in Macs" :rolleyes:

THAT IS EXACTLY THE HEADLINE I'D EXPECT THE BBC TO PUBLISH.

[reubs]

Good news, glad to hear it. Hopefully this means that at this point I will only be disposing of one old computer by the time I get to buy either another notebook or desktop.

Kudos to Apple and to everyone trying to make the planet a little bit greener.

[jesteraver]

yay and nay, LCD old SED is the future!

[vohdoun]

I wonder if the new displays will keep the current display prices, or will they go up...

[srobert]

I wonder how this will affect the pricing of the displays. Aren't led backlit LCD TVs much more expensive than their regular LCD counterparts?

[jellomizer]

"Take that GreenPeace!" :D

Well all GreenPeace needs to do is change the weights on their tests and then they can make apple be a bottom performer again. If someone wants someone to loose and they are making the test then they just change the curve and whoever they want to win will win.

[MacRy]

Apple knows which way the wind is blowing. They're pretty much going to be required by law to take responsibilty for recycling in the EU anyway due to the WEEE Directive (http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444217/444663/1106248/?version=1&lang=_e) which seeks to make manufacturers responsible for disposing of and recycling their products at the end of their life cycle.

There is also the RoHS law (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) that they need to adhere to so it's not like they're doing something amazing for the planet all by themselves. So let's not all get carried away by how fantastic and cuddly Apple are for doing this 'off of their own backs'.

[Pressure]

It should really not come as a surprise. The only question was when and apparently the industry hasn't caught up with producing larger LED displays.

[hob]

About bloody time Steve got his arse in gear about this. It's important.

I'd like to see more of these ocassional essays from Jobsy... maybe even a blog!! :P

[Tadros86]

I say: new revision MBP's! :)

I sure hope so!

[amac4me]

Great news .... looking forward to the new Macs with these displays.

[MacRy]

Well all GreenPeace needs to do is change the weights on their tests and then they can make apple be a bottom performer again. If someone wants someone to loose and they are making the test then they just change the curve and whoever they want to win will win.

Big bad Greenpeace again. They're such bastards for trying to make the planet a better place for future generations to live in!

You can bad mouth them all you like but they have apparently managed to make Apple change their practices now haven't they....

"Take that GreenPeace!" :D

I bet they're just gutted that they made a point about a company not doing enough for the environment and then that company did something positive about it.

[Doctor Q]

PDF (http://images.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/docs/A_Greener_Apple.pdf) of the statement by Steve Jobs.

[BlakTornado]

It's good to see this. I, myself, am quite into being environmentally-friendly. This is great news! And it looks like they will have changed the iMacs for the better just in time for my purchase! Loverly :)

I'm also pleased that no one (when I last checked) had voted negative :)

Come on Green Apple!

[BenRoethig]

I hope they use the latest panels with these new displays. The 3-year old 14ms are getting really long in the tooth compared to what's currently out.

[thedavemc]

New sexy eco-screens making loads of people chuck out their perfectly good compuiters and buy another unnecessary update.
Right on Steve :)
Fight the power
Still getting a new macbook when they update them though

[sionharris]

will the new Apple logo be green? haha, that would look so funny.

or a picture of a real apple with a bite out of it

[Tadros86]

WWDC is next month. . . with the rumors of Santa Rosa, how likely will we see LED screens in the laptops as well? Being that Steve did mention the bigger the screen the harder to make it LED. . . the laptop screens are smaller then the display. . . I would really want a Macbook Pro with LEDs. What do you guys think?

[OwlsAndApples]

I can imagine the one on the BBC website already...

"Apple admits to using Lead and Arsenic in Macs" :rolleyes:

Haha! That's so true! :)

Kinda sad really :(

[sionharris]

Haha! That's so true! :)

Kinda sad really :(

Tabloids, maybe, but not the BBC.

[Clive At Five]

Well, to be honest, I didn't expect Apple to cave under Greenpeace pressure. On the other hand, though, LCD is the next logical progression. I mean, it makes sense in Laptops to save battery life... but it saves energy all-around and doesn't require harmful materials so it's an overall improvement. It's not like Apple WANTS to destroy the environment, or anything. They're not heartless like some corporations.

Upon further thought, I think Apple used this natural evolution to get Greenpeace off their back...

Good move.

-Clive

[iJawn108]

*must hold off buying external for a while...*

[JonDann]

I'd like to see more of these ocassional essays from Jobsy... maybe even a blog!! :P

We have a blog from him, its http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/

Anyway, I'm glad this information was made public, but am wary of GreenPeace. According to an interview on the BBC World Service last week they based their reports only on information published on the companies' websites, which seems plain lazy to me. If they'd bothered to be scientific about the whole thing and destructively test some computers from all these compaines I'd prefer to listen to them. If the have, then let me know!

I'm all for going greener, but I just don't trust hippies. I'm more comfortable wanting to buy a new MacBook knowing that Apple are trying to sort it all out, but then... was there any other option?

[Small White Car]

Big bad Greenpeace again. They're such bastards for trying to make the planet a better place for future generations to live in!

You can bad mouth them all you like but they have apparently managed to make Apple change their practices now haven't they....



No, they didn't. You honestly believe that??

What they DID do was rate Apple lower than other computer companies simply so they could get more press. Because Apple's way more interesting to reporters than HP, for example.

And now that Apple comes out with a statement about things they've been doing for years (YEARS!) you come along and think that Greenpeace deserve credit for that?

How's that? Twising the facts suddenly makes them time travelers? Or something? Don't be ridiculous. The EU had far more to do with this than Greenpeace did.

All they did was force Apple to release this letter to the public. I like the letter. But that's a lot different than "making Apple change their practices."

Please.

[Mydel]

I say: new revision MBP's! :)

By the end of 2007 :eek: :D

[Sayhey]

Well, to be honest, I didn't expect Apple to cave under Greenpeace pressure. On the other hand, though, LCD is the next logical progression. I mean, it makes sense in Laptops to save battery life... but it saves energy all-around and doesn't require harmful materials so it's an overall improvement. It's not like Apple WANTS to destroy the environment, or anything. They're not heartless like some corporations.

Upon further thought, I think Apple used this natural evolution to get Greenpeace off their back...

Good move.

-Clive

Notice Jobs responds to shareholder's concerns. He never mentions Greenpeace. My take is that Jobs has no intention of EVER responding to Greenpeace, as he looks at them as people who have targeted Apple unfairly while ignoring the things Apple has done to lead the industry towards more environmentally friendly products. I'm sure he feels Greenpeace has an agenda other than what Apple sees as environmental clean up. Not to say Jobs is right, but I can't read his statement as anything but a FU to Greenpeace.

[srobert]

I wonder how much the "caving in to GreenPeace" factor weights against the "Keeping up with the competition" factor in Apple's decision.

Didn't Samsung just announce its own LED Backlit LCD display? Also, LED backlit displays might be Apple's way to make those MacBook batteries last longer.

[Maestro64]

Apple knows which way the wind is blowing. They're pretty much going to be required by law to take responsibilty for recycling in the EU anyway due to the WEEE Directive (http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444217/444663/1106248/?version=1&lang=_e) which seeks to make manufacturers responsible for disposing of and recycling their products at the end of their life cycle.

There is also the RoHS law (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) that they need to adhere to so it's not like they're doing something amazing for the planet all by themselves. So let's not all get carried away by how fantastic and cuddly Apple are for doing this 'off of their own backs'.

First off if you read it, these requirement come into play June 06 and Apple stated they were compliant 2 yrs prior. I can tell many companies were struggling to meet this last yr, so apple being ahead of the game is very good.

Also, apple said they began recycling in 1994, long before anyone else was doing it and public awareness.

The other thing to keep in mind is that Dell and others who have been doing recycling were not doing for "green" reasons, it was about selling more computers they want as many of the older products off the market as they could get. They did not want to compete against thier own used computer. They rather you return it to them than see you give it to kid, or school or your parents. Plus they get to crush it and recycle the metal parts and get cash back. It about Dell making more money not making the environment greener.

[O and A]

I wonder how this will affect the pricing of the displays. Aren't led backlit LCD TVs much more expensive than their regular LCD counterparts?

It really shoudlnt affect price at all. Apple displays are already at a premium price.

[GorillaPaws]

No, they didn't. You honestly believe that??

What they DID do was rate Apple lower than other computer companies simply so they could get more press. Because Apple's way more interesting to reporters than HP, for example.

And now that Apple comes out with a statement about things they've been doing for years (YEARS!) you come along and think that Greenpeace deserve credit for that?

How's that? Twising the facts suddenly makes them time travelers? Or something? Don't be ridiculous. The EU had far more to do with this than Greenpeace did.

All they did was force Apple to release this letter to the public. I like the letter. But that's a lot different than "making Apple change their practices."

Please.

I agree. But they did get Jobs to write this response... which will inevitably get some media attention and hopefully provoke more public discussion/interest in the subject. So while I disagree with their practice the net result of more exposure to the topic can only be a good thing. This statement kinda reminds me of an article in Wired magazine about radical transparency by corporate America. A nice trend.

[MacRy]

No, they didn't. You honestly believe that??

Yes....

So today we’re changing our policy.

I think that statement speaks for itself really.

What they DID do was rate Apple lower than other computer companies simply so they could get more press. Because Apple's way more interesting to reporters than HP, for example.

HP, the worlds largest computer manufacturer you mean? Yeah they're not as big a target are they?

And now that Apple comes out with a statement about things they've been doing for years (YEARS!) you come along and think that Greenpeace deserve credit for that?

Without pressure groups like Greenpeace banging on about it all the while major companies probably wouldn't even bother with thinking about the environment. Not as long as there is a margin involved.

How's that? Twising the facts suddenly makes them time travelers? Or something? Don't be ridiculous.

You need to step back from your devotion to Apple for a moment, chill out and take that aggresive tone out of your posts towards me mate.

[kresh]

Thanks for caving to the Eco-Terrorists. Now that you have proven that Apple's policy can be changed by terrorism, expect to see many more assaults in the future.

[shabbasuraj]

I want two CREE powered 50" displays with a 8000x5000 resolution.

THANKS APPLE

[Small White Car]

I agree. But they did get Jobs to write this response... which will inevitably get some media attention and hopefully provoke more public discussion/interest in the subject. So while I disagree with their practice the net result of more exposure to the topic can only be a good thing. This statement kinda reminds me of an article in Wired magazine about radical transparency by corporate America. A nice trend.

Hey, I'm all for their goals too. It's just their goofy-ass way of going about it that I dislike.

Had they started a campaign last year complaining about Apple's secrecy on this matter and demanding a response like this...well that would have been perfect! I would have happily joined that sort of complaint.

But that's not what they did. So the fact that we got a good result here out of all this...that doesn't really excuse the way they went about it, in my mind.

[Maestro64]

Big bad Greenpeace again. They're such bastards for trying to make the planet a better place for future generations to live in!

You can bad mouth them all you like but they have apparently managed to make Apple change their practices now haven't they....

Obviously you didn't read the entire article, Apple has been doing what greenpeace claimed they were not doing for yrs prior to them making Apple their poster child.

Grant it, Apple is low on the recycling, but it will never be as high as Dell or others unless Apple plans is to be like the others and to get old Apple products off the market to sell more products. Again is if read, they been recycling since 1995, not 200x like the other companies.

Greenpeace or others can not claim a victoy here, they only went after apple since they did not have a public policy like the other companies. Also, greenpeace made claims that they could not backup since they never test the products to see what were the actual levels.

Lastly, Apple's policy change is not to be greener but to disclose to the public what their internal policy is and how they are meeting it.

[BoyBach]

"Our stakeholders deserve and expect more from us, and they’re right to do so," he wrote. "They want us to be a leader in this area, just as we are in the other areas of our business. So today we’re changing our policy."


The penny has finally dropped that being an environmentally-friendly company is better for the bottom line than not being one.

About effing time!

[Peace]

Yes....

HP, the worlds largest computer manufacturer you mean? Yeah they're not as big a target are they?
Without pressure groups like Greenpeace banging on about it all the while major companies probably wouldn't even bother with thinking about the environment. Not as long as there is a margin involved.




Since HP is much larger and sell more computers and monitors can you explain to me why greenpeace doesn't go after them as publicly as they do Apple.Who , in all reality is actually greener that HP ?

[faintember]

Why do I have the feeling that us, the consumer will pay for this and still see little to no computing benefit?

I really hope Apple proves me wrong.

[twoodcc]

this is very good news. :) glad to see it.

[CrackedButter]

It really shoudlnt affect price at all. Apple displays are already at a premium price.

You're new here aren't you?

[Small White Car]

Small White Car: No, they didn't. You honestly believe that??

MacRy: Yes....

Steve Jobs: So today we’re changing our policy.

MacRy: I think that statement speaks for itself really.


When Steve says "our policy" it's VERY clear that he's talking about their policy of not talking about this issue with the public.

So when you come here and try and pass off thje phrase "our policy" as something else, well, it makes me feel like you think I'm an idiot. I read the letter. I know what it says. You can't just change the meaning of it and expect us to believe your version.

I have no problem with different opinions, but I really don't like people who just make stuff up and then act like I'm stupid for not believing them. That's not you sharing an opinion...that's just annoying.

[iSee]

I doubt this is a response to Greenpeace but rather to the growing concern among Apple's customers and shareholders for the environment.

Greenpeace can only pressure Apple to the extent it can convince customers and shareholders to follow its lead. And at least here in the US Greenpeace seems to be a radical marginalized group. Personally, I'm pretty much a green-head, but back in my college days I got a close-up view of their fundraising "tactics" and I'll never have anything to do with that group. Even if that was just a local problem, they are just a bunch of sanctimonious bleeps who will say and do anything to get attention for themselves.

Anyway, good job Apple! :D Now how about reducing those greenhouse gases! :)

[Maestro64]

Since HP is much larger and sell more computers and monitors can you explain to me why greenpeace doesn't go after them as publicly as they do Apple.Who , in all reality is actually greener that HP ?

That simple becuase HP has a public policy about being green, and they report numbers, so it is easier to go after a target who already get a majory share of press and who happens not to have public policy about being green nor reports any numbers.

[MacRy]

Since HP is much larger and sell more computers and monitors can you explain to me why greenpeace doesn't go after them as publicly as they do Apple.Who , in all reality is actually greener that HP ?

They do:

Linky (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/greenpeace-pulls-plug-on-dirty)
Linky 2 (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/hewlett-packard-toxic-trouble-111)
Linky 3 (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/hewlettpackardHPtoxicchallenge090306)
Linky 4 (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/hp-apple-toxic-laptops180906) Apple included in this one too.

March 2006. HP joins big industry names like Sony, Nokia, Samsung, LG and Sony Ericsson who are leading the industry by positive example on toxic chemicals. Companies like Acer, Apple, Dell, Fujitsu-Siemens, IBM, Lenovo, Panasonic, Siemens and Toshiba have so far failed to follow the industry leaders.

[srobert]

Why do I have the feeling that us, the consumer will pay for this and still see little to no computing benefit?


I also think we'll see a raise in Apple's display prices but there will also be benifits to the newer displays:

• Perfect 180º viewing angle (*)
• Less power hungry (*)
• Better contrast ratio
• "True" whites/blacks
• Better color gamut
• Better durability/lifetime
• Lighter/thinner casings (*)

(*) A lot of these factor will benefit the laptops.

Also, Apple will probably add some perks to the new displays. Cameras? Higher Resolutions? I'm personally hoping for Components/HDMI inputs/outputs but I'm not holding my breath for these.

[joeshell383]

Apple issued this statement because Greenpeace's mock Apple site just won a Webby and will be heavily viewed.

http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php
Winners (http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php)

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/2007/05/bittersweet_green_my_apple_win.html
Statement (http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/2007/05/bittersweet_green_my_apple_win.html)

[BoyBach]

You need to step back from your devotion to Apple for a moment, chill out and take that aggresive tone out of your posts towards me mate.


Hey MacRy, some advice:

Don't dare think about taking on the 'Apple Apologista' that are prevalent on these and other Apple forums. Even the Albanian Mafia are scared of them...

[Clive At Five]

Notice Jobs responds to shareholder's concerns. He never mentions Greenpeace. My take is that Jobs has no intention of EVER responding to Greenpeace, as he looks at them as people who have targeted Apple unfairly while ignoring the things Apple has done to lead the industry towards more environmentally friendly products. I'm sure he feels Greenpeace has an agenda other than what Apple sees as environmental clean up. Not to say Jobs is right, but I can't read his statement as anything but a FU to Greenpeace.

You might be right, but Greenpeace is arrogant enough to interpret this as a victory for them, and use it to further inflate their egos. That ego will encorage them to meddle with other companies who they decide not to like.

-Clive

[Nutter]

So today we’re changing our policy.


I think that statement speaks for itself really.


You're misquoting. Steve was referring to Apple's policy of not discussing future plans, not Apple's environmental policy.

EDIT: Beaten to it. Small White Car is right, though...

[puuukeey]

anyone who actually knows something about these issues care to weigh in?

I would absolutely be proud of apple if this was as good as it seems. Forgive me for not completely trusting the head of the company on environmental issues. we need a response from green peace

[iSee]

Why do I have the feeling that us, the consumer will pay for this and still see little to no computing benefit?

I really hope Apple proves me wrong.

Well, computing benefits are not that useful when you're suffering from heavy metal poisoning.

[Object-X]

Apple has also publically stated higher resolution displays are coming and resolution independence in Leopard will take advantage of this.

[Maestro64]

When Steve says "our policy" it's VERY clear that he's talking about their policy of not talking about this issue with the public.

So when you come here and try and pass off thje phrase "our policy" as something else, well, it makes me feel like you think I'm an idiot. I read the letter. I know what it says. You can't just change the meaning of it and expect us to believe your version.

I have no problem with different opinions, but I really don't like people who just make stuff up and then act like I'm stupid for not believing them. That's not you sharing an opinion...that's just annoying.

Gee, don't you know how these people think, they live in self righteous world and they do not impact the world unlike the rest of us.

Here is how you deal with groups and people like greenpeace and other, you tell them when they are living naked in the woods and living off the land and do not use any modern technology to substain themselves then they have every right to tell the rest of use how we are screwing things up. In the mean time come to the table with real solutions to help us all live in a better world, other pointing out the obvious is not help.

Case and point, you all have seen greenpeace chasing whaling ship with those nice fast Kodiak boats which happen to use 2 cycle engines which are the worst popluting engine on the market. Gee way are they not paddling a canoe after the whalers.

[elppa]

"Take that GreenPeace!" :D

It's not a silly competition.

It's about our planet.

[faintember]

• Perfect 180º viewing angle
• Less power hungry (longer battery life)
• Better contrast ratio
•*"True" whites/blacks
• Better color gammut
• Better display longevity
• Lighter/thinner casings

A lot of these factor will benefit the laptops.
I agree and think these things would be nice, but at what cost? Will this raise the average laptop price by $100 or $500 or even more? I know that I am not willing to pay much more that I currently am.
Well, computing benefits are not that useful when you're suffering from heavy metal poisoning.Because laptops are the 100% of the cause of that...
Computing benefits are not that useful if you can't afford them as well.

[MacRy]

When Steve says "our policy" it's VERY clear that he's talking about their policy of not talking about this issue with the public.

So when you come here and try and pass off thje phrase "our policy" as something else, well, it makes me feel like you think I'm an idiot. I read the letter. I know what it says. You can't just change the meaning of it and expect us to believe your version.

I have no problem with different opinions, but I really don't like people who just make stuff up and then act like I'm stupid for not believing them. That's not you sharing an opinion...that's just annoying.

I didn't change the meaning of anything. The letter is, by it's own admission, a statement in reponse to an environmental group's comments which has changed their policy about being more upfront about what they do. So 'yes' Greenpeace has changed Apple's policy which is what I said.

Many years of lobbying and public exposure by groups such as Greenpeace has resulted in companies and governments being pressured into taking notice of environmental concerns, so in some respects they have helped shape the market's policy on being green. Surely you can't deny that.

If you feel an idiot or stupid because someone offers a challenging perspective on an issue then that's not my problem and you shouldn't be so derogatory in your responses.

[Diatribe]

When Steve says "our policy" it's VERY clear that he's talking about their policy of not talking about this issue with the public.

So when you come here and try and pass off thje phrase "our policy" as something else, well, it makes me feel like you think I'm an idiot. I read the letter. I know what it says. You can't just change the meaning of it and expect us to believe your version.

I have no problem with different opinions, but I really don't like people who just make stuff up and then act like I'm stupid for not believing them. That's not you sharing an opinion...that's just annoying.

Yeah, it would be nice if people could actually argue with valid facts but that isn't gonna happen unfortunately.

[Small White Car]

Here is how you deal with groups and people like greenpeace and other, you tell them when they are living naked in the woods and living off the land and do not use any modern technology to substain themselves then they have every right to tell the rest of use how we are screwing things up. In the mean time come to the table with real solutions to help us all live in a better world, other pointing out the obvious is not help.

Case and point, you all have seen greenpeace chasing whaling ship with those nice fast Kodiak boats which happen to use 2 cycle engines which are the worst popluting engine on the market. Gee way are they not paddling a canoe after the whalers.

So, what? You're in favor of hunting whales and putting more lead BACK into the iMacs?

I've made my low opinion of Greenpeace known already, but this is just silly. The goals that Greenpeace wants to accomplish are all totally valid and SHOULD be pursued. I just think there are other ways of doing it.

[yzp]

that will make are those unfaithful PC users and/or greepeace and/or ecolo bitch ****!

:apple: is the sh*it!

i prefer green apple :p it's a lot tastier!!

[McGarvels]

anyone who actually knows something about these issues care to weigh in?

I would absolutely be proud of apple if this was as good as it seems. Forgive me for not completely trusting the head of the company on environmental issues. we need a response from green peace

Yeah, because Greenpeace is so unbiased. Sorry but I'll take the opinion of my fellow peers (scientists) to be a bit more unbiased and accurate. At least we know how to research and conduct experiments properly.

[menziep]

Has anyone noticed that digitimes seem to be getting more reliable in there rumor reporting. Firstly, Mac OS X: Leopard being delayed (till october) and now LED Displays!

[srobert]

I agree and think these things would be nice, but at what cost? Will this raise the average laptop price by $100 or $500 or even more? I know that I am not willing to pay much more that I currently am.

Agreed.

I don't think Samsung has announced prices for their new LED Backlit LCDs. I can't wait to see what the price premium will be. Crossing my fingers.

[KingofAwesome]

I think that statement speaks for itself really.

That statement speaks for itself in a different context. The policy he is referring to is what is shared with the public through press releases, not what they are actually doing.


HP, the worlds largest computer manufacturer you mean? Yeah they're not as big a target are they?

It's not about who is bigger. It's about who is more interesting to the audience. HP is not as interesting as Apple.

Without pressure groups like Greenpeace banging on about it all the while major companies probably wouldn't even bother with thinking about the environment. Not as long as there is a margin involved.

Greenpeace is a group that yells really loud. They are sensationalists, which is not an effective way to make changes they claim to be interested in. Sure, if you publicly yell at someone they might make a change, but it's an awfully inefficient technique (unless your primary goal is to get the media talking about you instead).

You need to step back from your devotion to Apple for a moment, chill out and take that aggresive tone out of your posts towards me mate.

Maybe you should step back from what appears to be a blind devotion to Greenpeace. There are plenty of people who agree with the stated ideals of Greenpeace, but we have a problem with their techniques. Imagine a group with a stated goal of ending starvation. Now imagine that this group decides to protest against Kellogg for not giving away large quantities of food to some particular third-world country, and they protest by covering every parking meter in New York City with dog crap. We can support the ideal of ending starvation and still disapprove of the group, right?

[-hh]

Big bad Greenpeace again...you can bad mouth them all you like but they have apparently managed to make Apple change their practices now haven't they....


No, they didn't. You honestly believe that??

Unfortunately, that is how this news will be Spin-Doctored.

What they DID do was rate Apple lower than other computer companies simply so they could get more press. Because Apple's way more interesting to reporters than HP, for example.

Absolutely.

And now that Apple comes out with a statement about things they've been doing for years (YEARS!) you come along and think that Greenpeace deserve credit for that?

How's that? Twising the facts suddenly makes them time travelers? Or something? Don't be ridiculous.

but...but...are you telling me that Leopard's Time Machine isn't a real one?? :eek: :confused:

All they did was force Apple to release this letter to the public. I like the letter. But that's a lot different than "making Apple change their practices."

Indeed. Any intelligent person will read the letter as saying "this is what we've accomplished". Personally, I very much like how the letter points out how other companies have been tap-dancing and making promises - - and Apple's plans, currently in force and underway, are beating them to virtually every damn milestone.

Overall, the "Recycling Our Products (E-Waste)" paragraph at the end was a bit weak, considering its placement as the closer. What they should have done was to have concluded with a small, hard-hitting summary.

Perhaps something like this (http://www.huntzinger.com/comp/green_apple.htm).

Edit: updated the summary chart

-hh

[Di9it8]

I wonder how this will affect the pricing of the displays. Aren't led backlit LCD TVs much more expensive than their regular LCD counterparts?

The whole point of being environmentally friendly, does not necessarily mean cheapest :D

[MacRy]

So, what? You're in favor of hunting whales and putting more lead BACK into the iMacs?

I've made my low opinion of Greenpeace known already, but this is just silly. The goals that Greenpeace wants to accomplish are all totally valid and SHOULD be pursued. I just think there are other ways of doing it.

Nice to see we agree on something :)

[slffl]

Man, please 'switchers', don't get into a political debate on Greenpeace, PETA, etc. etc.

BTW this is great news and you really have to be a pessimist to find fault with it.

[Dan Peterson]

Yes....
Wow ...

I think that statement speaks for itself really.
Talk about taking a quote out of context. Jobs was clearly saying the policy that is changing is their policy to not talk about future plans, etc. The entire letter is all about plans they already had in place and things they've already done ... no new plans, just making things public.

HP, the worlds largest computer manufacturer you mean? Yeah they're not as big a target are they?
Regardless of who is a "bigger company" Apple attracts a lot more of a spotlight in the media and that's what he was referring to.

Without pressure groups like Greenpeace banging on about it all the while major companies probably wouldn't even bother with thinking about the environment. Not as long as there is a margin involved.
In a lot of cases I'm sure they do have an impact but I wouldn't go so far as to say nothing would be done without them and they definitely don't deserve credit it this case. Greenpeace pretty much lied in their "reports" by not doing proper research, good intentions don't make up for that. Also as already mentioned, this letter is about things already in place before Greenpeace started all the recent hubbub. Go ahead and try and rationalize it if you like though, no skin off my back.

You need to step back from your devotion to Apple for a moment, chill out and take that aggresive tone out of your posts towards me mate.
At least for me this has nothing to do with my "devotion to Apple" although I can't speak for Small White Car. It's about integrity and people taking credit for things they didn't do, especially after they lied and haven't admitted to it properly IMO. I admire what Greenpeace is trying to do I just take offense at the way they often go about it.

[pacohaas]

Agreed.

I don't think Samsung has announced prices for their new LED Backlit LCDs. I can't wait to see what the price premium will be. Crossing my fingers.
http://www.buy.com/prod/samsung-syncmaster-xl20-lcd-monitor-1-x-20-1-lcd-0-255mm-1600-x-1200/q/loc/101/204106060.html

[Small White Car]

I didn't change the meaning of anything. The letter is, by it's own admission, a statement in reponse to an environmental group's comments which has changed their policy about being more upfront about what they do. So 'yes' Greenpeace has changed Apple's policy which is what I said.

Many years of lobbying and public exposure by groups such as Greenpeace has resulted in companies and governments being pressured into taking notice of environmental concerns, so in some respects they have helped shape the market's policy on being green. Surely you can't deny that.

If you feel an idiot or stupid because someone offers a challenging perspective on an issue then that's not my problem and you shouldn't be so derogatory in your responses.

Ok, I've finally figured out what's going on here. I'll admit that I was wrong here, but I want to point out that several other posters have made the same mistake about your original post. So I'm not alone on this one.

You used the phrase "they have apparently managed to make Apple change their practices."

I (and others) assumed you were talking about the things in the letter. Based on this last post I can see that by saying "change their practices" you meant "write a single letter and put it on their homepage."

Ok, so IF you read it that way all of your posts make sense. I'll believe you when you say that's what you meant, but hopefully you can see WHY several of us misunderstood you. Calling a single letter "their practices" wasn't something any of us understood.

[superspiffy]

Sorry for being such a noob... but what is LED backlighting and how is it better/different than the current LCDs in MB/Ps ?

[CmdrLaForge]

First off if you read it, these requirement come into play June 06 and Apple stated they were compliant 2 yrs prior. I can tell many companies were struggling to meet this last yr, so apple being ahead of the game is very good.


And I have to assume that this is just not true. What I heard is that the iSight was taken off the market in June 06 because it wasn't compliant to RoHS. That means it is not true that they were 2 years ago. :mad:

The statement from Jobs is a political statement and written in that way.

[Maestro64]

They do:

Linky (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/greenpeace-pulls-plug-on-dirty)
Linky 2 (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/hewlett-packard-toxic-trouble-111)
Linky 3 (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/hewlettpackardHPtoxicchallenge090306)
Linky 4 (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/hp-apple-toxic-laptops180906) Apple included in this one too.

Good information, I find it interesting the only thing they found bad with apple was the flame retardant, which is a newer replacement for the bromine one that exist in the past and now they are claiming the new one is also bad, back to my point when will greenpeace and other develope a non-toxic flame retardant.

So greenpeace rather see your house burn down or your car or plane catch fire then see a PCB not catch fire.

You know you should stop using your computer becuase you adding to your personal carbon foot print on the environment.

[Di9it8]

Big bad Greenpeace again. They're such bastards for trying to make the planet a better place for future generations to live in!

You can bad mouth them all you like but they have apparently managed to make Apple change their practices now haven't they....



I bet they're just gutted that they made a point about a company not doing enough for the environment and then that company did something positive about it.

In many respects this essay is a result of the Apple section of the Greenpeace website.

http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/

SJ has responded to each of the issues in turn, but this has been on the Greenpeace site for a while now. They have now conducted their third electronics audit, and clearly Apple has not communicated this information so far.

This should have a dramatic effect on the perception of Apple's position, currently at the bottom of the list.

It will be interesting to see the Greenpeace response.

[soup4you2]

There are other areas Apple could improve upon. how about energy consumption? you take take the AppleTV for an example, no options to shut it off or go into a Deep Sleep mode.

I would like to see their products become Energystar compliant.

[dontmatter]

All green news is good news. LED displays are particularly exciting.

However, until they offer free recycling without a purchase of a new computer, I think in that (major) area, it is hard to claim that they are doing a good job. The calculation of weight recycled compared to weight shipped seven years ago is potentially deceptive, too. If the actual average computer lifetime is 5 years, then a growing company will have inflated numbers, and a shrinking company will have deflated numbers. Does anybod know a firm figure for how long people keep their computers?

I also think they should mention CO2, given that it is the most important polutant on earth. It is of course hard to calculate -- it depends on the efficiency of the manufacturing process and materials, the distance and weight of shipped product and packaging, and the energy efficiency of the final product. But I'd be very interested to find out how apple compares.

[Maestro64]

And I have to assume that this is just not true. What I heard is that the iSight was taken off the market in June 06 because it wasn't compliant to RoHS. That means it is not true that they were 2 years ago. :mad:

The statement from Jobs is a political statement and written in that way.

The camera CCD was the issue which apple does not make, and i believe apple now has a new isight that meets the requirements.

[williedigital]

I'm all for going greener, but I just don't trust hippies.

I don't trust American businesspeople. In fact, I probably find them some of the most untrustworthy people there are.

[williedigital]

I also think they should mention CO2, given that it is the most important polutant on earth. It is of course hard to calculate -- it depends on the efficiency of the manufacturing process and materials, the distance and weight of shipped product and packaging, and the energy efficiency of the final product. But I'd be very interested to find out how apple compares.

There are tons of measuring schemas out there and tons of companies subjecting themselves to them. Does Apple produce a sustainability report?

[srobert]

http://www.buy.com/prod/samsung-syncmaster-xl20-lcd-monitor-1-x-20-1-lcd-0-255mm-1600-x-1200/q/loc/101/204106060.html

Ouch. Considerably more expensive than a similar sized/resolution fluorescent backlit display.

[MacRy]

Ok, I've finally figured out what's going on here. I'll admit that I was wrong here, but I want to point out that several other posters have made the same mistake about your original post. So I'm not alone on this one.

You used the phrase "they have apparently managed to make Apple change their practices."

I (and others) assumed you were talking about the things in the letter. Based on this last post I can see that by saying "change their practices" you meant "write a single letter and put it on their homepage."

Ok, so IF you read it that way all of your posts make sense. I'll believe you when you say that's what you meant, but hopefully you can see WHY several of us misunderstood you. Calling a single letter "their practices" wasn't something any of us understood.

Right ok then, let's stop acting like a bunch of bitches shall we. :)

Yes I did mean that letter and I realise now that the way I worded it made it look as though my statement was referring to Apple suddenly being the green saviours of the planet overnight as a direct response to Greenpeace pressure. I apologise for this as it wasn't my intent.

I'm not a Greenpeace activist or anything and I don't support the way they go about effecting change. But as you have alluded to - their underlying message is an important one and something that everyone should take note of and work towards. I still stand by my statement that they have been instrumental in changing people's attitudes towards the environment though and that companies such as Apple have worked towards their own greener goals as a result.

[CmdrLaForge]

The camera CCD was the issue which apple does not make, and i believe apple now has a new isight that meets the requirements.

:confused: and where can I buy that new iSight? From Logitech ?

[Mydel]

Because laptops are the 100% of the cause of that...
Computing benefits are not that useful if you can't afford them as well.

Hmm I think I preffer NOT to be able to afford top of the line laptop than suffer from haevy metal poisoning...:rolleyes:

[JonDann]

I don't trust American businesspeople. In fact, I probably find them some of the most untrustworthy people there are.

You're right there. It's pretty clear that Apple have been doing this for a long time, but it won't be out of care for the environment, and it certainly won't be a result of GreenPeace's pressure. It'll be forethought regarding what consumers and governments will want in the future, simply a way of beating the cometition. At least it's worthwhile to cut out all these chemicals, regardless of their motives.

[BoyBach]

There are other areas Apple could improve upon. how about energy consumption? you take take the AppleTV for an example, no options to shut it off or go into a Deep Sleep mode.


This is THE main reason why I will not be buying an AppleTV.

[Sayhey]

I've no doubt this press release is largely in response to Greenpeace's ranking of Apple, but Jobs is never going to say that. Whether Greenpeace's hits on Apple were justified is another matter altogether. Obviously, Jobs thinks Apple has and continues to lead the industry in responsiveness to environmental issues. What he and Apple's cult of secrecy have up to this point refused to do is project out what Apple will be doing with future products on any front. That looks to be, if you can believe Jobs, the only thing Greenpeace has really managed to get changed. Apple will now publicly state, at least once a year, how it is planning to make Apple more green. Don't hold your breath waiting for any of Apple's responses to be to Greenpeace directly or even acknowledge what Greenpeace has done. Jobs statement drips with resentment of what he thinks is an unfair characterization of Apple's practices. While Greenpeace can look at this a "win" in that they made Apple go public, it will never get Jobs to admit it.

Regardless of the tensions between Apple and Greenpeace and who is right, this is good news. More companies need to go public with how they are becoming more responsive to the needs of the environment. Companies may try to blow smoke up our collective rear ends with such statements, but still it is better than silence and a refusal to admit to responsibility.

[sw1tcher]

It's good to see this. I, myself, am quite into being environmentally-friendly. This is great news! And it looks like they will have changed the iMacs for the better just in time for my purchase! Loverly :)

I'm also pleased that no one (when I last checked) had voted negative :)

Come on Green Apple!

14 negatives as of this post. :confused:

[gingerbreadboy]

now that everyone is complaining about the mercury in fluorescent displays let's remember that compact fluorescent bulbs contain 2 - 5 mg of mercury each. this is what al gore says we should all use? considering the number of people who will not recycle these bulbs and do not know where to do so, shouldn't we also push for a better lighting technology there??? it seems inconsistent to me.

[faintember]

Hmm I think I preffer NOT to be able to afford top of the line laptop than suffer from haevy metal poisoning...:rolleyes:Excellent! I am glad you are in a career that does not require the use of a laptop, however some of us require a laptop for our work!

Now is the time for you to look at this link (http://www.buy.com/prod/samsung-syncmaster-xl20-lcd-monitor-1-x-20-1-lcd-0-255mm-1600-x-1200/q/loc/101/204106060.html) to see the price of a backlit LED display. Now compare that price to the garden-variety LED display of the same size. Now apply that to the price of a laptop. Besides what does any of this have to do with a "top of the line" laptop? This would be a change that is across the board, from the MB to the MBP.

And you still ignore the fact that laptops are not 100% of the reason behind this.

[Maestro64]

So, what? You're in favor of hunting whales and putting more lead BACK into the iMacs?

I've made my low opinion of Greenpeace known already, but this is just silly. The goals that Greenpeace wants to accomplish are all totally valid and SHOULD be pursued. I just think there are other ways of doing it.

No my point is it easy to say everyone else is wrong and never offer a real solution. I am about if you have compliant or things are truly wrong you need to have a solution or be willing to help come up with a solution. But do not stand there and tell everyone else what they are doing is wrong and have you own actions being part of the issue.

i.e, greenpeace complained about 2 cycle engines and how much they polute, but you see them using 2 cycle engines. They talk about fossil fuels but they drive cars and use electricity. The best one was back in the 70's they told McDonnalds to stop using paper to wrap burges since it required trees to be cut down, so McDonnalds switch to Styrofoam and they applauded McDonnald move, but only to come back years later to tell them that Styrofoam was bad. They inpact the enviroment just like the rest of us but we are bad and they are good because they are doing it in the name of a higher cause.

I have yet to see any group who complains how bad we all are come to a table with a solutions that makes sense, meets the needs and does not impact the environment. They just tell us we are wrong.

[Rocketman]

They were precluded from confusing their logo with a notable firm and then adversary, now friend:

http://www.lindqvist.com/kitSiPub/bilder/20030913005030.jpg

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/125/s3680r_125.gif

It didn't stop them from being ecologically leading edge, just from communicating it effectively.

Rocketman

http://images.apple.com/home/2007/images/promoagreenerapple20070502.jpg

[Mindfield]

Weren't LED-displays supposed to be worse technology than the current or am I remembering some other news article that was here some time ago :confused:

[thejadedmonkey]

Weren't LED-displays supposed to be worse technology than the current or am I remembering some other news article that was here some time ago :confused:

OLED's have a short lifespan.. that might be what you're thinking of.

[Maccus Aurelius]

Everyone should love Greenpeace.

In the not too distant future, automobile manufacturers will replace wheels with multi-direction controlled hoverpads, and Greenpeace will take credit because far too many rare and endangered earthworms were being trampled by tires.

Seriously, I have no respect for Greenpeace, because these sensationalist turds are part of the reason why environmentalism leaves a sour taste in people's mouths:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2362

[Mydel]

Excellent! I am glad you are in a career that does not require the use of a laptop, however some of us require a laptop for our work!

I DO use laptop everyday and also iMac and other displays as well, BUT I will gladly pay 50 or 100$ more for enviromental friendly product. Thats my point!

Now is the time for you to look at this link (http://www.buy.com/prod/samsung-syncmaster-xl20-lcd-monitor-1-x-20-1-lcd-0-255mm-1600-x-1200/q/loc/101/204106060.html) to see the price of a backlit LED display. Now compare that price to the garden-variety LED display of the same size. Now apply that to the price of a laptop. Besides what does any of this have to do with a "top of the line" laptop? This would be a change that is across the board, from the MB to the MBP.

And you dont have to buy 50" LCD if you cant afford it. 42 will do as well or even 37"


And you still ignore the fact that laptops are not 100% of the reason behind this.

I do not ignore other things but you have to start somewhere.

[Jarcrew]

I reckon it'll be the Cinema Displays first, then the new iMacs, then the MacBook Pros and MacBooks, all done prior to Christmas.

[heisetax]

Big bad Greenpeace again. They're such bastards for trying to make the planet a better place for future generations to live in!

You can bad mouth them all you like but they have apparently managed to make Apple change their practices now haven't they....



I bet they're just gutted that they made a point about a company not doing enough for the environment and then that company did something positive about it.


Wasn't Green Peace the group that said they hoped that the United States would have a large group of cows with Mad Cow Disease? I would not give a violent group like them any of my real thought.

If I hadn't been recycling for my whole 60+ year life, Green Peace would be the one group that would keep me from starting a Reduce, Recuse, Recycle attitude.

Remember what kind of lights our government wants us to change to to lower the amount of electricity we use. How long will it be before they change that to LED lights?

Bill the TaxMan

[Doctor Q]

There are other areas Apple could improve upon. how about energy consumption? you take take the AppleTV for an example, no options to shut it off or go into a Deep Sleep mode.I've never understood this. It's not expensive to provide a power switch, so why do Apple (with the Apple TV) and companies who sell cable boxes, routers, etc. so often omit power switches, forcing us to unplug devices when we don't plan to use them and want to save that energy?

[faintember]

I DO use laptop everyday and also iMac and other displays as well, BUT I will gladly pay 50 or 100$ more for enviromental friendly product. Thats my point!$50 or $100 I will do, especially if there is a non-enivronmental benefit for the user.

And you dont have to buy 50" LCD if you cant afford it. 42 will do as well or even 37"It is not so much the size as the price difference. A standard LCD monitor in 20" is around $300 (http://www.buy.com/prod/samsung-206bw-20-widescreen-lcd-display-800-1-dcr-3000-1-2ms-dvi-black/q/loc/101/204021908.html), while a backlit LED monitor is almost $1700 (http://www.buy.com/prod/samsung-syncmaster-xl20-lcd-monitor-1-x-20-1-lcd-0-255mm-1600-x-1200/q/loc/101/204106060.html). Thats almost 6 times more expensive! That ratio will still carry over into smaller screens. This is why I don't think it will be just a $50-$100 increase in price.

[sdhollman]

Man I just bought a new 23" last week, any takers? :mad:

[Mgkwho]

I really like these statements from Steve Jobs- gives a personal touch. Makes me smile, 'ya know? And the stock go up. That helps.

Not to mention the only real factual hardware upgrade thingy besides the 8 core option for MacPro this year!

-=|Mgkwho

[Mydel]

Thats almost 6 times more expensive! That ratio will still carry over into smaller screens. This is why I don't think it will be just a $50-$100 increase in price.
Maybe you are right but technology is waaay cheaper than what they charge us. Especially if somethings new. I doubt that Apple will charge us more than 100, maybe 150 more fot a 15" LED screen on MBP. Maybe Im wrong. We will see soon.
And everything comes with the price. They also will be your of my children in that world. So charging me more for sake of enviroment....I can live with that:p

[johnee]

Gee, don't you know how these people think, they live in self righteous world and they do not impact the world unlike the rest of us.

Here is how you deal with groups and people like greenpeace and other, you tell them when they are living naked in the woods and living off the land and do not use any modern technology to substain themselves then they have every right to tell the rest of use how we are screwing things up. In the mean time come to the table with real solutions to help us all live in a better world, other pointing out the obvious is not help.

Case and point, you all have seen greenpeace chasing whaling ship with those nice fast Kodiak boats which happen to use 2 cycle engines which are the worst popluting engine on the market. Gee way are they not paddling a canoe after the whalers.

I used to think like that.

After seeing "An Inconvenient Truth", then hearing that Al Gore lives in a HUGE house which uses TONS of energy, I thought he was the biggest hypocrite.

However, the fact that he wants to live in a huge house is irrelevant.

The fact that he only has certain options for his energy needs is what he goes on and on about. (He better be using solar panels or i'll be pissed, he can afford them...)

right now, my option for getting to work is either public transportation which still produces CO2, driving my own motorized vehicle which produces CO2 even if it's a hybrid, or bicycling/walking, the only choice not to produce CO2 (other than from my lungs).

living in the northeast, I only have 5 full months for walking/biking. The other 7 months, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PRODUCE CO2!!

So even though they seem like hypocrites, remember they have limited options and are trying to change that.

[bertpalmer]

Glad to see Apple is finally taking some responsibility for being so un-environmentally friendly and cleaning up their act.

For a company that prides itself on being a squeaky clean company it's a shame they were forced to do something by media attention stimulated by Greenpeace.

But good on Apple for finally announcing that they will be changing their policy.

Good on Greenpeace I hope they will campaign further on this!

[dontmatter]

No my point is it easy to say everyone else is wrong and never offer a real solution. I am about if you have compliant or things are truly wrong you need to have a solution or be willing to help come up with a solution. But do not stand there and tell everyone else what they are doing is wrong and have you own actions being part of the issue.

i.e, greenpeace complained about 2 cycle engines and how much they polute, but you see them using 2 cycle engines. They talk about fossil fuels but they drive cars and use electricity. The best one was back in the 70's they told McDonnalds to stop using paper to wrap burges since it required trees to be cut down, so McDonnalds switch to Styrofoam and they applauded McDonnald move, but only to come back years later to tell them that Styrofoam was bad. They inpact the enviroment just like the rest of us but we are bad and they are good because they are doing it in the name of a higher cause.

I have yet to see any group who complains how bad we all are come to a table with a solutions that makes sense, meets the needs and does not impact the environment. They just tell us we are wrong.

I think that focusing on greenpeace, as many are doing here, is beside the point. The issue at hand is apple's environmental impact, not greenpeace.

I think you do point out a major issue with environmentalism, though, that is more interesting and more relevant than the greenpeace/corporation bashing that is going on. Everything we do has an environmental impact of some sort, ranging from laughably small to downright deadly. Cutting down trees sucks, and so does styrofoam, but unless your really radical and want to eliminate fast food, take-out, etc. then you've got to try and figure out which one isn't as bad (and of course scientific knowledge/opininos are going to change through time). But the bottom line is, there really is no solution. We can make better choices, which is what greenpeace is trying to get us to do (whether or not they are right about which choices are good any any situation), but if we are to live, particularly within the structure of modern society, we aren't going to have some nice solution.

That's why people get pissed at environmentalism- they are told the problems in the world, without a solution to them, particularly not without big changes in lifestyle. As such, it sounds like blame and shame without a way out, AKA, just making somebody feel crappy. But a problem without an easy solution is the reality here, whatever you may feel about it.

[Clive At Five]

Man I just bought a new 23" last week, any takers? :mad:

Are you kidding? Heck yes, I'll take a brand new 23" monitor. Half price?

Our of all seriousness, what are you complaining about? Even though it doesn't have the latest bezel, it still has fresh guts. Be happy with what you bought... or if you don't return it. You'll only pay a restock fee. Or, like I suggested, sell it to me for half price.

-Clive

[Telp]

iWoot!! go apple !!!:D :D :D :apple: :apple: :apple: :apple:

[dbutdorf]

The letter says:

"Apple recycled 13 million pounds of e-waste in 2006, which is equal to 9.5% of the weight of all products Apple sold seven years earlier. We expect this percentage to grow to 13% in 2007, and to 20% in 2008. By 2010, we forecast recycling 19 million pounds of e-waste per year — nearly 30% of the product weight we sold seven years earlier."

The big questions is whether or not all the recycled weight is truly post-consumer waste. Often the total recycled weight includes manufacturing by-product and waste, which would certainly increase the number and skew the percentage of weight shipped significantly... I think they should clarify the number so we can trust 'em.

Doug

[Mgkwho]

After seeing "An Inconvenient Truth"...

I don't want to get into an argument, but let's just say the inconvienent truth about that movie is the facts it leaves out as well as the negative light it casts. It should not be taken as 100% factual.

And I'm not an environmental "oh no the o-zone is dying" kind of guy.

-=|Mgkwho

[KingofAwesome]

Glad to see Apple is finally taking some responsibility for being so un-environmentally friendly and cleaning up their act.

For a company that prides itself on being a squeaky clean company it's a shame they were forced to do something by media attention stimulated by Greenpeace.

But good on Apple for finally announcing that they will be changing their policy.

Good on Greenpeace I hope they will campaign further on this!

I'm sorry, have you been paying any attention to this at all?

[GodBless]

To eliminate mercury in our displays, we need to transition from fluorescent lamps to light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to illuminate the displays. Fortunately, all iPod displays already use LEDs for illumination, and therefore contain no mercury. We plan to introduce our first Macs with LED backlight technology in 2007. Our ability to completely eliminate fluorescent lamps in all of our displays depends on how fast the LCD industry can transition to LED backlighting for larger displays.

Way to go Steve and Apple! :)

The environment is important and making it cleaner is always better. :)

[johnee]

I don't want to get into an argument, but let's just say the inconvienent truth about that movie is the facts it leaves out as well as the negative light it casts. It should not be taken as 100% factual.

And I'm not an environmental "oh no the o-zone is dying" kind of guy.

-=|Mgkwho

I'm merely associating Al Gore's intentions (via his movie) to his actions (via his huge home energy bill). I never said anything about content.

[clutchlove]

I have yet to see any group who complains how bad we all are come to a table with a solutions that makes sense, meets the needs and does not impact the environment. They just tell us we are wrong.

You want to see a group with solutions?
http://www.mbdc.com/index.htm
These are the people that I would love seeing Apple hire. They have helped other huge companys not only be more 'environmentally friendly', but also make their employees happier, reduce costs, increase productivity, not just reduce waste, but eliminate the concept of it completely so that there is no need for regulations (which cost money). I hope Apple someday soon gets this kind of help because it will make a great company even better.

Steve Jobs
"Our designs use aircraft-grade aluminum, stainless steel and high-grade plastics that are in high demand from recyclers, who recover and resell these raw materials for use in other types of products. Few of our competitors do the same."

I'm glad to see Apple doing something about the chemicals and waste, but they can do even better. If they are recycling their computers why don't they have a nice big section on there website saying "Want to recycle your old Mac? Click here." If someone asked me how to take their old mac to Apple to be recycled, I wouldn't have a clue. And why is Apple giving the recycled materials to be used by some other company? Would it make more sense for them to use it for their own products? Why make virgin materials when you can reuse your own that is sent back to you?

[Chef Medeski]

Since HP is much larger and sell more computers and monitors can you explain to me why greenpeace doesn't go after them as publicly as they do Apple.Who , in all reality is actually greener that HP ?

Maybe because everyone has the notion that Apple is a big enviro friendly company just because a lot of enviromentalists use macs. :p

HP does a lot more in terms of environment than Apple. Not only do they have recycling program but they have projects in thrid world countries such as one in india to loan woman a laptop and digital camera to take pictures, tripling their income. They do a lot more than apple even though everyone thinks theyre are just another corporation and Apple is the only one that thinks differenty and CARES.

[dontmatter]

Wasn't Green Peace the group that said they hoped that the United States would have a large group of cows with Mad Cow Disease? I would not give a violent group like them any of my real thought.

If I hadn't been recycling for my whole 60+ year life, Green Peace would be the one group that would keep me from starting a Reduce, Recuse, Recycle attitude.

Remember what kind of lights our government wants us to change to to lower the amount of electricity we use. How long will it be before they change that to LED lights?

Bill the TaxMan

1. Seperate the group from the message. Making a bad choice (or simply not considering the options) to spite the person telling you to make that choice is tempting, but still a terrible reason to make bad decisions.

2. On lights: that's how it should be. Nobody is saying that flourescent is the be all and end all of lighting. What they are saying is that it's a heckuva lot better than incandescent, and not that much more expensive, particularly compared to the costs of global warming, coal mining, being dependent on the middle east, etc. When something better comes along, and the price of it is less than the cost of the downsides of the old technology, we ought to embrace that. What's so threatening about that?

[Clive At Five]

I used to think like that.

After seeing "An Inconvenient Truth", then hearing that Al Gore lives in a HUGE house which uses TONS of energy, I thought he was the biggest hypocrite.

However, the fact that he wants to live in a huge house is irrelevant.

The fact that he only has certain options for his energy needs is what he goes on and on about. (He better be using solar panels or i'll be pissed, he can afford them...)

He doesn't use solar or geo-thermal. He purchases carbon offsets from a renewable energy company that is partnered with an investment firm that he founded and chairs... so basically where the money for his offsets actually goes is anyone's best guess.

Offsets are a joke anyway. Say the world's energy use requires the purchase of one million offsets. Even if every single energy-user purchased the offsets, it doesn't mean the non-renewable energy wasn't used. It WAS used, and it DID contribute to global warming. The only real way to reduce pollution is to reduce use. Al Gore of all people should know that.

His efforts are commendable, but his methods are not.

-Clive

[Rocketman]

Glad to see Apple is finally taking some responsibility for being so un-environmentally friendly and cleaning up their act.

You seem to have entirely missed the point. They are greener now than their peers and were greener sooner (by far) then even the most agressive of their peers. They just did not get the message out very well.

Rocketman

[clutchlove]

Cutting down trees sucks, and so does styrofoam, but unless your really radical and want to eliminate fast food, take-out, etc. then you've got to try and figure out which one isn't as bad (and of course scientific knowledge/opininos are going to change through time). But the bottom line is, there really is no solution.

This is off subject but there are solutions, and they are good.

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/business/285376,071BIZ4.article
Replacement for Styrofoam

[Peace]

This can mean only one thing.

Green ( as in color ) Macbooks and Cinema Displays.W00t!! OMG!!

:D

[JGowan]

Jobs knows the money in the future will be spent on green computers as people become more environmentally aware. I don't think we would see this if it wasn't for that shift in peoples attitudes.God how negative.

You're frickin' wrong. It's a win-win. CRTs -- terrible in every way. LCDs -- much better: sleeker (very small footprint), brighter, lighter and environmentally more friendly in a big way. LEDs... even better.

Since you're talking MONEY. Why is that Apple is practically the only player going CRT-FREE for almost a year when "Dell, Gateway, Hewlett Packard and Lenovo still ship CRT displays today." Surely these companies are making fortunes off the poorer computer users who still can't afford LCDs. Apple could be too, but, I believe, they have more integrity.

[djellison]

This isn't really news. Saying that future displays will use LED's is like saying future CPU's will be faster or future machines will have larger hard drives. We know that already.

Doug

[johnee]

He doesn't use solar or geo-thermal. He purchases carbon offsets from a renewable energy company that is partnered with an investment firm that he founded and chairs... so basically where the money for his offsets actually goes is anyone's best guess.

Offsets are a joke anyway. Say the world's energy use requires the purchase of one million offsets. Even if every single energy-user purchased the offsets, it doesn't mean the non-renewable energy wasn't used. It WAS used, and it DID contribute to global warming. The only real way to reduce pollution is to reduce use. Al Gore of all people should know that.

His efforts are commendable, but his methods are not.

-Clive

I'm guessing the carbon offsets go toward helping someone else to use renewable energy. So when you buy a carbon offset, you're allowing someone else to generate (eventually) energy which produces no CO2 (?).

I guess its a way to subsidize others to NOT produce CO2.

But Al Gore should have been a true leader and purchased solar/thermal energy generation processes.

the only future we have is micro-energy generation (I call it discrete energy generation) where each house/business produces SOME energy via solar/thermal/wind.

[840quadra]

I don't see this as a breakthrough attempt by Apple to be environmentally green compliant.

Switching to LED's is the technical next step, not the environmental next step. They are more durable, use less overall power, and eventually the technology will cost less than the old style fluorescent backlighting (if adopted by large companies).

[nagromme]

Big thanks to Apple... and bigger thanks to those environmentalists who "hurt our feelings" by singling Apple out to promote a cause that benefits all of us... and who thereby impelled Apple to improve faster (not to mention being an example to other companies).

I hadn't thought about the environmental benefits of LED backlighting. Now I want that even more. In a SUBnotebook, please :)

[johnee]

I don't see this as a breakthrough attempt by Apple to be environmentally green compliant.

Switching to LED's is the technical next step, not the environmental next step. They are more durable, use less overall power, and eventually the technology will cost less than the old style fluorescent backlighting (if adopted by large companies).

I think you're right. I also thought he was milking it a bit. Has any other company done this? I know some other computer makers are coming out with LED displays, but not sure if they are trying to take an environmental credit for the inevitable technical advance or not.

Big thanks to Apple... and bigger thanks to those environmentalists who "hurt our feelings" by singling Apple out to promote a cause that benefits all of us... and who thereby impelled Apple to improve faster (not to mention being an example to other companies).

I hadn't thought about the environmental benefits of LED backlighting. Now I want that even more. In a SUBnotebook, please :)

See, it's working exactly how he wanted it to. By drawing attention to the environmental positives, people will not see it as an inevitable technological transition, but rather a change spurred by "going green"

[RedTomato]

Official response from Greenpeace

Lots of congratulations from Greenpeace for Apple:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/tasty-apple-news-020507

Tasty news from Apple!

International — We are cheering! Steve Jobs has decided to bring us closer to the greener apple that Mac users all over the world have been asking for.
Today we saw something we've all been waiting for: the words "A Greener Apple" on the front page of Apple's site, with a message from Steve Jobs saying "Today we're changing our policy."

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/image_big_teaser/international/photosvideos/photos/apple-s-site-boasts-a-greener.jpg

It's not everything we asked for. Apple has declared a phase out of the worst chemicals in its product range, Brominated Fire Retardants (BFRs) and Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) by 2008. That beats Dell and other computer manufactures' pledge to phase them out by 2009. Way to go Steve!

But while customers in the US will be able to return their Apple products for recycling knowing that their gear won't end up in the e-waste mountains of Asia and India, Apple isn't making that promise to anyone but customers in the USA. Elsewhere in the world, an Apple product today can still be tomorrow's e-waste. Other manufacturers offer worldwide takeback and recycling. Apple should too!

Apple hasn't gotten an actual green product to market, but no other electronics manufacture has either. That's a race worthy of the wizards of Cupertino.

We've seen the enthusiasm with which Apple fans have greeted our campaign to make Apple a green leader. They've made clear what they want-- an Apple which isn't just skin-deep green, but green to the core. One that creates products free from the most hazardous chemicals, that they can buy and return with a clear conscience, secure in the knowledge that Apple will re-use or recycle them responsibly, and that won't end up in scrapyards or add to the mountains of e-waste that the electronics industry has created.

Apple must begin to address these growing problems to ensure that the workers and children of Asia and many developing nations no longer face the unnecessary environmental and health dangers posed by the high-tech industry's waste.

We look forward to working with the new, greener Apple in future – toward the greening of the entire electronics industry.

And to all the Apple fans who have contributed their thoughts and blogs and creativity to this campaign, reach over your shoulder and pat yourself on the back. Put a happy tune on your ipod and do a happy dance. You've proven you can make a real difference. You convinced one of the world's most cutting edge companies to cut the toxic ingredients out of the products they sell.

Now, let's take it to the next level! An Apple green to the core!

* Check out the great stuff that Apple fans have made to ask Steve for a greener Apple: http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/procreate-submissions

[SPUY767]

I'm telling you, 3M's LightPipe material and a bank of led's around the screen and you can light a screen of any size.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

I'm glad to see Apple doing something about the chemicals and waste, but they can do even better. If they are recycling their computers why don't they have a nice big section on there website saying "Want to recycle your old Mac? Click here." If someone asked me how to take their old mac to Apple to be recycled, I wouldn't have a clue. And why is Apple giving the recycled materials to be used by some other company? Would it make more sense for them to use it for their own products? Why make virgin materials when you can reuse your own that is sent back to you?

You're kidding? It's simple to find a way to recycle your Mac - and whenever you buy a Mac in the Apple store, they offer free recycling at that time as well.

Check out this site:
http://www.apple.com/environment/

[AidenShaw]

That being said, the un-named “environmental group” that forced this move are still a bunch of whiney media-whores who, I’m sure, will soon take credit for the changes talked about within this letter.

Do you for a minute think that Apple wouldn't be doing this without the pressure from the "whiney media-whores"?

[Clive At Five]

I'm guessing the carbon offsets go toward helping someone else to use renewable energy. So when you buy a carbon offset, you're allowing someone else to generate (eventually) energy which produces no CO2 (?).

I guess its a way to subsidize others to NOT produce CO2.

But Al Gore should have been a true leader and purchased solar/thermal energy generation processes.

I researched a little more and have some new information about Mr Gore. He doesn't even buy the offsets. His investment firm purshases them for each of its employess AS AN EMPLOYEE BENEFIT! :eek:

Yeah, Mr Gore, you're paving the way for a greener world...

Link. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257958,00.html)

the only future we have is micro-energy generation (I call it discrete energy generation) where each house/business produces SOME energy via solar/thermal/wind.

Kind of like how all farms had windmills for water-pumping or other various tasks? ;)

-Clive

[Doctor Q]

This new story and discussion thread involve a set of interrelated issues about Apple's "A Greener Apple" announcement, the environmental practices of Apple and other computer companies, and about future Apple LED displays.

Please keep the discussion focused on these topics and remember to observe forum rules and proper netiquette when discussing controversial issues.

Thank you!

[clutchlove]

You're kidding? It's simple to find a way to recycle your Mac - and whenever you buy a Mac in the Apple store, they offer free recycling at that time as well.

Check out this site:
http://www.apple.com/environment/

My point was that, for all of Apple's easy of use and intelligent design in hardware and software they don't have much ease of use or intelligent design in the recycling program. I've only bought my Macs online so I don't know how it is in person but this is apple's steps for us for recycling your Mac:
"Here's how the program works.

Purchase any Apple computer and/or Apple display from the online Apple Store or a retail Apple Store.
Choose the "Apple Recycling Program" option during the checkout process. (note: I have to say I never noticed this option.)
After your equipment ships, Apple will send you an email with instructions on how to recycle your old computer.
Print the email — you'll need it later.
Package your old computer and monitor securely in a box appropriate for ground transportation. Please note: retail Apple Stores will not accept items for recycling.
Take the packages and a printed copy of your Apple recycling email to a FedEx location and drop them off for shipment.
Please refer to the email for more detailed instructions."

Now why don't they just put a link to the intructions they email you on their home page? Why must you buy a Mac first to get this information?

By the way, I looked for the link to that page you posted, 'www.apple.com/environment' couldn' find a link to it anywhere on their site. No, I didn't check the whole site, I got tired of looking after 5 mins.

[Maccus Aurelius]

How come Greenpeace never harassed Microsoft, despite the fact that the supercomputer back at headquarters runs on steam generated by burning old Coleco Vision computers and Commadore 64's.

[macleod199]

So let's not all get carried away by how fantastic and cuddly Apple are for doing this 'off of their own backs'.

What I've been following for the past year or two is the IEEE/EPA developed environmental assessment tool:
http://epeat.net/

Apple has the highest scoring notebooks (i.e. most optional points implemented), and used to have the highest scoring desktops. Although it's interesting to note that NO ONE has made the gold level yet, they're just further up in silver than most.

I have no idea why Greenpeace didn't consult this when doing their research. It honestly influenced my decision to switch to Apple.

I'm the kind of person who would rather bike 30 kilometres to work than buy a car, obsessively turns out lights, etc. I'm also a scientist, and prefer actual standards and research to who has the nicest website when making decisions about the environment. Unfortunately Greenpeace tends to react very emotionally rather than logically, embarrassing rational environmentalists who would otherwise be on their side.

[macleod199]

now that everyone is complaining about the mercury in fluorescent displays let's remember that compact fluorescent bulbs contain 2 - 5 mg of mercury each. this is what al gore says we should all use? considering the number of people who will not recycle these bulbs and do not know where to do so, shouldn't we also push for a better lighting technology there??? it seems inconsistent to me.

They'll save an incredibly amount of energy, and an incredible amount of space in landfills due to their longer life, which may potentially outweigh the consequences. Also keep in mind they last for close to 10 years, so we have that long for people to get the message to dispose of them properly. And we'll probably be able to switch to something LED (perhaps even Organic LED)-based in the meantime.

[macleod199]

I used to think like that.
right now, my option for getting to work is either public transportation which still produces CO2, driving my own motorized vehicle which produces CO2 even if it's a hybrid, or bicycling/walking, the only choice not to produce CO2 (other than from my lungs).


Generally the bus would be running even you weren't on it, so it's not a huge impact. In my case the bus service to my work site is pretty infrequent, so people don't want to take it. The more people who take it, the more frequent the service gets. Eventually it will get frequent enough that people won't feel the need to drive, so there's a net reduction.

[iSee]

...
And you still ignore the fact that laptops are not 100% of the reason behind this.

Just because laptop screens aren't 100% of the problem doesn't mean they shouldn't be improved!

In fact, no one thing is 100% of our environmental problems, whether we're talking about heavy metal poisoning or greenhouse gases or anything else.

If we shouldn't bother to improve anything that isn't 100% of the problem, we won't improve anything. That's ridiculous.

Also, regarding your other comments on the price of that LED-backlit monitor, I have a feeling Apple's LED backlit laptops and displays are not going to jump over $1000 in price.

[jono_3]

ive been waiting for months and months for the june mac rev.s and this assures me that its been worth the wait

[Lycanthrope]

Kudos to Greenpeace. About time Apple.

[-hh]

Official response from Greenpeace

Lots of congratulations from Greenpeace for Apple: {deleted}


Sorry, but its IMO more like a big self-congratulatory piece with Greenpeace patting themselves on their own back.

Greenpeace's real complaint of Apple wasn't that they weren't doing anything, but merely that Apple wasn't telling Greenpeace what they were doing.

The policy that Apple changed today wasn't to become environmental.
Instead, the policy change was to be more open in divulging what they are currently doing and planning to do in the environmental field.

We also know that nothing accomplished will ever be good enough for some critics. For example:

But while customers in the US will be able to return their Apple products for recycling knowing that their gear won't end up in the e-waste mountains of Asia and India, Apple isn't making that promise to anyone but customers in the USA. Elsewhere in the world, an Apple product today can still be tomorrow's e-waste.

How convenient it is that the factor of non-exporting of eWaste was so easily overlooked so as to raise the expectations bar higher.

Apple hasn't gotten an actual green product to market...

Gosh, I thought there were something like 3 million iPods mentioned?

Apple must begin to address these growing problems to ensure that the workers and children of Asia and many developing nations no longer face the unnecessary environmental and health dangers posed by the high-tech industry's waste.

Hmmm...I wonder if this means that a Mac sold in India will have to be shipped to the USA at EOL in order to make Greenpeace happy?


Overall, I'm glad to see Apple taking this step in the promotion of their product brand, and that new LCD Displays appear to be in the pipeline. Naturally, their prices will probably be high, which means that some percentage of the consumers will vote with their wallet for less 'green' alternatives, but I believe that for the most part, much of the consumer base will be willing to pay a *little* extra for the environmentally superior product. Of course, how much extra that works out to being is an individual decision; YMMV.

-hh

[mutantteenager]

Good for Steve for realizing the difference between secrets that need to be kept and things that should be shared. This was a great thing for them to do.

That being said, the un-named “environmental group” that forced this move are still a bunch of whiney media-whores who, I’m sure, will soon take credit for the changes talked about within this letter.

Best to keep in mind that the only thing they accomplished here was the creation of the press release itself. The things it talks about are obviously already in the works and have been for many years.

As much as I enjoyed reading it, I sure hope we don’t see them take credit for the actual changes outlined within the document. I’m not holding my breath on that one, however.

This has got to be sarcasm, right?

Steve Jobs doesn't give a rats arse about the environment. A computer is basically a cocktail of pollutants. When it is finally dumped, which invariably it is, those toxins leech out into the environment.

If Apple (and the rest of those mofo's) really cared, they would have made sure that a scheme of takeback and recycle was in place YEARS AGO!

All of a sudden Apple/Tony Blair/et al are all 'greener than thou'. This can only be down to environmentalists, and believe it or not, their message getting through to the consumer's thick skulls.

If we are talking 'media whore', we need look no further than Mr Jobs himself. He of 'nobody wants to watch a movie on a 2.5" screen'!

Before I get the hate mail, I like my Apple stuff, have done for a zillion years.

Where are all those iPods going when they stop working, heaven?

[MIDI_EVIL]

I can't believe he started a sentance with the word 'and'.

Rich.

[faintember]

Also, regarding your other comments on the price of that LED-backlit monitor, I have a feeling Apple's LED backlit laptops and displays are not going to jump over $1000 in price.Did I ever say it would go up $1000? Oh, I didn't, but thanks for putting words into my mouth.

The person I was responding to was making it sound like this laptop change would clear up all types of heavy metal poisoning. Maybe that would be apparent if you read the previous comments between that poster and myself.

My price comparison shows around a 6 fold increase in price, so how will that not translate into higher prices for the customer?

[Fabio_gsilva]

yay and nay, LCD old SED is the future!

Man, i just heard about SED is the future, but seems like no real product ever hit the shalves... i don't know if SED is like UFOS... I want to believe, but i don't see...

[Mydel]

The person I was responding to was making it sound like this laptop change would clear up all types of heavy metal poisoning.

My price comparison shows around a 6 fold increase in price, so how will that not translate into higher prices for the customer?

No never said that, but its a good start. we cant forget how popular LCD became of lately. we dont know but Im pretty sure it would NOT be 6 fold of anything even close to that

[Cassie]

You might be right, but Greenpeace is arrogant enough to interpret this as a victory for them, and use it to further inflate their egos. That ego will encorage them to meddle with other companies who they decide not to like.

-Clive

Which is a good thing.

[koobcamuk]

This has got to be sarcasm, right?

Steve Jobs doesn't give a rats arse about the environment. A computer is basically a cocktail of pollutants. When it is finally dumped, which invariably it is, those toxins leech out into the environment.

If Apple (and the rest of those mofo's) really cared, they would have made sure that a scheme of takeback and recycle was in place YEARS AGO!

All of a sudden Apple/Tony Blair/et al are all 'greener than thou'. This can only be to environmentalists, and believe it or not, their message getting through to the consumer's thick skulls.

If we are talking 'media whore', we need look no further than Mr Jobs himself. He of 'nobody wants to watch a movie on a 2.5" screen'!

Before I get the hate mail, I like my Apple stuff, have done for a zillion years. What I can't stand is fanboys, and anyone stupid enough to think we don't have a negative impact on our environment.

Where are all those iPods going when they stop working, heaven?

My iPod is on my desk... doing nothing. Paper weight. Ornament.

I am right behind you on this one. It's great news, but the Environment is *uc*ed and we need to act now. We are just too slow at reacting and planning. Poor Earth. :(

[faintember]

No never said that, but its a good start. we cant forget how popular LCD became of lately.Maybe it wasn't your intention, but the 5 people that are here working with me in the studio agree that your opening statement was confusing and that it lead people to believe that if Apple did not make this move that heavy metal poisoning would happen.
we dont know but Im pretty sure it would NOT be 6 fold of anything even close to thatCorrect, we don't know. I am just showing real world data rather than speculating. Forgive me for wanting to be grounded by the facts.:rolleyes:

[brooker]

Wow, this drew a lot of comments... I can't read them all, but have this to (re) say:

* I love it. This is great news. I'm very proud of them.
* Apple stock just went up a full point, likely as a result of this announcement... it broke 100!
* I especially appreciated the humble tone recognizing that there is more to do, and the on-going committment to seeing it happen.

Bravo, Apple!

[Data]

Apple sells like 9-15% of all computers sold in the world , so i wonder why they don't target the Dell's and HP's and IBM's of the world,they produce much more devices/polution , could it have something to do with the fact that Apple have a piece of fruit as their logo , plus the specialty of the brand ?

Further more if they introduce LED displays i think it will only be in laptops and not in the big displays, the technology is just not good enough at this point in time to illuminate 30"screens if i read the original post right .

[Mydel]

Correct, we don't know. I am just showing real world data rather than speculating. Forgive me for wanting to be grounded by the facts.:rolleyes:

Sony VAIO TX Series are LED backlit and still around 2000$. Granted they are 11 or 12 inches but its still whithin price range of ultrapotable laptops with LCD.
Grounded???:cool: :D

[Rocketman]

Quote:

"Currently, there is no industry standard way to measure the effectiveness of a company’s recycling programs. Dell has proposed a simple measure - assume a seven year product lifetime, and measure the percentage of the total weight you recycle each year compared to the total weight of what you sold seven years earlier. This makes sense to us, and has the added advantages of clarity and simplicity."

- Steve Jobs

News release:

Steve Jobs adopts a Dell policy statement.

:)

Rocketman

[Krevnik]

Big bad Greenpeace again. They're such bastards for trying to make the planet a better place for future generations to live in!

You can bad mouth them all you like but they have apparently managed to make Apple change their practices now haven't they....


Maybe, but taking credit for something that someone else could have already been working towards is a great way to lose credibility with people. As it stands, unless someone proffers up evidence beyond "Apple said..." or "Greenpeace said..." that one or the other was the catalyst for these changes... I am not willing to give Greenpeace credit for it.

[gnasher729]

There is also the RoHS law (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) that they need to adhere to so it's not like they're doing something amazing for the planet all by themselves. So let's not all get carried away by how fantastic and cuddly Apple are for doing this 'off of their own backs'.

Did you RTFA (Read The Fine Article)? Apple is completely in compliance with RoHS with all its products worldwide, even though RoHS is only a European law. And Apple is in compliance without using any loopholes like other companies are doing.

[steve_hill4]

yay and nay, LCD old SED is the future!

Yeah, rock on those Smoke Emitting Diodes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke-emitting_diode). :D

[rowensiv]

greener apples are better, too. :apple:

[gnasher729]

Big bad Greenpeace again. They're such bastards for trying to make the planet a better place for future generations to live in!
And here I was, thinking that Greenpeace was just annoyed because Apple didn't give in to their demands for cash donations.

You can bad mouth them all you like but they have apparently managed to make Apple change their practices now haven't they....

Actually, they haven't. Apple has been acting according to the fine Christian principle of "do good and don't talk about it". Because of Greenpeace, Apple has now changed their practice to "do good, talk about it, and rubbish all the other companies that talk and don't act".

[rish]

Apple sells like 9-15% of all computers sold in the world , so i wonder why they don't target the Dell's and HP's and IBM's of the world,they produce much more devices/polution , could it have something to do with the fact that Apple have a piece of fruit as their logo , plus the specialty of the brand ?

Further more if they introduce LED displays i think it will only be in laptops and not in the big displays, the technology is just not good enough at this point in time to illuminate 30"screens if i read the original post right .

Apple draws media interest. It's why the NGO when after them. Pursuing anyone else would not draw the same interest or press coverage. As for this organisations data and overall view of who is actually being green, its clear there is absolutely no integrity in what they presented. Apple appears if not on par then ahead of the other computer manufacturers and the response demonstrates on Apple's part the thought placed environmentally in the overall design of their products.

As for Greenpeace what a bunch of ranting s..ts! I always felt that Friends of the Earth were a more worth while NGO to support.

Well done Apple for stating what they have done and what they propose to do. Greenpeace being self congratulatory? I think Steve has shown what a bunch of egotistical sh..ts they really are and how wrong they were on Apples green credentials.

[sthpark7791]

I took a look at a sony LED laptop and the screen was very very nice. Too bad I already purchased a MBP :mad:

[Max Payne]

good news... waiting for santa rosa with led displays.

[gnasher729]

Glad to see Apple is finally taking some responsibility for being so un-environmentally friendly and cleaning up their act.

For a company that prides itself on being a squeaky clean company it's a shame they were forced to do something by media attention stimulated by Greenpeace.

But good on Apple for finally announcing that they will be changing their policy.

Good on Greenpeace I hope they will campaign further on this!

You fell for the Greenpeace propaganda hook, line and sinker.

This article is not about Apple cleaning up their act, and definitely not about Apple cleaning up their act because of pressure from Greenpeace. This is about Apple complying with new, strict laws two years before they have to, and not telling the world about them, while the Greenpeace idiots praise other companies for having plans to comply with the same laws a few years in the future.

The policy that Apple will be changing is the policy of being environmentally friendly _and not talking about it_, because the Greenpeace idiots rate companies by how many empty promises they make and how many plans they announce for the future, not by what they have done.

Like other companies having plans to reduce the amount of lead over the next few years, and Apple has no such plans, because the average CRT monitor contained 1 1/2 pounds of lead, the first iMac contained only 484 grams, and a current iMac contains less than one gram! Guess who is rated as green by the Greenpeace idiots: The companies that have the big plans. If Dell reduces lead use from 400 gram to 390 gram, and Apple reduces it from 1 gram to 1/2 gram, you can bet that Greenpeace will rate Dell as better, because they achieved 20 times more reduction than Apple did.

[gnasher729]

Kudos to Greenpeace. About time Apple.

Explain. What exactly has Greenpeace done that has helped here in any way?

[Clive At Five]

Which is a good thing.

What?! No it's not.

I'm all for environmentally-friendly products, but their methods are invasive and arrogant. They don't even listen to scientific facts if it treads anywhere near proving them wrong on an issue. As one member posted earlier, they blindly oppose agricultural genetic engineering of any kind even when it is proven not to have any harmful side-effects.

A little headstrong, are we?

Greenpeace, like Al Gore, has good intentions, but poor methods.

-Clive

[wichtb01]

I like what Apple is doing, keep it up. I don't like the hostility in this thread. Here is what a company can do if they really want to make a difference:

http://www.chrisking.com/pucks/index.html

Read through all of it if you care.

[iBunny]

I could care less about being enviromentally friendly.

Will these displays perform better? Better Resolution? Sharper Picture? Lower Response time? Better Viewing angle?

I will trade the enviroment any day if I can get a better computer. :D

[numlock]

As i was a participant in a thread recently and made my opinion clear that I wanted apple to be a leader in this field I am happy they have made this change and are declaring their goals. Hopefully they will fullfill them

Sorry, but its IMO more like a big self-congratulatory piece with Greenpeace patting themselves on their own back.

Greenpeace's real complaint of Apple wasn't that they weren't doing anything, but merely that Apple wasn't telling Greenpeace what they were doing. -hh

wow. how in gods name did you read that into their statement?

Greenepeace and other people (quite rightly) where upset that a iconic brand like apple didnt disclose this information. The consumers and the people/species living on this planet have a right to know

The policy that Apple changed today wasn't to become environmental.
Instead, the policy change was to be more open in divulging what they are currently doing and planning to do in the environmental field.

there are two ways of reading into that paragraph. You chose to think that apple was already this numero uno eco friendly company in the world but didnt disclose anything as they are so modest. Others might want to think that they behaved like many fortune 500 companies did/do and cut corners where possible

We also know that nothing accomplished will ever be good enough for some critics. For example:

absolute nonsense. It was clear from greenpeace´s comments that they wanted a recycling program wherever (makes a bit of sense) apple sold ccomputers.

[AidenShaw]

Apple sells like 9-15% of all computers sold in the world....


[Apple] held a 5% U.S. marketshare for PC shipments in the 1st quarter of 2007. (a table in the linked article puts Apple in the "Others" category below 4.1% worldwide share)


According to a recent report by IDC, Apple owned about 2.8 percent of the worldwide PC market in the third quarter of 2006.

Data, your numbers are imaginary - not even close to the actual marketshare figures.

[Rocketman]

Official response from Greenpeace

Lots of congratulations from Greenpeace for Apple:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/tasty-apple-news-020507

"Today we're changing our policy."

It's not everything we asked for.

Apple hasn't gotten an actual green product to market, but no other electronics manufacture has either.

We look forward to working with the new, greener Apple in future – toward the greening of the entire electronics industry.

And to all the Apple fans who have contributed their thoughts and blogs and creativity to this campaign, reach over your shoulder and pat yourself on the back. Put a happy tune on your ipod and do a happy dance. You've proven you can make a real difference. You convinced one of the world's most cutting edge companies to cut the toxic ingredients out of the products they sell.

Now, let's take it to the next level! An Apple green to the core!


Ummm. "To Greanpeace"

Apple changed their policy on public disclosure, not "becoming leading edge green". Apple has been leading edge green since 2002 and leads EVERY other major hardware manufacturer - by a country mile.

It's nt everything you asked for because you are a pimple on commercial manufacturers' a$$ and you asked for the moon with NO contribution whatsoever to "making it so."

The suppliers to the electronics industry will offer "green products" when they are BOTH manufacturable and cost competitive. There is a commercial incentive to get rid of lead simply because it is heavy to ship, and the others because Apple is in California, the most ecologically and regulatory, and employee protection, facist state, in the union. You have to declare eraser dust a hazardous waste here (unless you are a non-commercial end user). :(

Work with Apple? Don't you mean you will criticize it unless it makes a press release you can hang on to for dear life and take credit for with language "differing" from the truth and the series of events as they occured (ie Fraud)? You seem to have missed the FACT they have been greener than anyone ever and have been since 2002. You not only missed that and the opportunity to promote it, you claimed the opposite!! You are retards!!

Apple users convinced Apple to be green lke they convinced Apple to release an "overpriced" music player, or they convinced Apple to release an "overpriced" phone.

This is Steve Jobs. The Mac. The IMac. The iPod. The iPhone, The iTV. The iCEO. This is Steve Jobs and his "crew". Not you Greenpeace. Not even Apple users, especially as influenced or commanded by you Greenpeace.

Let go of the train. Apple is crushng this industry without you.

Go away and chase some single hulled oil tankers, and just to show how intolerable they are, sink them and cause an oil spill dozens of times as hurtful as every product ever made by Apple, recycled or not.

Rocketman

[synth3tik]

This has been a thorn for Apple. I can't count the number of list of environmentally friendly companies. Apple never faired well on any of them. It's great to see a public stance on the issues of eliminating hazards chemicals from their products.

[iSee]

Did I ever say it would go up $1000? Oh, I didn't, but thanks for putting words into my mouth.

The person I was responding to was making it sound like this laptop change would clear up all types of heavy metal poisoning. Maybe that would be apparent if you read the previous comments between that poster and myself.

My price comparison shows around a 6 fold increase in price, so how will that not translate into higher prices for the customer?

The $1000 price increase is based on your "6 fold increase." Glad I could clear that up for ya.

And I did read the previous comments which is what I was responding to. That's how these forum thingies work.

[faintember]

Sony VAIO TX Series are LED backlit and still around 2000$. Granted they are 11 or 12 inches but its still whithin price range of ultrapotable laptops with LCD.Then you won't mind linking the Sony vs. an comparable ultraportable with a LCD screen.
Grounded???:cool: :DCtrl+Command+D

The $1000 price increase is based on your "6 fold increase." Glad I could clear that up for ya.It is a 6 fold increase. Do the math yourself. I mearly gave that example as a current price differential between the two technologies. No where did I ever say that the price differential would be applied in it's full extent to the laptop. I was arguing that there would be a increase in price that the consumer would have to pay when there is the move to the LED backlit laptops.
And I did read the previous comments which is what I was responding to. That's how these forum thingies work.Then you are intentionally putting words in my mouth then? Brilliant.

[iSee]

What?! No it's not.

I'm all for environmentally-friendly products, but their methods are invasive and arrogant. They don't even listen to scientific facts if it treads anywhere near proving them wrong on an issue. As one member posted earlier, they blindly oppose agricultural genetic engineering of any kind even when it is proven not to have any harmful side-effects.

A little headstrong, are we?

Greenpeace, like Al Gore, has good intentions, but poor methods.

-Clive

Hey, don't lump ol' Al Gore in with those Greenpeas. At least he's sincere and his position is based on scientific facts.

[Glenny2lappies]

Thanks for caving to the Eco-Terrorists. Now that you have proven that Apple's policy can be changed by terrorism, expect to see many more assaults in the future.

Errm, you cannot be serious here? Either you're trolling or have a rather warped view of the world.

This needs deconstructing...

Apple aren't caving in to anything; they're making a commercial decision based upon 'normal' capitalist behaviour - they've decided they have to follow the general view of the world and be more ecologically responsible.
Eco-Terrorists - please don't use this term as it's extremely offensive. In this case Greenpeace have simply highlighted the pollution that all electronic goods create and ranked manufacturers according to their ecological footprint.
If by terrorism you mean thinking different to you, then I'd hate to see your day-to-day life
With words like assault, it sounds like the words from a NRA member!


If you've bothered to read this thread you'll quite clearly see that Apple are responding to external pressures, in descending order of importance:

EU and other government directives (even in the US) insist that Apple take a more ecological view of their manufacturing processes
Public opinion - people may still not give a damn about the environment in hicksville, but around the rest of the planet it's a rather important issue
Bad publicity - commentary about a corporation's green credentials is bad in the educated world. Bad green publicity isn't good publicity
And in a very last place, pressure from ecological interest groups such as Greenpeace


Again, Apple aren't doing anything particularly out of the ordinary, just providing leadership that is taking them in a more green direction.

If you want to live in some environmental cesspit, please crap in your own back yard; but don't screw up my planet.

[EagerDragon]

It's yet another pre-announcement! :eek:

This is, seriously, great news from Apple. However, I am interested to hear what people who know more about environmental issues than I do make of SJ's latest essay.

Im sorry to say, that this is another feather on Digitime's cap. They predicted this a while back (several months).

[Apple Architect]

Big bad Greenpeace again. They're such bastards for trying to make the planet a better place for future generations to live in!

You can bad mouth them all you like but they have apparently managed to make Apple change their practices now haven't they....



I bet they're just gutted that they made a point about a company not doing enough for the environment and then that company did something positive about it.

Lets face it, Apple was not a shiny light on this until now. Hopefully the message will get out that it is actually "cool to be green". I just hope for the sake of our children that more companies follow suit.

[EagerDragon]

About bloody time Steve got his arse in gear about this. It's important.

I'd like to see more of these ocassional essays from Jobsy... maybe even a blog!! :P

If Steve was attending and responding to a blog under his name, the blog would get 10 to 20 thousands posts a day. Maybe hard to respond to everyone.
Every one would try to pick his brain.

[Apple Architect]

I could care less about being enviromentally friendly.

Will these displays perform better? Better Resolution? Sharper Picture? Lower Response time? Better Viewing angle?

I will trade the enviroment any day if I can get a better computer. :D

I hope for the planets sake you are joking !!!.

[Azurael]

Nice to see we agree on something :)

I take it you are all aware of how awful lead free solder is from a technical standpoint...?

It's most likely the cause of the GPU failures in iBooks and the 'ring of death' on XBox 360s, since it isn't flexible or heat tolerant enough and tends to crack under expansion and compression.

Yes, the environment is important, but I don't want to pay more for a product that's inferior. Taking things slowly and understanding the consequences of our actions before jumping on the bandwagon is just as significant. After all, aren't lots of out-of-warranty iBooks going into landfills now because they're uneconomical to repair?

[EagerDragon]

WWDC is next month. . . with the rumors of Santa Rosa, how likely will we see LED screens in the laptops as well? Being that Steve did mention the bigger the screen the harder to make it LED. . . the laptop screens are smaller then the display. . . I would really want a Macbook Pro with LEDs. What do you guys think?

October for new displays. Resolution indipendance.

Laptops may get it sooner, but laptop displays are very shallow and I think they need a little extra space for LED. Not sure.

[Rocketman]

I take it you are all aware of how awful lead free solder is from a technical standpoint...?


The only technically good alternative to lead based solder (which does no damage to the environment at all as compared to the lead from the GROUND where it came from), is electrically conductive epoxies. Dozens of times the cost per pound and far more hazardous in terms of airborne emissions, and input item disposal.

Pb is your friend. When you bury it, it coats itself with lead oxide to "protect the environment". :D

Rocketman

[bigmc6000]

I hope for the planets sake you are joking !!!.

I've taken a number of Material Science classes and i can tell you that (aside from mercury) what Apple is putting in their computers and vowing to rid them of is nothing compared to the damage you cause simply by breathing. CO2 is in fact a "greenhouse gas" and by mearly breathing you're a cause for global warming.

Just thought you'd like to know...

[rjwill246]

Big bad Greenpeace again. They're such bastards for trying to make the planet a better place for future generations to live in!

You can bad mouth them all you like but they have apparently managed to make Apple change their practices now haven't they....



I bet they're just gutted that they made a point about a company not doing enough for the environment and then that company did something positive about it.

I really detest Greenpeace as they have absolutely no interest in the planet but love to raise money and awareness- so they can raise more money-- about paper tigers. They have been shown up here for what they are-- irresponsible communistic loudmouths. And, once again, proven wrong, though they will never issue an apology to Apple- that would take some sort of ethical and moral virtue-- while Apple had already been doing a great job without any goading from these wankers. Time for another ship, I think...

[Konradx]

Better late, than never...still a lil late

[Thi]

I knew it, I bought my mbp this year so that it will last me 3+ years, now I'd have to spend more money on the new one. Must resist.

[Cult Follower]

This announcement was a great idea for apple. And it gave us insight into what they are planning on doing next. I'm looking foreward to recieving the benefits of LED backlighting. How about at WWDC?

[Clive At Five]

Hey, don't lump ol' Al Gore in with those Greenpeas. At least he's sincere and his position is based on scientific facts.

Ernt. Wrong again. How can you be sincere on cutting back on energy when the man doesn't do it himself? Go back to page 6 and read posts 127 and 141, then proceed to cry for being pwned by Gore's hypocracy.

We (all of us) need to reduce in order to make a greener world. As opposed to where GreenPeace stands, scientific research can often hold the key to shaving away at the loads of energy we use - as in this case where we can implement technology to eliminate harmful chemicals AND increase efficiency - and not bash things which aren't proven to be harmful (agricultural genetic engineering).

More research is never a bad thing. Niether is tonning down one's arrogance... GreenPeace...

And pacticing what we preach is also a nice thing to do... Mr. Gore...

-Clive

[aafuss1]

Sony uses white-Led backlights in VAIO's-Apple could use something similar.

Will Apple eliminate mercury from the Cinema Displys in the next update-with LED backlit, a better update than the prices cuts accompanied by PMG5 and now Mac Pro updates

[breath of apple]

Thanks for staying on top, Apple and Steve! These moments of character and leadership define you well :)

[williedigital]

I'm guessing the carbon offsets go toward helping someone else to use renewable energy. So when you buy a carbon offset, you're allowing someone else to generate (eventually) energy which produces no CO2 (?).

I guess its a way to subsidize others to NOT produce CO2.

But Al Gore should have been a true leader and purchased solar/thermal energy generation processes.

the only future we have is micro-energy generation (I call it discrete energy generation) where each house/business produces SOME energy via solar/thermal/wind.

Exactly, offsets are exactly the same as donating money to charitable organizations that work to fight some social ill, rather than you doing the work to fight it yourself. If Gore was somehow making the money he was donating from encouraging that social ill, then there might be a moral argument to be made (a good example is from Native Son, where the tenement owner funds the Boys and Girls club).

As for the future of energy, think nuclear and hydrogen.

[williedigital]

Ernt. Wrong again. How can you be sincere on cutting back on energy when the man doesn't do it himself? Go back to page 6 and read posts 127 and 141, then proceed to cry for being pwned by Gore's hypocracy.



Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean they are wrong. I'm sure there is some issue in which your actions violate your sentiments.

[williedigital]

hey don't even listen to scientific facts if it treads anywhere near proving them wrong on an issue. As one member posted earlier, they blindly oppose agricultural genetic engineering of any kind even when it is proven not to have any harmful side-effects.

They are only echoing public sentiment. People's opinions on GM food and nuclear power are the two issues that convince me we need better science education in school. It puts traditional propaganda to shame.

[pake]

Well all GreenPeace needs to do is change the weights on their tests and then they can make apple be a bottom performer again. If someone wants someone to loose and they are making the test then they just change the curve and whoever they want to win will win.

Exactly, who was the one who said, he would only believe statistic faken by himself?

I don't think display prices will go up.

Overall, great essay. This is the kind of stuff that makes me feel prouder of Apple.
Makes me want to buy a new iMac right away! ;)

[swingerofbirch]

They are only echoing public sentiment. People's opinions on GM food and nuclear power are the two issues that convince me we need better science education in school. It puts traditional propaganda to shame.

I took college-level environmental science, biology, and chemistry in high school. Maybe my education was lacking, because I don't recall learning about any long-term studies on the safety of GM-food, the ability to separate GM-food growth from organic farming to the extent there isn't contamination, or about any long-term plans for the storage of nuclear waste. And I went to school every day. Tell me, what should I have learned about those important issues that I missed?

[Clive At Five]

I'm sure there is some issue in which your actions violate your sentiments.

That might be true... however, I'm not telling people what they're doing wrong and then do it myself. There's a difference.

-Clive

[iSee]

Ernt. Wrong again. How can you be sincere on ...

Actually, that's (at worst) the first time I've ever been wrong...:rolleyes: ;)
And don't call me Ernt.

[CJD2112]

This after all the crap I took from everyone for making the same points on e-waste and environmental consciousness. :p

[queshy]

I think it's all good stuff...now the environment people cant say anything! Apple really is doing good for the environment with the plans they've proposed.

Bring on the LED ultraportable MBP!

[CJD2112]

What people need to understand about Gore's carbon credits is the idea of allowing people to invest in greener energy sources. It is not about people being hypocrit's by using as much power as possible and then using their wealth to buy out of it. As Gore states, the only way alternative sources of energy will become successful is to make it profitable, and that may be done by bringing that to the public as current public electricity doesn't offer consumers a choice on where they get their power from. This is a first step, but it isn't perfect. Gore admits it should NOT be used as a way of burning carbon fuels relentlessly, but rather states it is important to limit your carbon footprint as much as possible, and then offsetting what carbon is used by investing in green energy.

As for Gore being a hypocrit, until alternative sources of green energy are available to everyone, we are ALL hypocrits. I just don't understand why there is so much hate and negativity towards someone who is trying to do something positive. It is a sad day when the general public is so jaded and angry for all the wrong reasons. Sad day indeed...

[natejohnstone@g]

What people need to understand ... we are ALL hypocrits. I just don't understand why there is so much hate and negativity towards someone who is trying to do something positive. It is a sad day when the general public is so jaded and angry for all the wrong reasons. Sad day indeed...

Hate is always wrong, but "negtivity" is found on all sides here--even your sentiments here could have been taken as very negative...negative towards those who are viewed as anti-Gore, for example.
Americans don't like to be told what to do, period. Especially when they are just trying to live thier lives in the ways they've been taught too (recycle, don't litter, etc.) and others are STILL calling them hypocrites, telling them they are destroying the environment and ruining the planet, etc. Even if these things were TRUE, people don't like the way that many environmentalists deal with the situation. People don't like to be told they are "evil" when they're just doing what everyone else does. Saying that someone is ruining the earth because they can't afford a newer car or refrigerator is not helpful to anyone's cause (I'm not saying you would say that, but I just saw someone on CNN talking about this).
As for me, I'm a Christian and as such believe that God gave humans stewardship over the earth--and we've done a pretty crappy job at times--and it is therefore our responsability to care for it to the best of our ability. But for those who don't have religious reasons or strong personal beliefs about caring for the environment, they need to be invited into the dialoge without feeling like they are being attacked...otherwise there will be a very strong anti-environmental sentiment in the next decade.

But back to the topic on hand...LED Macbooks in JULY--woohoo!!

[cusp]

Thanks for doing the right thing!

I was just thinking this morning about my ugly credit card bill, and of how I am probably still paying for my G5 dual 1.8 that I brought years ago ... but then I realized it was just so worth it compared to a PC, really no comparison.

And now Apple has taken a turn for a greener future.

Thank you Apple! (once again)!

[Clive At Five]

As for Gore being a hypocrit, until alternative sources of green energy are available to everyone, we are ALL hypocrits. I just don't understand why there is so much hate and negativity towards someone who is trying to do something positive. It is a sad day when the general public is so jaded and angry for all the wrong reasons. Sad day indeed...

No, I'm not a hypocrit because I'm not telling others to make sacrifices in their lives to reduce their carbon footprints. Al Gore is a hypocrit because he DOES tell people these things thhen proceeds to do the opposite. He lives in a mansion, hogging energy, not only by its sheer square footage, but also with a heated pool and other lavish amenities. Then he doesn't even purchase the offsets himself! It's an employee benefit of a firm he chairs! Big self sacrifice, Mr. Gore. Way to set the bar high.

As for me personally, I know I don't always do my best to save energy. I do, however strive to improve in this department because I know it's important. I will never admit to being perfect in this department, and I might never achieve an neutral carbon footprint, but the important thing is that I continue to improve in this department and that is what my goal is.

If I were Al Gore, this is what I would tell others to do as well. If everyone does a little, it does a lot.

-Clive

[CJD2112]

No, I'm not a hypocrit because I'm not telling others to make sacrifices in their lives to reduce their carbon footprints. Al Gore is a hypocrit because he DOES tell people these things thhen proceeds to do the opposite. He lives in a mansion, hogging energy, not only by its sheer square footage, but also with a heated pool and other lavish amenities. Then he doesn't even purchase the offsets himself! It's an employee benefit of a firm he chairs! Big self sacrifice, Mr. Gore. Way to set the bar high.
-Clive

It sounds to me Al Gore's critics are more jealous of his lifestyle than critical of his [supposed] inabilities in off-setting his carbon footprints. Every time I read someone's comments criticizing him it's always about his big home and luxuries. I'd like to know where this information is that states Al Gore does such. Further, Al Gore is LOADED, would you rather he live in a trailer home using very little energy?

[CJD2112]

Again, the core of what Al Gore is attempting to do was glossed over in my statements with more personal attacks on Al Gore. If people really think about what Gore is trying to do by making a market for alternative green sources of energy people would be more apt in investing in these sources and thus bringing more environmentally conscious energy to the mass public. It's not about Gore, it's about what the end result is: building an economy based on alternative energy. Where there is money, the people will follow...

[GanleyBurger]

.

[koobcamuk]

I could care less about being enviromentally friendly.

Will these displays perform better? Better Resolution? Sharper Picture? Lower Response time? Better Viewing angle?

I will trade the enviroment any day if I can get a better computer. :D

Why can't you use English? It is "I couldn't care less about ..."

I love you worthwhile post. You're right. The environment sucks!

[koobcamuk]

I've taken a number of Material Science classes and i can tell you that (aside from mercury) what Apple is putting in their computers and vowing to rid them of is nothing compared to the damage you cause simply by breathing. CO2 is in fact a "greenhouse gas" and by mearly breathing you're a cause for global warming.

Just thought you'd like to know...

That is such a bad post on so many levels. Go take a proper class and I am sure you'll find out why...

Let's start killing each other to lower CO2 levels.

This has nothing to do with CO2 (or very little)

[SiliconAddict]

I can see it now.. LCD backlights and a 965 graphics card in the MacBook.. 6+ hours battery, why did I get my Macbook Pro again?

Because you won't see 6 hours in a laptop for a while yet. LED displays or no LED displays.

[Sayhey]

No, I'm not a hypocrit because I'm not telling others to make sacrifices in their lives to reduce their carbon footprints. Al Gore is a hypocrit because he DOES tell people these things thhen proceeds to do the opposite. He lives in a mansion, hogging energy, not only by its sheer square footage, but also with a heated pool and other lavish amenities. Then he doesn't even purchase the offsets himself! It's an employee benefit of a firm he chairs! Big self sacrifice, Mr. Gore. Way to set the bar high.

As for me personally, I know I don't always do my best to save energy. I do, however strive to improve in this department because I know it's important. I will never admit to being perfect in this department, and I might never achieve an neutral carbon footprint, but the important thing is that I continue to improve in this department and that is what my goal is.

If I were Al Gore, this is what I would tell others to do as well. If everyone does a little, it does a lot.

-Clive

All you are doing is showing that you don't understand what Gore has said and what he advocates. He doesn't advocate living a life of poverty in order to save energy. He does advocate limiting our carbon footprint. In his own case he does this, for example by buying, at a premium cost, energy for his home that is produced by non-greenhouse emitting sources (wind power, etc.) He could be using 100 times the energy as other homes and he would still be in keeping with what he advocates. Gore is a capitalist who has no problem with the accumulation of wealth. He just wants us all to do so in a way that doesn't destroy the earth through a human-induced greenhouse effect. The only hypocrisy is from his opponents that distort what he says and tell him he must live his life differently - all the while they are living a life totally unconcerned about environmental issues.

...Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said that "sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger."

Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.

Gore, who also owns a home in the Washington area, has said he leads a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To balance out other carbon emissions, the Gores invest money in projects to reduce energy consumption, Kreider said.MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17382210/)

[SiliconAddict]

I've taken a number of Material Science classes and i can tell you that (aside from mercury) what Apple is putting in their computers and vowing to rid them of is nothing compared to the damage you cause simply by breathing. CO2 is in fact a "greenhouse gas" and by mearly breathing you're a cause for global warming.

Just thought you'd like to know...

Well lets see.

First off CO2 vs. mercury\lead; I would love to see plants absorb mercury and output oxygen. Secondly that is what plants are for. You know trees? This planet has a surprisingly good ability to take care of itself when all it has to contend with are the basics that humans and animals have thrown at it since that first animal crawled out of the ocean.
We aren't doing this for the planet. We are doing this for us. Mankind could be wiped from the face of the planet tomorrow via nuclear armageddon and the planet would keep on spinning, repair itself in a few hundred thousand years and start over.
No what this is about is keeping this crap out of the dump. Out of the landfill because eventually it will make it back into the environment in some form or another and give little billy in 2078 a nice cancer of some form or another.
I really do love the justifications people use. Well everything is bad for the environment so lets all say screw it and do nothing. That might not have been your intention but that definitely is the vibe that comes off your post.

[sachamun]

...let's not all get carried away by how fantastic and cuddly Apple are for doing this 'off of their own backs'.

Or forget that this 'noble announcement' of future plans is just a PR message.

[RMD68]

Besides the obvious environmental benefits of LED backlighting it makes me hope that Apple will combine the ability of the ACD's and the greater effect of LED backlighting and go into the TV business with large LCD's. I'm sure they won't but their HDTV's would be amazing :D and very expensive :( .

[Evangelion]

Originally Posted by Steve Jobs
So today we’re changing our policy.
I think that statement speaks for itself really.

No, it doesn't, since you (and Greenpeace) took it out of context. Here's the entire relevant quote:

It is generally not Apple’s policy to trumpet our plans for the future; we tend to talk about the things we have just accomplished. Unfortunately this policy has left our customers, shareholders, employees and the industry in the dark about Apple’s desires and plans to become greener. Our stakeholders deserve and expect more from us, and they’re right to do so. They want us to be a leader in this area, just as we are in the other areas of our business. So today we’re changing our policy.

Of course Greenpeace (and you) try to make it sound like they are changing their environmental-policies and that it's all thanks to Greenpeace. When in fact they are merely changing their policy regarding their environment-related PR.

So in short: Greenpeace == Deceptive liars.

I didn't change the meaning of anything. The letter is, by it's own admission, a statement in reponse to an environmental group's comments which has changed their policy about being more upfront about what they do. So 'yes' Greenpeace has changed Apple's policy which is what I said.

Greenpeace is making the assertion that Apple has changed their _environmental_policies and that it's thanks to Greenpeace. And that claim is 100% false.

Many years of lobbying and public exposure by groups such as Greenpeace has resulted in companies and governments being pressured into taking notice of environmental concerns, so in some respects they have helped shape the market's policy on being green. Surely you can't deny that.

But that has not changed here. Apple has not suddenly become more green thanks to Greenpeace. Their policies are the same as they were before the Greenpeace-campaign. What they are doing is that they will simply tell more about their efforts.

Again: Greenpeace = Deceptive liars.

[Clive At Five]

This is unbelieveable. Just like Greenpeace, I have [people] on my back who aren't actually READING what I am saying. They just detect that I have a stance against Al Gore and decide to attack, despite the fact that I AGREE with Gore that we should do what is in our power to reduce our impact on the environment.

It sounds to me Al Gore's critics are more jealous of his lifestyle than critical of his [supposed] inabilities in off-setting his carbon footprints. Every time I read someone's comments criticizing him it's always about his big home and luxuries. I'd like to know where this information is that states Al Gore does such.

It's right here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257958,00.html), among many other places around the web. All you need to do is google it. And I'll summarize it again for those of you who will not read the article: Gore expends twice the energy in one month than the average American uses in one year. He does NOT use solar; he does NOT use geo-thermal. He claims he purchases carbon offsets. Even that is not true. The offsets are purchased on his behalf as an employee benefit of the firm he chairs. Translation: Al Gore makes no personal sacrifice to reduce his carbon footprint. In the meantime, he encourages others to make those sacrifices in order to better the environment.

BY DEFINITION, THAT IS A DOUBLE STANDARD.

Further, Al Gore is LOADED, would you rather he live in a trailer home using very little energy?

If it more accurately alligns his actions with the perspective that he cares so dearly about then yes. It doesn't matter how much money one has. I live comfortably, yet I still try to find ways to reduce my impact on the environment.

All you are doing is showing that you don't understand what Gore has said and what he advocates.

Actually, yes I do. He advocates making personal sacrifices to reduce one's carbon footprint. That's EXACTLY what I've stated in previous posts which you obviously didn't read.

He doesn't advocate living a life of poverty in order to save energy.

At what point did I say anything about living a life of poverty? Oh, that's right, I didn't.

He does advocate limiting our carbon footprint. In his own case he does this, for example by buying, at a premium cost, energy for his home that is produced by non-greenhouse emitting sources (wind power, etc.)

No he doesn't. Read above. Al Gore does not purchase the offsets.

He could be using 100 times the energy as other homes and he would still be in keeping with what he advocates. Gore is a capitalist who has no problem with the accumulation of wealth. He just wants us all to do so in a way that doesn't destroy the earth through a human-induced greenhouse effect.

No, actually, Gore does the smart thing and doesn't directly attribute global warming to humans. The reason for this is because out of all carbon emmissions on our planet, humans are actually one of the smallest pieces of pie. He also knows, as any informed scientist will tell you, that global temperatures experience natural fluctuations. We know for a fact that we are experiencing slightly above-normal temperatures, but it cannot be attributed directly to humans. Sure we don't help matters, but to say it's our fault would not be accurate. Gore knows this and instead he advocates, as I do, doing what we can to reduce the carbon emmissions that ARE our fault. He recommends we do this through personal sacrifices to our daily energy-using habits.

The only hypocrisy is from his opponents that distort what he says and tell him he must live his life differently - all the while they are living a life totally unconcerned about environmental issues.

Obviously you are not talking about me because I DO have concern about reducing our energy use (as you would have learned if you had read ANY of my previous posts). What I am saying is that Al Gore is NOT living up to his own standards of self-sacrifice for a greener world. The only way I would be a hypocrit in this manner would be if I was the one telling others to reduce my carbon footprint. And I am not.

Let this stand as a lesson that leaders can be deceptive. Just because I won't fall for the hoax that Gore is "leading the charge" against energy consumption doesn't mean I disagree with the cause. Don't let yourself be a fool. Read what I am saying. Understand that I do advocate a healther, greener environment even though I disagree with Al Gore himself. It isn't difficult to understand when you actually take the time to read and comprehend my argument instead of immediately pegging me as a right-wing, toxin-dumping, hummer-driving, pollution-loving, naysayer.

-Clive

[iW00t]

Computing benefits are not that useful if you can't afford them as well.

Oh really? Since when does Apple encapsulate everything that has to do with computer?

[Aniej]

Hmmm, the timing of this announcement is pretty interesting.

Here's a hint: questions 8 & 10.

[Evangelion]

I mean, really: what is Greenpeace saying (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/tasty-apple-news-020507) about this? Here is a quote:

Today we saw something we've all been waiting for: the words "A Greener Apple" on the front page of Apple's site, with a message from Steve Jobs saying "Today we're changing our policy."

Warning! Deceptive liars detected! They are merely changing their PR-policies, not their environmental-policies you damn nitwits! Or are you saying that good PR is more beneficial to the environment than actually reducing pollution, and your campaign was about making Apple prop up their PR? Is THAT what you are saying?

But while customers in the US will be able to return their Apple products for recycling knowing that their gear won't end up in the e-waste mountains of Asia and India, Apple isn't making that promise to anyone but customers in the USA.

Recycling of electronics is mandated by law in the EU, so Apple does not even have to "make promises" here, since recycling is mandated by law.

And to all the Apple fans who have contributed their thoughts and blogs and creativity to this campaign, reach over your shoulder and pat yourself on the back. Put a happy tune on your ipod and do a happy dance. You've proven you can make a real difference. You convinced one of the world's most cutting edge companies to cut the toxic ingredients out of the products they sell.

No, "we" just convinced them to release a press-release you damn idiots! Their environmental-policies are unchanged! Can you say "deceptive liars"? Why yes, I think you can!

Hey Greenpeace: Instead making yourself look like an idiot, why don't you just shut up and go hug a tree or something?

[koobcamuk]

Global warming is real.

His writings and Greenpeace's actions have little to do with CO2.

Anyway, I am more concerned that Jobs doesn't seem to know how to justify his writing... it looks so messy being all over the place on the right hand margin... :rolleyes:

[Apple Architect]

I've taken a number of Material Science classes and i can tell you that (aside from mercury) what Apple is putting in their computers and vowing to rid them of is nothing compared to the damage you cause simply by breathing. CO2 is in fact a "greenhouse gas" and by mearly breathing you're a cause for global warming.

Just thought you'd like to know...

Thanks for that. Funny, I had forgotten my Degree level Chemistry classes.

The output from a single person of CO2 is tiny compared to the impact from industry and farming. The output of other gases during the manufacturing process have an greenhouse effect somewhere between 10 and 100 times that of C02.

If you want to discuss personal production of greenhouse effect gases then look no further than your drive/garage and the plane you take for holiday. The sooner we all stopped driving "big d**K nissan W**K mobiles" the better.

Can you look at yourself in the mirror and say "I am happy with what I did for the environment today". If not, then change.

[Apple Architect]

Well lets see.

First off CO2 vs. mercury\lead; I would love to see plants absorb mercury and output oxygen. Secondly that is what plants are for. You know trees? This planet has a surprisingly good ability to take care of itself when all it has to contend with are the basics that humans and animals have thrown at it since that first animal crawled out of the ocean.
We aren't doing this for the planet. We are doing this for us. Mankind could be wiped from the face of the planet tomorrow via nuclear armageddon and the planet would keep on spinning, repair itself in a few hundred thousand years and start over.
No what this is about is keeping this crap out of the dump. Out of the landfill because eventually it will make it back into the environment in some form or another and give little billy in 2078 a nice cancer of some form or another.
I really do love the justifications people use. Well everything is bad for the environment so lets all say screw it and do nothing. That might not have been your intention but that definitely is the vibe that comes off your post.

Love the post. Here are some more stats that you might like.

700 compounds used in the manufacture of a typical computer
50% are toxic
A desktop used 4 hours a day will produce 83KG CO2 per year.
Only two industrial countries have not signed up to Kyoto. The US and Australia.

Lets face facts people. The manufacture of computers is a nasty thing. If you want Hexavalent Chromium in your water then add it yourself.

Apple has taken the first small step in the right direction. Required - Yes. Inspirational - Yes. Enough - No way.

And to the people bashing Al Gore. When was the last time you did something for the planet ?

[Apple Architect]

No, actually, Gore does the smart thing and doesn't directly attribute global warming to humans. The reason for this is because out of all carbon emmissions on our planet, humans are actually one of the smallest pieces of pie. He also knows, as any informed scientist will tell you, that global temperatures experience natural fluctuations. We know for a fact that we are experiencing slightly above-normal temperatures, but it cannot be attributed directly to humans. Sure we don't help matters, but to say it's our fault would not be accurate. Gore knows this and instead he advocates, as I do, doing what we can to reduce the carbon emmissions that ARE our fault. He recommends we do this through personal sacrifices to our daily energy-using habits.
-Clive

Sorry but you are talking rubbish here. :)

Yes natural fluctuations occur. What has happened over the past 100 years is no long a natural fluctuation. Levels of C02 are now over 40 times higher than any point since the year 1000. Global temperature has risen more than ever before.

Many people (mainly in North America) cling to outdated "evidence" that temperature are not rising. You need to do an investigation on the re-alignment of temperature data from Weather balloons. The "experts" who claimed global temperatures were not higher were basing their research on daytime weather balloons - which after improvements were no long impacted by direct sun.

[kresh]

Errm, you cannot be serious here? Either you're trolling or have a rather warped view of the world.

This needs deconstructing...

Apple aren't caving in to anything; they're making a commercial decision based upon 'normal' capitalist behaviour - they've decided they have to follow the general view of the world and be more ecologically responsible.
Eco-Terrorists - please don't use this term as it's extremely offensive. In this case Greenpeace have simply highlighted the pollution that all electronic goods create and ranked manufacturers according to their ecological footprint.
If by terrorism you mean thinking different to you, then I'd hate to see your day-to-day life
With words like assault, it sounds like the words from a NRA member!


If you've bothered to read this thread you'll quite clearly see that Apple are responding to external pressures, in descending order of importance:

EU and other government directives (even in the US) insist that Apple take a more ecological view of their manufacturing processes
Public opinion - people may still not give a damn about the environment in hicksville, but around the rest of the planet it's a rather important issue
Bad publicity - commentary about a corporation's green credentials is bad in the educated world. Bad green publicity isn't good publicity
And in a very last place, pressure from ecological interest groups such as Greenpeace


Again, Apple aren't doing anything particularly out of the ordinary, just providing leadership that is taking them in a more green direction.

If you want to live in some environmental cesspit, please crap in your own back yard; but don't screw up my planet.

Apple is clearly responding to GreenPeace, to say otherwise is to be blatently dishonest.

GreenPeace used poor science to achieve the results they desired so they could promote a social/political position. They are unabashed, in your face, activists that will resort to any stunt to get their way.

In short, they are alarmists. They distort facts to support their positions and then engender a crisis around those facts. That is plainly terrorism. They simply terrorize companies and individuals, thus my labeling them "Eco-Terrorists".

I am so sorry for you that you have fallen so far down the slippery Politically Correct slope that you are "extremely offended" by the term "Eco-Terrorist" or "Eco-Terrorism".

And yes, I am a card carrying member of the NRA, so is my wife, my three pre-teen sons and my teen daughter, and we are all proud of it.

[Lycanthrope]

Explain. What exactly has Greenpeace done that has helped here in any way?

I take the stance that anything whatsoever that raised environmental awareness and forces positive change is a good thing. If Greenpeace can use the Apple halo effect to their advantage then I think that's excellent.

In this case Apple had not divulged their plans to cease the usage of certain toxins in the same way other companies have, the only assumption that can be made without the facts is the worst-case scenario and that's what GP did. Now Jobs has announced the plans they can stop campaigning on these points and concentrate instead on the more pressing issue of third-world dumping. Here Apple would need to improve their policy outside Europe.

Given that Apple puts a lot of stock in 'cool' and being environmentally active will certainly become incredibly cool in the coming years I think there's an opportunity for Apple to increase market share further on the back of this.

[faintember]

Oh really? Since when does Apple encapsulate everything that has to do with computer?:confused: Unless you are concealing some brilliant witticism that has nothing to do with either my post or the thread in general.

[BoyBach]

Greenpeace, like Al Gore, has good intentions, but poor methods.


'Good intentions' are the best place to start. The 'methods' will follow, evolving over time to become better and better.

It's a start and that is what is important.

[Evangelion]

I take the stance that anything whatsoever that raised environmental awareness and forces positive change is a good thing. If Greenpeace can use the Apple halo effect to their advantage then I think that's excellent.

But there are few problems here:

a) GP didn't really achieve that much. Apple released a press-release telling what they have done in the past, and what they will do in the future. Well whooppee. Is a press-release a "positive change"?

b) GP is trying to claim that Apple has actually changed their environmental policies (they didn't) by taking some comments from the press-release out of context, and that it's all thanks to GP.

In short: GP is distorting the truth and magnifying their accomplishments.

[BoyBach]

...Greenpeace...have absolutely no interest in the planet...irresponsible communistic loudmouths...these wankers.


Wow. Just wow!

:rolleyes:

[seppoj]

As anticipated, BBC has put a positive spin on the story:
"Call for Apple to go even greener"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6618533.stm

:rolleyes:

[Gasu E.]

Product becomes obsolete--> product becomes disused--> product is discarded--> product is recycled

Therefore the steps to increased recycling are:

1. design product for earlier obsolescence

[bigmc6000]

That is such a bad post on so many levels. Go take a proper class and I am sure you'll find out why...

Let's start killing each other to lower CO2 levels.

This has nothing to do with CO2 (or very little)

You mean a fake class where they pretend to tell you useful information? As I said before, the "harm" caused to the environment by the non-mercury materials in Apple's computers is minimal at best.

The CO2 part was simply a way to point out that there's no such thing as living truly green - by your very existence you are hurting the environment. If you've got a problem with that and care more about mother nature than your own existence feel free to do whatever you'd like to fix that situation...

[JobsRules]

Well, done Greenpeace! Apple has always had a big following among green activists who will broadly welcome this move.

Still, simply removing a few chemicals and talking about recycling isn't the answer. The major problem with today's tech is that it's non-upgradable and undurable. I still use a Technics CD walkman from 1994 regularly, while I have friends on their fith iPod, who've upgrade because iPods break easy or for reasons of fashion. A photographer I know uses a Hasselblad that's decades old (now with a digital back), while today's DSLRs are just tat as soon as the next model comes out.

We can't keep on throwing away vast amounts of electrical products as if they're yogurt pots just because we have a debt-based money supply where nonstop growth is demanded to pay back 'money' made from thin air by private banks. I generate very little waste and what waste I do create can mostly be chucked into my wormery. I wish I could buy durable, last forever, upgradable modular electronic products that contain much less instant landfill.

[Lycanthrope]

But there are few problems here:

a) GP didn't really achieve that much. Apple released a press-release telling what they have done in the past, and what they will do in the future. Well whooppee. Is a press-release a "positive change"?

b) GP is trying to claim that Apple has actually changed their environmental policies (they didn't) by taking some comments from the press-release out of context, and that it's all thanks to GP.

In short: GP is distorting the truth and magnifying their accomplishments.

I broadly agree with you, nothing in fact changed but as Apple wouldn't previously reveal their plans we could only assume they were not intending to cease the use of certain toxins.

I'm happy for Greenpeace to overstate anything, they're doing as much as they can while a vast majority of our race sit on their fat collective arses in their hugely overpowered automobiles in traffic jams...

For those that poo-poo global warming, maybe you don't care for yourself, fine, that's for you but what about your kids? For those that don't care and don't have kids, keep it that way.

[Glenny2lappies]

Apple is clearly responding to GreenPeace, to say otherwise is to be blatently dishonest.

GreenPeace used poor science to achieve the results they desired so they could promote a social/political position. They are unabashed, in your face, activists that will resort to any stunt to get their way.

In short, they are alarmists. They distort facts to support their positions and then engender a crisis around those facts. That is plainly terrorism. They simply terrorize companies and individuals, thus my labeling them "Eco-Terrorists".

I am so sorry for you that you have fallen so far down the slippery Politically Correct slope that you are "extremely offended" by the term "Eco-Terrorist" or "Eco-Terrorism".

And yes, I am a card carrying member of the NRA, so is my wife, my three pre-teen sons and my teen daughter, and we are all proud of it.

We will just have to disagree on the Apple response. You argue that Greenpeace is responsible for Apple changing their approach. I'll argue that Greenpeace's influence was quite minor and the real reason is legal (i.e. within the EU they must change or face legal action) and public opinion has changed (to support this I'll site the majority of these postings in this thread as being positive towards Apple for changing).

But lets examine the 'terrorist' allegations more closely.

"Terrorist - a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

ORIGIN late 18th cent.: from French terroriste, from Latin terror (see terror ). The word was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality."

Greenpeace does pull various stunts to support their claims. However, as far as I know, they always pull their stunts directly against the people who they're arguing against. For example, their boats getting in the way of ships attempting to dump things at sea; pulling up GM crops dressed in white suits; climbing cranes over building sites, etc.

"Greenpeace uses direct action to attract attention to particular environmental problems. For example, activists place themselves between the whaler's harpoon and their prey, or invade nuclear facilities dressed as barrels of radioactive waste."

These activities Greenpeace refer to as direct action which is a very long way from extreme acts of violence against an innocent population which terrorist groups such as the IRA, the Nicaragrian Contras, Afghan mujahideen, Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents who all 'terrorise' non-related civilian populations using indiscriminate acts of violence in order to further their 'political' aims of overthrowing their governments or ridding their countries of an invading army. We don't need to discuss funding of these organisations here.

There is a rather wide gap between 'direct action' and 'terrorism'. So wide in fact that it is very difficult to see any similarities. Of course, there's the old adage that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist", but again this doesn't really relate to 'direct action'.

In this media-focussed world we inhabit, we base our ideas and opinions upon what we see; primarily through the medium of Television. If Greenpeace simply argued through scientific papers that, for example, the world is getting warmer due to increases in carbon emissions, then nobody would hear it (most people don't read, they just look at the pictures). There's nothing like "showing the puppies" to get people's attention - without the 'puppies' do you think that Fox news would carry anything with intellectual content?

This is why Greenpeace pulls it's stunts, it's simply responding to the rather jaded media environment we live in -- especially in the US with the UK very close behind -- and showing us the puppies.

[bigmc6000]

T The sooner we all stopped driving "big d**K nissan W**K mobiles" the better.

What is a "big d**k nissan W**K mobile"???? I've only seen 1 model of Full Size pickup from nissan and the gas mileage is better than it's American Counterparts. I'd say you're looking for something along the lines of the Chevy Suburban or a F-350 to better illustrate your point. I have the misfortune of living in Texas so I know what you mean - there are WAY WAY WAY too many SUV's/Trucks out there being used simply for a daily commute...

For what it's worth, I drive a car and have a daily commute of less than 1 gallon of gas round trip. That's obviously not perfect by any means but if the whole country (US) did that it'd have a pretty fair impact and maybe OPEC wouldn't keep screwing the economy...

Regardless, this is really about Apple just saying "look, groups have been lying about us and we want to set the record straight." Of course I wouldn't expect any type of apology from Greenpeace for their lies but an admission of fraudulence would at least be adult like of them. But then again if they did that they wouldn't be greenpeace.

Oh - and this is for all the Al Gore lovers out there. Check out President Bush's house in Crawford - it really looks like that "evil, environment hating" president is more environmentally friendly than Mr. Gore...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

[gnasher729]

I broadly agree with you, nothing in fact changed but as Apple wouldn't previously reveal their plans we could only assume they were not intending to cease the use of certain toxins.

That is rather idiotic.

As an example, while HP has plans to stop using PVC in all packaging in the next two years, Apple hasn't revealed any such plans. So you could only assume that Apple doesn't intend to use PVC in packaging, right? Wrong. All you can assume is that Apple hasn't revealed any plans, and the actual fact is that Apple stopped this practice twelve years ago.

The only honest thing that Greenpeace could have done is writing what information they got from other companies and telling people that Apple refused to give them any information. What they did was lying.

[CJD2112]

Sorry but you are talking rubbish here. :)

Yes natural fluctuations occur. What has happened over the past 100 years is no long a natural fluctuation. Levels of C02 are now over 40 times higher than any point since the year 1000. Global temperature has risen more than ever before.

Many people (mainly in North America) cling to outdated "evidence" that temperature are not rising. You need to do an investigation on the re-alignment of temperature data from Weather balloons. The "experts" who claimed global temperatures were not higher were basing their research on daytime weather balloons - which after improvements were no long impacted by direct sun.

Exactly. Any "informed" scientist will tell you that natural fluctuations occur over LONGER periods of time, not in a century or less. Humanity's burning of fossil fuels at increasingly alarming rates IS the primary cause of expediting global climate change...

Then again, people like Clive at Five get their info from Fox News, so it HAS to be right and hundreds of thousands of independent scientists and researchers are all wrong and Fox is right about it all, including misinformation on that evil, tree hugging know it all Democrat Al Gore. :rolleyes:

[CoreWeb]

Oh - and this is for all the Al Gore lovers out there. Check out President Bush's house in Crawford - it really looks like that "evil, environment hating" president is more environmentally friendly than Mr. Gore...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

If Gore isn't eco-friendly. Al Gore's use of Electricity (wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_controversies#Use_of_energy_in_home)

But you know, I don't really care about Gore. If he causes a large amount of pollution, that's bad. Whether or not he is a hypocrite doesn't matter. Why should it? Just because he's the one out there trying to get people to change to better the environment doesn't mean that if he's a hypocrite his entire message is wrong.

Honestly, if a person said in public "Everyone should always be polite to each other", but was a mean person in real life, does that mean that we should all be mean, just to spite him?

As for Apple v. Greenpeace, I see deception and misleading comments on both sides. Apple is trying to glorify what they have done to what may be an extent which is more than fair, and Greenpeace attacked Apple in a less than honest way (and has continued to do so).

I love Apple products, but I do wish they were more green. But, I do have to say, my iMac G5 (Ambient Light Sensor) only uses the amount of energy which 3 incandescent light bulbs use! (180 watts) - that's the MAXIMUM. Most power supplies in desktops seem to be > 300 watts (to over 500). I could have my numbers mixed up, though. :D

[bigmc6000]

Exactly. Any "informed" scientist will tell you that natural fluctuations occur over LONGER periods of time, not in a century or less. Humanity's burning of fossil fuels at increasingly alarming rates IS the primary cause of expediting global climate change...

Key word is "expediting"...

But then again when we were polluting the crap out of air back in the 40's and 50's the temp actually went down. Proof that Mother Nature is gonna do whatever she d@mn well feels like. We're gonna end up in another ice age - that's not a question of "if" but "when". Personally I don't care if we have another ice age, we've got the technology to survive and it most severely effects the northern hemisphere. That's a good thing since most all of the "3rd World" countries are in the southern (i.e. they probably won't freeze to death like they would if they were in the northern hemisphere).

But then again the prospect of what happens in "The Day After Tomorrow" wasn't at all scary to me so I can only assume that I'm numb to the thought of frigid temps...

[bigmc6000]

If Gore isn't eco-friendly. Al Gore's use of Electricity (wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_controversies#Use_of_energy_in_home)

But you know, I don't really care about Gore. If he causes a large amount of pollution, that's bad. Whether or not he is a hypocrite doesn't matter. Why should it? Just because he's the one out there trying to get people to change to better the environment doesn't mean that if he's a hypocrite his entire message is wrong.

Honestly, if a person said in public "Everyone should always be polite to each other", but was a mean person in real life, does that mean that we should all be mean, just to spite him?



You're right but that's in a perfect world. If you're going to champion a cause you need live by example. You need to show the masses how it's done. I don't really care if Gore uses green energy or not - that fact of the matter is he uses WAY too much as it is. People don't realize that regardless of how much green energy he's using he's using too much - he's preventing others who would like to use green energy from doing so since the capacity isn't there. Any intelligent person will tell you the first step to greening the electricity industry is by decreasing consumption...

Case and point - Austin, TX:
The electricity company in Austin has a limited # of subscribers to it's green energy production. My g/f tried to sign up but couldn't because they were already at max capacity. Now if all those people currently on the list would use less more people could use green energy and thus fewer people would be using energy from coal burning plants.

Then again we could really help ourselves if we just built a bunch of nuclear power plants. I hate to admit it but France is actually smarter than the rest of the world on this one.

[donnner]

Sorry but you are talking rubbish here. :)

Yes natural fluctuations occur. What has happened over the past 100 years is no long a natural fluctuation. Levels of C02 are now over 40 times higher than any point since the year 1000. Global temperature has risen more than ever before.

Many people (mainly in North America) cling to outdated "evidence" that temperature are not rising. You need to do an investigation on the re-alignment of temperature data from Weather balloons. The "experts" who claimed global temperatures were not higher were basing their research on daytime weather balloons - which after improvements were no long impacted by direct sun.

"Including uncertainties in the models and in future greenhouse gas concentrations, the IPCC anticipates a warming of 1.1 °C to 6.4 °C (2.0 °F to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100."

i'm bloody shaking in my boots :rolleyes:

also, temperatures are rising on other planets in our solar system and i'm pretty certain nobody is driving SUVs on Venus.CO2 emissions are not what you should be worried about, worry about something that is actually toxic if you must.