Apple Launches New Environmental Publicity Initiative

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/25/apple-launches-new-environmental-publicity-initiative/)

BusinessWeek reports (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_40/b4149068698190.htm) that Apple has launched an expanded environmental section (http://www.apple.com/environment/) of its website to offer extensive information on the company's green initiatives and provide a closer look at the environmental impact of its products over their complete life cycles, from raw materials to customer usage to recycling.

Apple, which has received criticism from environmental groups such as Greenpeace over its environmental impact, is hoping to change the way companies are judged on those issues to include actions instead of promises and to look at the full impact of both production and usage."A lot of companies publish how green their building is, but it doesn't matter if you're shipping millions of power-hungry products with toxic chemicals in them," says CEO Steve Jobs in an interview. "It's like asking a cigarette company how green their office is."Apple notes that 53% of the company's greenhouse gas emissions comes from customer usage of its products, placing focus on its efforts to reduce power consumption through a variety of methods. Apple also notes that it is the only company in its industry to have its entire computer product line certified as Energy Star compliant.

The company is also highlighting extensive reports on the environmental impact of each model it sells , noting the reduction and elimination of a number of toxic chemicals from its products.The company is disclosing new product information, as well as overall carbon emissions. Apple will document on the new Web site data that it ended the use of controversial polyvinyl chlorides (PVCs) and bromide flame retardants (BFRs) in its devices last year. HP and Dell had promised to do the same by 2009, but recently pushed that back. Apple is also going further and pushing suppliers to get rid of bromine and chlorine, the harmful ingredients in PVCs and BFRs.Apple's increased willingness to share environmental information and changes to its practices have started to turn the tide in the eyes of several environmental groups. The Carbon Disclosure Project (https://www.cdproject.net/) recently gave Apple a score of 73 out of 100 for the breadth and depth of its public disclosures, whereas the company scored only a rating of 7 in 2008.

Article Link: Apple Launches New Environmental Publicity Initiative (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/25/apple-launches-new-environmental-publicity-initiative/)

[iGod 2.0]

Apple always does a great job when it comes watching their impact to the environment. More companies need to get on the ball because this rock, for now atleast, is the only one we have to live on.

[zombitronic]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?

[chrisrh57]

it took a bit too long, but it looks like Apple now "gets it" and really wants to be a leader on this front. Congratulations are in order !!

[Hattig]

Also: 1 recycled liver.

[Kebabselector]

A lot of companies publish how green their building is, but it doesn't matter if you're shipping millions of power-hungry products with toxic chemicals in them

I wonder if that's a dig at a certain company who's just opened a big data centre in Ireland, with state of the art passive cooling etc.

[haraya]

Wow, this is really nice to hear. It's good that more companies are now thinking about the environmental impact of their products. I long for the day when Apple's computers start running on renewable energy. :apple: :)

[velocityg4]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?

Some people are tired of hearing about Environmentalism. And having "green" products shoved down our throats. So there is an automatic reflex to see anything to do with this concept as a negative. Especially when most Green products are a joke.

If you truly believe in the impact of these products on the environment and that you should do something about it. Then you should not use any of them at all.

Not as bad does not equal good. From a purely environmental standpoint anything you do that has more impact than a Deer or Wolf is bad.

Now I do believe in recycling as it makes sense. Why dig up more stuff when it can be re-utilized? But for global warming I have not seen compelling enough evidence that the temperature fluctuations are greater than what is natural. On other environmental issues my opinion varies.

[kinless]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?

I never vote + or - on these articles, but I suspect that any negative votes are directed more towards the extremist policies of these "environmental groups" that are basically strong-arming Apple to publicly expand on these types of programs (from a PR standpoint).

As Jobs once said, he's always had policies in effect, but not disclosing them got them in trouble by these activists. I personally think it's ridiculous. I'm all for Apple (or any company) genuinely doing what they can to reduce emissions, but having a bunch of wingnuts dictate that for you is lame.

[WestonHarvey1]

Some people are tired of hearing about Environmentalism. And having "green" products shoved down our throats. So there is an automatic reflex to see anything to do with this concept as a negative. Especially when most Green products are a joke.


Agreed. I'm pretty tired of hearing about it. I guess I'm "part of the problem". Oh well, I guess just shoot me to save the planet.

Although, I am glad that when mountains of iPods and iPhones are burned in open pits by Chinese children looking for bits of gold, they will be exposed to fewer heavy metals and toxic chemicals.

Maybe they should stop using gold...

[remmy]

What would be better is if they made it easier for the customer to repair there product, for example being able to replace a battery in a ipod.

[UngratefulNinja]

Also: 1 recycled liver.

Post of the day! :D

[ismash]

Also: 1 recycled liver.

that's the smartest comment!:D

[adriaanmulder]

a

[notjustjay]

Although, I am glad that when mountains of iPods and iPhones are burned in open pits by Chinese children looking for bits of gold, they will be exposed to fewer heavy metals and toxic chemicals.


So, does it strike anyone else that we seem to be trying to solve the wrong problem?

[Schizoid]

Hi,

As you know, we're rapidly running out of 'big cat' names for our operating systems (Phil did suggest lynx, but my Atari Lynx broke in 1996 and I've never forgiven them.)

To this end, and to tie in with our new environmental initiative, we will now refer to our software by names of endangered animals starting with Mac OS X v10.7 Panda.

I'm sure you'll agree this is an excellent combination of savvy marketing and environmental awareness.

I look forward to Panda with great enthusiasm, and we're already working on Mac OS X v10.8 Gorilla

Steve

p.s. Our earlier idea of naming Mac OS X after internal organs has been shelved indefinitely.

[bruinsrme]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?

the by products of the devices we use and many companies sell are just plain nasty.
no matter how (not just ) Apple preaches green I call BS.
the prouct line up may be more green but its far from green, JMO

[gnasher729]

it took a bit too long, but it looks like Apple now "gets it" and really wants to be a leader on this front. Congratulations are in order !!

Actually, what Apple is "getting" now is that groups like Greenpeace don't give a damn how "green" you are, but only look at what promises you make. As an example, Greenpeace slammed Apple because HP had made promises to stop using certain unhealthy materials in their packaging by 2009, and Apple had not. The reality was that Apple hadn't been using those materials for years, so it never occurred to them that they should promise to stop using them. While HPs promises that made it Greenpeace's best friends were just that - promises.

The article quotes the "Carbon Disclosure Project", which also apparently doesn't rate companies by what they are doing, but by how loud the talk about it. So yes, Apple took very long to "get" that hot air is more important to some than cool and green computers.

What would be better is if they made it easier for the customer to repair there product, for example being able to replace a battery in a ipod.

One user replaced battery = one old battery thrown into the garbage can that starts rusting, leaking whatever stuff is inside, and causing massive pollution. One battery replaced by Apple = one old battery being recycled and being taken care of properly. Now we can discuss what is cheaper or easier for you in another thread, but Apple replacing the battery is certainly more environmentally friendly.

[Sweetfeld28]

Its a start. I think it is a definite improvement though.

[barkomatic]

I think any attempts to reduce toxic chemicals in products will have a negligible postive impact on the environment. With more affluent people able to afford all manner of products at the same time that the world wide population continues to rise the "environment" is basically doomed.

Is it better to have 1,000 more toxic laptops buried in a landfill or 100,000 slightly less toxic laptops?

There are too many people, ultimately too few resources, who will someday be crammed into too small a space.

[ghostface147]

While I applaud companies trying to go green, I find it funny how some other companies are talking about going green or having a green week. Whatever. They should be green all the time, no need for a special week or promotion.

[Peace]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?


I'll explain why. Jobs said " It's like a cigarette maker saying their building is green"..

90% of Macs are produced in China the number one greenhouse gas violator in the world.

[neiltc13]

Funny, they still ship their iPods in plastic boxes - how wasteful is that?!

[Eidorian]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?You're looking a bit too much into it.

[Saladinos]

"environmental groups" that are basically strong-arming Apple to publicly expand on these types of programs (from a PR standpoint).

Do you read what you write? Using PR = not strong-arming.

[Tastydirt]

90% of Macs are produced in China the number one greenhouse gas violator in the world.

Which is fine, until you realise China manufacturers a big majority of all the worlds goods, as well as having a population past 1.3 billion.

The US is one of the worst polluters per capita.

[jaw04005]

Funny, they still ship their iPods in plastic boxes - how wasteful is that?!

Is it more wasteful that shipping a larger cardboard box with Styrofoam inserts requiring more crates to move the product from factory to distribution center to retailer?

I'm sure they've did the math.

[Tastydirt]

Do you read what you write? Using PR = not strong-arming.

It is strong arming. No company wants bad press about the environment, whether the claims are true or not. They've been strong armed into starting their own PR inititive, and whether it makes any real difference to their own internal policy or not remains to be seen.

[WestonHarvey1]

I'm sure they've did the math. It is more wasteful that shipping a larger cardboard box with Styrofoam inserts?

Some people aren't going to be happy until iPods are made out of granola.

With no trans fats.

[shindelins]

why the hell hasn't this site posted anything about MMS yet today? today's the big day. i'm sure yall wrote it on yalls calender...

[Target362]

and remember what the old ipods shipped in

http://yucs.org/~dwallach/images/ipod_box.jpg


Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?

Simple. Now that kids are more active on line they seem to think its cool or hip to demote topics like this.

Look at me I'm going to demote a topic and show off to my buddies

:rolleyes:
Some people are tired of hearing about Environmentalism. And having "green" products shoved down our throats. So there is an automatic reflex to see anything to do with this concept as a negative. Especially when most Green products are a joke.

yeah most, but does not mean all.

people (not you) need to think outside the box

[Stella]

If you don't like "Environmentalism" then think another way: Don't you think it would be better for the planet overall if it were cleaner, and less exploited than it is currently?

Would you yourself like to breathe in fresh air, rather than air filled with all kinds of crap?


Some people are tired of hearing about Environmentalism. And having "green" products shoved down our throats. So there is an automatic reflex to see anything to do with this concept as a negative. Especially when most Green products are a joke.

If you truly believe in the impact of these products on the environment and that you should do something about it. Then you should not use any of them at all.

Not as bad does not equal good. From a purely environmental standpoint anything you do that has more impact than a Deer or Wolf is bad.

Now I do believe in recycling as it makes sense. Why dig up more stuff when it can be re-utilized? But for global warming I have not seen compelling enough evidence that the temperature fluctuations are greater than what is natural. On other environmental issues my opinion varies.


You mean that AT&T has reached the year 2000? Most of the planet has had MMS for years... MMS is old news, and really, isn't very good.

why the hell hasn't this site posted anything about MMS yet today? today's the big day. i'm sure yall wrote it on yalls calender...

[Can]

Some people are tired of hearing about Environmentalism. And having "green" products shoved down our throats. So there is an automatic reflex to see anything to do with this concept as a negative. Especially when most Green products are a joke.
…


Well, then 'you' totally get it wrong. This is 'green products' in apple's world:

- PVC/(other toxic…) free products.
I don't know about you, but regardless of you believing in global warming or not, the negative effects of PVC is well documented, you can always try to eat some for breakfast, see how long you last. :-)

- Energy saving products
They compare old products with new products, no doubt their new products use a lot less electricity. Perhaps 'you' enjoy a high electricity bill. But others don't.

- Smaller packaging
Makes transportation more efficiently, or cheaper if you'd like. Apple shows how before they needed 3 cargo-planes to deliver what 2 cargo-planes can deliver today. Everything that makes the process of making and delivering a mac cheaper makes it, in the end, cheaper for the consumer.

- Recycling program.
First of all its free, and you also get 10% discount on a new iPod for each iPod recycled. So... Cheaper products? Definitely negative news!

- Apple going more transparent.
Surely this must be positive?


Well, I know 'you' hate 'green' products. But other people, really likes the fact that they are getting a better product. Regardless of beliving in global warming or not. :)

Thanks for reading.

[jaw04005]

According to their new Web site,

"iPod nano packaging is 32% lighter and consumes 54% less volume than the first-generation iPod nano."

Just a guess, but I would imagine the cardboard box with Styrofoam inserts was actually cheaper for Apple in terms of packaging costs.

[i.mac]

Also: 1 recycled liver.

tasteless comment...

...if you ever survive a liver transplant, come back and state the same joke.

[i.mac]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?

not to worry... those votes are meaningless site traffic gages...

[sanPietro98]

But for everyone who applauds the "green" initiative must also remember that:

Green = Cost.

All of these "green" initiatives cost money and will be passed down to the consumer. People always complain that Apple products cost too much, and this won't help. I'm all for a cleaner environment, but this isn't free.

[Shiner]

Easy translation of this press release.

We have no plans on placing i7 processor in any of our laptops. When we release new laptops and iMacs we will point out how amazing our energy and battery life is and how this is more important than computing power.

[alent1234]

does this mean i can eat my iphone and live?

[Eidorian]

Easy translation of this press release.

We have no plans on placing i7 processor in any of our laptops. When we release new laptops and iMacs we will point out how amazing our energy and battery life is and how this is more important than computing power.Simply amazing.

[NT1440]

Wow, so much anti environmentalisms in this thread based on "I thinks" and opinions. :rolleyes:

[jaw04005]

All of these "green" initiatives cost money and will be passed down to the consumer. People always complain that Apple products cost too much, and this won't help. I'm all for a cleaner environment, but this isn't free.

Not with Apple. They traditionally introduce a product and it remains at or around that price point throughout its multiple revisions no matter the greenness (or feature set for that matter).

iPod nano (1G) 2GB - $199, 4GB - $249
iPod nano (2G) 2GB - $149, 4GB - $199, 8GB - $249
iPod nano (3G) 4GB - $199, 8GB - $249
iPod nano (4G) 8GB - $149, 16GB - $199
iPod nano (5G) 8GB - $149, 16GB - $179

[WestonHarvey1]

Well, I know 'you' hate 'green' products. But other people, really likes the fact that they are getting a better product. Regardless of beliving in global warming or not. :)

Thanks for reading.

One thing I hope we all think it is time to get past is the green design aesthetic. Not every box, print ad, logo, and TV commercial background needs to literally be green.

When I walk into a store now it is like standing inside a vomit bag. I see TV commercials where the background is green, the text is green, and the actors are wearing green clothing or dipped in green paint.

We've been through this design before - on food packaging. In the 90s, green signaled "low fat" during the low fat craze. It made you think that you were buying split pea flavored Triscuits.

I've had quite enough of it. It is childish. There's millions of other choices in your color palettes and you would be wise to start using them again.

[shindelins]

You mean that AT&T has reached the year 2000? Most of the planet has had MMS for years... MMS is old news, and really, isn't very good.

it's a big deal to iphone users, and i wanna know when i will finally be able to update my phone and get this predated feature finally. and it's macrumors job, which they're great most all the time.

[Shiner]

Simply amazing.

I am glad you agree with me.

As with most apple press releases, marketing at its best. Apple is king in this department.

[sanPietro98]

Not with Apple. They traditionally introduce a product and it remains at or around that price point throughout its multiple revisions no matter the greenness (or feature set for that matter).

iPod nano (1G) 2GB - $199, 4GB - $249
iPod nano (2G) 2GB - $149, 4GB - $199, 8GB - $249
iPod nano (3G) 4GB - $199, 8GB - $249
iPod nano (4G) 8GB - $149, 16GB - $199
iPod nano (5G) 8GB - $149, 16GB - $179

But Apple recently has dropped some prices due to market forces. These green initiatives will (IMHO) negate these forces and let them have the rationale to keep the prices the same.

[Mattie Num Nums]

As long as their products are being made in China, they will continue to pollute the world and contribute to labor issues. Again, Apple is no different than any other PC maker when it comes to manufacturing, they just have a great PR team.

[casik]

Funny, they still ship their iPods in plastic boxes - how wasteful is that?!

ummm... you can recycle it?

[Eidorian]

ummm... you can recycle it?What's the number on them?

[applesith]

Some people are tired of hearing about Environmentalism. And having "green" products shoved down our throats. So there is an automatic reflex to see anything to do with this concept as a negative. Especially when most Green products are a joke.

If you truly believe in the impact of these products on the environment and that you should do something about it. Then you should not use any of them at all.

Not as bad does not equal good. From a purely environmental standpoint anything you do that has more impact than a Deer or Wolf is bad.

Now I do believe in recycling as it makes sense. Why dig up more stuff when it can be re-utilized? But for global warming I have not seen compelling enough evidence that the temperature fluctuations are greater than what is natural. On other environmental issues my opinion varies.


I completely agree. It is all theory about global warming. Facts are manipulated to try and justify all the green stuff everywhere. It is all marketing.

[Fainer]

Nothing that has not already been said, but I too get sick of having "green crap" shoved down my throat. Despite how it started, it has become a political, popularity, marketing campaign for most companies. The government is going to tax companies that don't "go green" so why would a company not do it? Its not because they love the planet so freaking much, it all boils down to cash.

[jarednt1]

All about PR, HP and Dell are ranked higher then they are so they have to catch up.

[kiisaka]

Never mind the materials contained in Apple products. I am talking about the amount of energy and resources Apple products help me save.

iPhone gives me driving directions, restaurant reservations, product purchases, etc, saving me numerous trips and from wasted time.

[RazHyena]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?

Don't you know shameless public relations BS when you see it?


I swear, this "Green" campaign crap is the most ingenious marketing tool for businesses since the invention of the T.V.

[baruch]

Apple continues to NOT address the issue of toxins in the iPhone and touch iPod. These particular items are especially toxic. While Apple has made strides with other products, they keep ignoring the issues with these items. I have contacted Apple repeatedly about this but of course they do not respond. I like Apple products, but Apple has become just another large corporation that puts profits first at the expense of the Earth. Personally I do not now nor do I plan to ever own an iPhone or touch iPod.

[baruch]

Nothing that has not already been said, but I too get sick of having "green crap" shoved down my throat. Despite how it started, it has become a political, popularity, marketing campaign for most companies. The government is going to tax companies that don't "go green" so why would a company not do it? Its not because they love the planet so freaking much, it all boils down to cash.

It's called Greenwashing and it has become de rigeur in the corporate world. An interesting interview about this can be heard at http://www.healingmagic.org/wbkm/paradigms/august232009.html

[marine610610]

I never vote + or - on these articles, but I suspect that any negative votes are directed more towards the extremist policies of these "environmental groups" that are basically strong-arming Apple to publicly expand on these types of programs (from a PR standpoint).

As Jobs once said, he's always had policies in effect, but not disclosing them got them in trouble by these activists. I personally think it's ridiculous. I'm all for Apple (or any company) genuinely doing what they can to reduce emissions, but having a bunch of wingnuts dictate that for you is lame.

Exactly, and i feel like the cost to make sure people know "how green we are" is ultimately passed on to the customer.......me.

[baruch]

I completely agree. It is all theory about global warming. Facts are manipulated to try and justify all the green stuff everywhere. It is all marketing.

I don't know how much you've traveled or are in touch with people around the world, but climate change is real. Extinctions, changing weather patterns, losses of fresh water, new insects, crop blights; these are facts, not theories.

Yes greenwashing by businesses is BS, but that doesn't mean that there are not very real environmental issues to pay attention to, and to do something about.

[mattwolfmatt]

Some people are tired of hearing about Environmentalism. And having "green" products shoved down our throats. So there is an automatic reflex to see anything to do with this concept as a negative. Especially when most Green products are a joke.

Now I do believe in recycling as it makes sense. Why dig up more stuff when it can be re-utilized? But for global warming I have not seen compelling enough evidence that the temperature fluctuations are greater than what is natural. On other environmental issues my opinion varies.

I agree with this too. Also, remember who is on Apple's Board of Directors: the Big Inconvenient One, Al Gore.

[macgeof]

Now I do believe in recycling as it makes sense. Why dig up more stuff when it can be re-utilized? But for global warming I have not seen compelling enough evidence that the temperature fluctuations are greater than what is natural. On other environmental issues my opinion varies.

Please read George Monbiot's book 'Heat' and see if that changes your opinion on global warming. It has mine and I had your attitude until then - and I'm generally quite sceptical and in need of real proof before I believe something.

[manu chao]

I think any attempts to reduce toxic chemicals in products will have a negligible postive impact on the environment. With more affluent people able to afford all manner of products at the same time that the world wide population continues to rise the "environment" is basically doomed.

Is it better to have 1,000 more toxic laptops buried in a landfill or 100,000 slightly less toxic laptops?

There are too many people, ultimately too few resources, who will someday be crammed into too small a space.
Yes, it is a very tough challenge but if you look at air and water pollution in the rich world, most pollutants have at least stabilized in the last couple of decades with quite a number showing drastic decreases (eg, lead). Globally that is not true, but it shows that if there sufficient money and will it can be done.
Just because something is difficult does not mean we do not have to try to do it (raising children comes to mind, not we should raise too many, but raising none will have some very drastic consequences).

[manu chao]

To this end, and to tie in with our new environmental initiative, we will now refer to our software by names of endangered animals starting with Mac OS X v10.7 Panda.
I look forward to Panda with great enthusiasm, and we're already working on Mac OS X v10.8 Gorilla

:D

[Thunderbird]

I never vote + or - on these articles, but I suspect that any negative votes are directed more towards the extremist policies of these "environmental groups" that are basically strong-arming Apple to publicly expand on these types of programs (from a PR standpoint).

... but having a bunch of wingnuts dictate that for you is lame.

Wow, so helping reduce waste, CO2 emissions and toxic materials in products is "extremist". And Apple is being "dictated to"? That's pretty funny. I guess that means Steve Jobs is really working for Greenpeace, huh.

Some people are tired of hearing about Environmentalism. And having "green" products shoved down our throats.
If you truly believe in the impact of these products on the environment and that you should do something about it. Then you should not use any of them at all.

I don't recall ever having a green product "shoved down my throat". But then, I don't go around thinking that I am a victim of some vast green conspiracy.

yes, it would be nice if we actually had the choice of not using these products at all, but unfortunately most of us are required to by our jobs.

Agreed. I'm pretty tired of hearing about it. I guess I'm "part of the problem". Oh well, I guess just shoot me to save the planet.

I'd be happy to. Consider it done!


There are too many people, ultimately too few resources, who will someday be crammed into too small a space.

Well said.

"
90% of Macs are produced in China the number one greenhouse gas violator in the world.

Good point.


The US is one of the worst polluters per capita.

Another good point.

It is strong arming. No company wants bad press about the environment, whether the claims are true or not. They've been strong armed into starting their own PR inititive, and whether it makes any real difference to their own internal policy or not remains to be seen.

No strong arming involved. Jobs can chose not to do anything, like most companies currently do.

But for everyone who applauds the "green" initiative must also remember that:

Green = Cost.
Not Green = Bigger Cost.


Finished that for you.

Wow, so much anti environmentalisms in this thread based on "I thinks" and opinions. :rolleyes:

Yep, because most anti-environmentalism is based on opinions instead of fact.

[Gasu E.]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?

I'm as environmentally-conscious as the next person; I recycle fanatically, use low-energy lightbulbs exclusively, have reduced my auto usage, and yes I do believe in global warming I do I do I do. But these corporate moves are 95% about PR and have minimal real impact on the environment. No knock on Apple; that's just how the world is in the 21st Century-- bloviating and posturating for the benefit of an incurious, over-excitable, short-attention-span public.

[BoulderBum]

I bought my Mac Mini largely because of its status as a super energy-efficient desktop.

It's used largely as a media server for my Apple TV. Since Snow Leopard came out, it wakes itself up from its 1W sleep state whenever Apple TV demands media from it, so not only does it run efficiently when awake, but it's smart enough to sleep most of the time and save TONS of energy!

Apple's focus on the environment is one of the biggest selling points for me.

[Bubba Satori]

It's nice to see two cults working together to solve important problems.

[Chimpy]

I agree - my Mac Mini was bought on the strength of its power savings. No matter how you feel about the politics behind it, saving energy means saving your own greenbacks, so it's all good :).

[sanPietro98]

Green = Cost.
Not Green = Bigger Cost.

Green = Cost: Fact
Not Green = Bigger Cost: Speculation and Hyperbole

[Shiner]

I bought my Mac Mini largely because of its status as a super energy-efficient desktop.

It's used largely as a media server for my Apple TV. Since Snow Leopard came out, it down wakes itself up from its 1W sleep state whenever Apple TV demands media from it, so not only does it run efficiently when awake, but it's smart enough to sleep most of the time and save TONS of energy!

Apple's focus on the environment is one of the biggest selling points for me.

Too bad the appleTV is a energy hog. LOL man people eat this crap up.

[flottenheimer]

Greenhouse gasses / global warming / climate change is often looked at as fact, even though it is actually just based on theory. Of course it is important not to be wasteful, but society is putting so much money/focus into this that it's becoming ridiculous. It is almost the next stage of religion, where people are being controlled and convinced primarily out of fear. Saying "well we better do this just because if it's true and we don't do anything we'll be in big trouble" is exactly the kind of thing that started religion (made it popular), and is starting this environmental panic. Of course, I couldn't care less if others are worried about the environment, but I think down the road it is going to negatively effect us since more focus and money is placed on this and not other things. The biggest worry is that it will slow down progress in a society. (by putting focus on this instead of other things). It's possible some great technologies will not be developed because of things like carbon taxes and environmental groups getting in the way. I have no more knowledge then anyone else about the actual facts of global warming/climate change, but I know that there are actually two sides to every story, not just the one everyone has been seeing. There are important scientists out there who disagree with the whole concept. Remember always do your research and create your own opinion before following the pack!

You really need to watch this video.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg)

... and thanks Apple!
Now, how about powering the entire Apple Campus with your very own windmill. I'm pretty sure Vestas or Siemens will be glad to help. Why not? You are serious about the environment, right. Everything counts.

[jasonvaughan]

One Apple product the Apple TV is very un-environmentally friendly. You can put them on standby but only by going through menus using the remote. We sell home control solutions and we replace the Apple remote with other products. The problem is there is no way to shut down the system, using a discreet command, or we would. This would be a very easy problem for Apple to solve with a software update and discreet IR off command.

As it is, these boxes get red hot, waste energy and die early.

This is just one example of simple things companies like Apple could easily do for very little cost.

[EnergonCube]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?

Because when I try to use the service, it doesn't work. It sends me the email, but the resulting link for the prepaid postage returns an Application Error. It says to email so and so with details, which I did, and it bounced saying no such address exists. Nice.

When that's fixed, I'll change my attitude. But for now, it's crap.

[barkomatic]

Yes, it is a very tough challenge but if you look at air and water pollution in the rich world, most pollutants have at least stabilized in the last couple of decades with quite a number showing drastic decreases (eg, lead). Globally that is not true, but it shows that if there sufficient money and will it can be done.
Just because something is difficult does not mean we do not have to try to do it (raising children comes to mind, not we should raise too many, but raising none will have some very drastic consequences).

I think its great that we are at least developing these tools -- but rather foolish to think we can solve the problem by *only* using less toxic substances to manufacture goods, controlling emissions and recyling.

One day, I believe the world will be faced with the prospect of either legal limits on how many natural children a couple can have or, more regretfully, mass starvation, poverty, and wars over dwindling resources.

The best thing anyone can do for the environment right now is to have fewer kids. A person that doesn't exist is the ultimate environmentalist.

[Target362]

Is the Apple HQ campus green? Do the buildings run on solar power? Are the building materials green?

dobut it, given the HQ is well over 20 years old

[-hh]

According to their new Web site,

"iPod nano packaging is 32% lighter and consumes 54% less volume than the first-generation iPod nano."

Just a guess, but I would imagine the cardboard box with Styrofoam inserts was actually cheaper for Apple in terms of packaging costs.

Quite probably (that cardboard is cheaper than plastic), but what is often overlooked is that one needs to be holistic and compare the total cost, not just compare 'components'. For example, a smaller (but more expensive) package can be less expensive to ship, which may result in it being the less expensive overall choice.

But for everyone who applauds the "green" initiative must also remember that:

Green = Cost.

All of these "green" initiatives cost money and will be passed down to the consumer. People always complain that Apple products cost too much, and this won't help. I'm all for a cleaner environment, but this isn't free.

Again, it comes down to the holistic question. For example, it certainly is cheaper to manufacture product X if the nasty waste products are put in 55gal drums and buried behind the factory, instead of disposed of properly. Or if the cost of the Superfund cleanup that occurs 20 years later is included in the math.

Green = Cost: Fact
Not Green = Bigger Cost: Speculation and Hyperbole

Sounds like someone needs a class in lifecycle cost management. :(

Historically, the general resistance for 'green' by industry has been simple: it is clearly more expensive upfront, so because companies didn't see a tangible ROI (Return on Investment), they didn't want to be less competitive in the near term, so they didn't do it.

However, this doesn't mean that it isn't cheaper in the long run: it comes down to the question of just which "long run" we're talking about ... and the "What's In It For Me?" question for industry is who has to pay for it.

Quite simply, once the Warranty is over, the manufacturer doesn't have much motivation to make the disposal cost of a product lower for the consumer - - its considered to be the consumer's problem, not their's.

A lot of 'green' is really about the long term, and one thing that the USA's Wall Street has shown us repeatedly is that they simply don't care about the long term.

And what makes this topic a harder one to address is that many of the subsequent lifecycle costs are hard to measure. Thus, the costs either don't get measured, or if someone is able come up with a proposed result, it gets attacked (and hopefully discredited) by parties who are generally opposed to the dialog of the overall lifecycle costs. The common reason why these parties are opposed is because they are afraid of a legal precidence being established back to the manufacturer, which may incur a cleanup liability (and more importantly, an expense) that they do not want to have.

To a certain degree, this opposition is understandable and tolerable, but what it really comes down to is a question of Best Business Practices: one shouldn't necessarily ask a company to pay for a clean-up of something 20 years after the fact, if "everyone else was doing it too". However, it is an expense that is going to be paid (eventually) by society in one way or another, which is the flip side of this coin, and things are (in theory) fair if we ask each entity to accept responsibility for their respective historical errors.

Naturally, whoever's running the company today would still rather have the bill not be paid until next Fiscal Quarter...and then the one after that, and the one after that, ad infinitum.

Case in Point. (http://www.portfolio.com/business-news/portfolio/2009/03/23/Exxon-Valdez-Lawsuit-History/)

The simple bottom line is that every single tiny little thing that hurts the overall environment incurs a 'Cost to Society', which if we were able to do a perfect total product lifecycle cost analysis would all be included. However, because this is 'too hard', we have a generalized Societal acceptance of these costs on a generally non-attributional basis. However, that doesn't make the cost go away ... it simply means that we're not too terribly concerned with tracking down who was responsible for it.

For an analogy, consider the medical cost to society of an overweight population (more diabetes, etc)...in theory, every source of nutritional calories is partly to blame, as well as technology devices which allow us to avoid exercise - - but we've not proposed a "fat tax" on automobiles, nor have we put one in place on McDonalds (despite suggestions to do so)...but this doesn't mean that the cost to Society doesn't exist. It does exist and is being paid for by Society, "hidden" within our healthcare costs instead of in the retail price of a McBurger lunch.


-hh

[satcomer]

Apple continues to NOT address the issue of toxins in the iPhone and touch iPod. These particular items are especially toxic. While Apple has made strides with other products, they keep ignoring the issues with these items. I have contacted Apple repeatedly about this but of course they do not respond. I like Apple products, but Apple has become just another large corporation that puts profits first at the expense of the Earth. Personally I do not now nor do I plan to ever own an iPhone or touch iPod.

Radical. :eek:

[sanPietro98]

Sounds like someone needs a class in lifecycle cost management.

Nice. This is way beyond "the classroom." This is real-life. This is a make-or-break issue for many small businesses (especially when we start talking about Cap and Trade). The real issues here are more complex than MBA theories.


Historically, the general resistance for 'green' by industry has been simple: it is clearly more expensive upfront, so because companies didn't see a tangible ROI (Return on Investment), they didn't want to be less competitive in the near term, so they didn't do it.

The problem with the environmental movement is that there is an ever-changing moving target. There is no such thing as "expensive upfront" costs. The reality is "expensive upfront costs plus expensive retrofits downstream to maintain compliance plus expensive litigation costs for noncompliance or late compliance plus expensive PR for dealing with the greenpeace activists parading outside my door."

In the 1970s, our greatest scientists wanted to put black soot on the polar icecaps to increase the Earth's temperature. In 2009, our greatest scientists want to paint every road and roof white to reflect sunlight back to space. This is madness! When will we realize that we don't understand the data?!?

This is not an excuse to do nothing though. I'm all for cleaning up the environment. But continual regulations by government and pressure from environmentalist groups WILL drive up the costs of products because what is considered "green" will change every 18 months. In fact, I think I'll dub this "Gore's Law".

[Jason Lee]

This is why the green movement is a joke:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120882720657033391.html

The green movement is a left-wing agenda. Left-wingers learned green rhetoric to coerce companies into doing things they think is right, as they distrust free market capitalism and prefer a top-down style of economics.

If you look at the data, our generation is the cleanest. People tend to forget that a hundred years ago, residents had to waddle through horse excrement on the streets (which is why the high-heel shoe was originally invented!), among other revolting conditions.

The problem is that once these green organizations are created, and they improve our conditions, they can't go away because there's too much money to be had, so they devise and machinate scare stories in order to self-perpetuate and make more money. Currently, "green" has less to do with the environment, and more to do with advocating left-wing political beliefs.

As always, I think people need to be skeptical, ruminate, and put things into perspective before being indoctrinated.

[NT1440]

Didn't realize so many people didn't believe in global climate shift......

[ironman159]

What's the number on them?

7 PC. Well, I guessed by that sentence, you meant the number inside the triangle meainng recycle on the back of my iPod nano case. Hope this helps. :D

[Eidorian]

7 PC. Well, I guessed by that sentence, you meant the number inside the triangle meainng recycle on the back of my iPod nano case. Hope this helps. :DYes the number inside the recycling symbol which indicates the resin identification code. :p

[ironman159]

Yes the number inside the recycling symbol which indicates the resin identification code. :p

And? does this means that I can take my case and recycle it? Does it means it is highly recyclable? Sorry for all the questions but I'm new to the whole recycling thing. Better my case be recyclable!

[Eidorian]

And? does this means that I can take my case and recycle it? Does it means it is highly recyclable? Sorry for all the questions but I'm new to the whole recycling thing. Better my case be recyclable!Around here they only take 1 and 2.

I get plenty of 4 and 5 stuff with RECYCLEABLE labeled all of over the product but I don't know where to take it.

[ArtandStructure]

Yep, because most anti-environmentalism is based on opinions instead of fact.

That's an interesting opinion.


All the best,


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure (http://www.artandstructure.com)

[TMay]

Nice. This is way beyond "the classroom." This is real-life. This is a make-or-break issue for many small businesses (especially when we start talking about Cap and Trade). The real issues here are more complex than MBA theories.




The problem with the environmental movement is that there is an ever-changing moving target. There is no such thing as "expensive upfront" costs. The reality is "expensive upfront costs plus expensive retrofits downstream to maintain compliance plus expensive litigation costs for noncompliance or late compliance plus expensive PR for dealing with the greenpeace activists parading outside my door."

In the 1970s, our greatest scientists wanted to put black soot on the polar icecaps to increase the Earth's temperature. In 2009, our greatest scientists want to paint every road and roof white to reflect sunlight back to space. This is madness! When will we realize that we don't understand the data?!?

This is not an excuse to do nothing though. I'm all for cleaning up the environment. But continual regulations by government and pressure from environmentalist groups WILL drive up the costs of products because what is considered "green" will change every 18 months. In fact, I think I'll dub this "Gore's Law".

So, let me get this straight. Because a few scientists saw data that indicated a cooling trend back in the 70's, today's data is obviously suspect?. Seriously, scientists have been building ever more elaborate and extensive computer models of the climate for forty years, and with the help of planetary exploration, determined that there is a climatic "greenhouse effect" that is measurable and man caused.

Satellite imaging, and anecdotal evidence shows rising seas and shrinking glaciers, and weather data analysis demonstrates a warming trend even including variation of solar output. The scientific consensus is that we could be very near tipping points in the poles, and solar albedo could effectively decrease rapidly with an additive feedback to the warming trend.

Loss of glaciers will be especially felt downstream of the Himalayas by a billion people, with probability of massive loss of life from starvation. In Europe and the lower 48 of North America, glaciers that feed streams and rivers will almost certainly disappear, and snowpacks may be reduced to the point that agriculture in the West will only continue at much reduced levels, a blow especially for produce production in California.

With regard to environmental regulation in the United States, we can be proud that we have advanced clean water and air, food and drug safety, and have made attempts internalizing the cost of pollution to the source rather than externalizing it to the public. But there is still much to do, and industry still has powerful friends in congress (and the last administration) that fight any and all legislation, including real CO2 regulation.

I'm an engineer and a small business person, and the best thing that could happen to our economy is a full on greening, with the technology that implies. The will be losers true, but there will be many more winners and we may find that externalized cost of energy in the form of a $750 billion defense and security outlay will be reduced substantially by a green economy.

[TMay]

This is why the green movement is a joke:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120882720657033391.html

The green movement is a left-wing agenda. Left-wingers learned green rhetoric to coerce companies into doing things they think is right, as they distrust free market capitalism and prefer a top-down style of economics.

If you look at the data, our generation is the cleanest. People tend to forget that a hundred years ago, residents had to waddle through horse excrement on the streets (which is why the high-heel shoe was originally invented!), among other revolting conditions.

The problem is that once these green organizations are created, and they improve our conditions, they can't go away because there's too much money to be had, so they devise and machinate scare stories in order to self-perpetuate and make more money. Currently, "green" has less to do with the environment, and more to do with advocating left-wing political beliefs.

As always, I think people need to be skeptical, ruminate, and put things into perspective before being indoctrinated.

So, I take it you are giving credit to the "left wing" for better stewardship of our nation than Conservatives (What exactly do Conservatives stand for anyway; mostly disaffected white folks I suppose)? Because in that I agree. As for distrust of the free market by the "left wing", naturally, regulation doesn't happen in a vacuum. Something egregious has to take place for an industry friendly Congress to create any legislation. It has always been that way, and probably always will.

BTW, we call ourselves Liberals and Progressives, and you are living a better life for those efforts.

[adriaanmulder]

a

[BoulderBum]

Too bad the appleTV is a energy hog. LOL man people eat this crap up.

Apple TV uses under 20W when in use, so it's not bad. By contrast a PS3 Slim [the more energy efficient kind], uses 80W when playing a Blu Ray movie.

The problem with the Apple TV is standby power, which isn't good even in standby mode. It's nearly the same as if you were actively using the Apple TV.

I do hope that's something that improves with the next software/hardware update, but until then the easy solution is using a power strip and turning it off (so the Apple TV draws near 0W when not in use). For my part I have a Belkin Conserve, so the power strip is operated by a remote switch which sits next to my couch. It's quite easy.

[twoodcc]

glad to see apple really embracing this subject, and winning over those who gave apple a hard time just a couple of years ago.

[sanPietro98]

So, let me get this straight. Because a few scientists saw data that indicated a cooling trend back in the 70's, today's data is obviously suspect?. Seriously, scientists have been building ever more elaborate and extensive computer models of the climate for forty years, and with the help of planetary exploration, determined that there is a climatic "greenhouse effect" that is measurable and man caused.

No, I'm not saying today's DATA is suspect. I'm saying that today's ANALYSIS of that data is suspect. We have incomplete data. Too many times in history, scientists and governments have good intentions and take action that they feel is appropriate, but has unintended consequences that can make the problem worse. I'm saying that we're basing a lot of time, talent, lives, and treasure on incomplete data and incomplete analysis of that data.

Also, I am a computer scientist for a large R&D organization. I can say in full honesty that computer models are often bunk. Models are generalizations that are always being enhanced, fixed, thrown away, and refined. They help us in our understanding of a problem, but we're literally betting our lives, economy, and national security on the work of people feeding from the teet of the federal government's "green" grants. If their models invalidate man-made global climate shift, their funding is gone. Therefore, there is an inherent bias in their work.

I'm not saying that these researchers are necessarily disingenuous or dishonest. I'm saying that the metrics are incomplete and flawed. If you follow the Goal --> metric mapping, you can ALWAYS find a set of measures that satisfy the goal.

I'm not denying global climate change. That's a fact. It's nature. I am doubting man-made climate shift. More recent research is showing that sun spots have a higher likelihood of affecting our climate than driving a Prius. Again, more data -- but we have an incomplete picture. And I don't want to sacrifice our nation's economy on a rushed analysis from incomplete data.

Now, I know everyone will say, "Data is never complete." That's absolutely true. But the data is so widely disputed these days (yes it is) that it is still too premature to act drastically. If we destroy the economy of the US, all of the upheaval, destruction, death, famine, and pestilence that the environmentalists predict from climate change will STILL happen if we tank the largest economy on the planet (which keeps most other nations afloat too). Either way, it's a bad set of choices we have as a society.

[ArtandStructure]

So, I take it you are giving credit to the "left wing" for better stewardship of our nation than Conservatives (What exactly do Conservatives stand for anyway; mostly disaffected white folks I suppose)?

Perhaps off-topic, but the racism isn't necessary, even if you think it isn't racism by some sort of odd logic.

BTW, we call ourselves Liberals and Progressives, and you are living a better life for those efforts.

Hmmm. "Liberal" versus "Conservative". Both sides are equally blind as perhaps elucidated above, and as sick as it may seem apparently both extremes are needed to maintain some middle ground as evidenced by the healthcare debate. If it weren't for the "Conservatives" perhaps we would be more forward thinking in some regards and if it weren't for the "Liberals" perhaps our personal freedoms wouldn't be so encroached by the notion that everyone has a right to have their hands in everyone else's pockets, and their thoughts in everyone else's minds. It goes both ways.

Back to the topic at hand, I love Apple. Realistically Apple is a public company whose greatest obligation is to create value to the shareholders. Sure the company has some personal motives/agenda/ideology which contribute to its identity and in part its brand, but make no mistake no public company does anything "green" for the sake of being "green" if it puts an imbalanced burden on its ability to make more dollars.

This is not to slight Apple as all public companies are essentially equal in this regard, so whoever wants to pat themselves on the back may, but it returns to the only truly differentiating factor of Apple versus other companies; their products.


All the best,


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure (http://www.artandstructure.com)

[Jason Lee]

So, I take it you are giving credit to the "left wing" for better stewardship of our nation than Conservatives (What exactly do Conservatives stand for anyway; mostly disaffected white folks I suppose)? Because in that I agree. As for distrust of the free market by the "left wing", naturally, regulation doesn't happen in a vacuum. Something egregious has to take place for an industry friendly Congress to create any legislation. It has always been that way, and probably always will.

BTW, we call ourselves Liberals and Progressives, and you are living a better life for those efforts.

I would say 99% of your post is based on espousing the virtues of the left, while disparaging the right. I'm not a conservative if that's what you're saying, and this is not the topic to debate liberalism versus conservatism.

My post was about the founder of Greenpeace explaining why he left the organization he helped create.

[mikeppc225]

Okay, I'm happy if environmental groups are more pleased with Apple's environmental policies and practices. That said, I wonder how much the ratings system mentioned is worth as they list with a score of 88 (?!) Chevron. And they call them a "leader" in their field too.

Yeah, take a look.

I'm just browsing through it quickly, so can someone explain that?

[Mackan]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?

One thing comes to mind, that I guess most of you here find non-important, but I will mention it anyways; Apple's rotten support for Windows in Boot Camp. They provide no power management drivers, thus a lot of waste of energy. They have had a couple of years to fix it, or at least provide an explanation to the higher power consumption in Windows, and why they can't fix it. But no. Their priority to 'make Windows look bad' is higher.

That's one reason why I can't have any respect for a CEO talking about 'becoming greener' and reducing power consumption in their products.

[TMay]

No, I'm not saying today's DATA is suspect. I'm saying that today's ANALYSIS of that data is suspect. We have incomplete data. Too many times in history, scientists and governments have good intentions and take action that they feel is appropriate, but has unintended consequences that can make the problem worse. I'm saying that we're basing a lot of time, talent, lives, and treasure on incomplete data and incomplete analysis of that data.

Also, I am a computer scientist for a large R&D organization. I can say in full honesty that computer models are often bunk. Models are generalizations that are always being enhanced, fixed, thrown away, and refined. They help us in our understanding of a problem, but we're literally betting our lives, economy, and national security on the work of people feeding from the teet of the federal government's "green" grants. If their models invalidate man-made global climate shift, their funding is gone. Therefore, there is an inherent bias in their work.

I'm not saying that these researchers are necessarily disingenuous or dishonest. I'm saying that the metrics are incomplete and flawed. If you follow the Goal --> metric mapping, you can ALWAYS find a set of measures that satisfy the goal.

I'm not denying global climate change. That's a fact. It's nature. I am doubting man-made climate shift. More recent research is showing that sun spots have a higher likelihood of affecting our climate than driving a Prius. Again, more data -- but we have an incomplete picture. And I don't want to sacrifice our nation's economy on a rushed analysis from incomplete data.

Now, I know everyone will say, "Data is never complete." That's absolutely true. But the data is so widely disputed these days (yes it is) that it is still too premature to act drastically. If we destroy the economy of the US, all of the upheaval, destruction, death, famine, and pestilence that the environmentalists predict from climate change will STILL happen if we tank the largest economy on the planet (which keeps most other nations afloat too). Either way, it's a bad set of choices we have as a society.

http://www.realclimate.org/

There are people as yourself that don't want to accept the scientific consensus that global warming is man caused for a variety of reasons, but especially for business and economic reasons. It will be hard to convince that group to initiate any action. It has taken a decade to even get to the to get to the point that a majority of people accept that Climate Change is even occurring.

Meanwhile, the anecdotal evidence mounts of climate change mounts, and governments continue along a cautious path of action that attempts to protect the economy as the primary objective.

Ironically, yours is the consensus view of action in the United States, and maybe that's the best we can do.

[-hh]

...
Also, I am a computer scientist for a large R&D organization. I can say in full honesty that computer models are often bunk....And I don't want to sacrifice our nation's economy on a rushed analysis from incomplete data.

(selected for my comment at the end). FWIW, you don't have an exclusive on having professional experience in R&D and M&S.

http://www.realclimate.org/

There are people as yourself that don't want to accept the scientific consensus that global warming is man caused for a variety of reasons, but especially for business and economic reasons. It will be hard to convince that group to initiate any action. It has taken a decade to even get to the to get to the point that a majority of people accept that Climate Change is even occurring.

Meanwhile, the anecdotal evidence mounts of climate change mounts, and governments continue along a cautious path of action that attempts to protect the economy as the primary objective.

Ironically, yours is the consensus view of action in the United States, and maybe that's the best we can do.

The bad news is that there's always going to be incomplete data, as well as confusion caused by noise (eg, daily weather vs climate) and localized effects. However, the field has now gotten a lot more scientific study over the past decade in particular, which significantly improves the quality of the models, plus the nature of the topic has resulted in extensive peer reviews.

Sure, holes in assumptions are being identified (and plugged), but the correlation to manmade activities is now significantly more compelling than the data with which we concluded 30+ years ago that cigarettes cause lung cancer.

And there is also a huge difference between "go slow & careful...but make progress" than refusing to budge. One critical element that the general public fails to appreciate with the global warming issue is one of inertia: the feedback loop for seeing change from actions taken is effectively generational. Another critical element is the susceptible fragility of human endeavors: there's plenty of case studies in the history books for crop failures causing wars and falls of civilizations, and the human world is extensively reliant on agriculture ... and Jarrod Diamond's "Guns, Germs & Steel" provides a basis for regionalism-based susceptibility factors. While some of climate change is obviously not manmade, the question is how are we going to cope with it at any level, when it is considered that the 6-7 billion inhabitants of this planet already have the majority of the effectively arable land in use? While some people would suggest that a 50% death rate due to famine would be good for the human race long term, it would be catastrophically disruptive to society (just like last time), so there's probably better ways accomplish the same...which ultimately means to use our intellect to plan ahead and choose to take action before the problem has grown to a runaway crisis.


-hh

[celtikmind]

First of all, thank you Apple for trying though I'm nowhere near letting you off the marketing hook yet.


I'm not denying global climate change. That's a fact. It's nature. I am doubting man-made climate shift. More recent research is showing that sun spots have a higher likelihood of affecting our climate than driving a Prius. Again, more data -- but we have an incomplete picture. And I don't want to sacrifice our nation's economy on a rushed analysis from incomplete data.

Now, I know everyone will say, "Data is never complete." That's absolutely true. But the data is so widely disputed these days (yes it is) that it is still too premature to act drastically. If we destroy the economy of the US, all of the upheaval, destruction, death, famine, and pestilence that the environmentalists predict from climate change will STILL happen if we tank the largest economy on the planet (which keeps most other nations afloat too). Either way, it's a bad set of choices we have as a society.

So, you are afraid to 'sacrifice money' to find out if there's 'some truth' in climate changes because we're all going to hell anyway?! Having less of a profit does not equal 'destroying the economy'. :rolleyes:

Also, please tell me you're not one of those people who believes 'undisputed proof' and time for action is when the earth cracks open to swallow your lexus, your Mac and your house, all in one fiery gulp.

And US keeping other nations afloat? What? Are you serious? You actually think the world is finanically dependant on US? There's an impact of course but dependant? Really?

Whoah, that's like saying the rest of the world is worthless!! :eek:

Besides, bad set of choices? If things are like you claim then who put us there? If so, then the best thing for the world would be to become independant from the US, no?

I have a third suggestion, how about we all co-operate? Start by leaving your car and take the bicycle or walk. May be a small step but a great start. Move away from oil to other sources of energy like solar panels. And so on.

We have at least one good choice but it implies for us all change our ways, to think (and approach) matters differently. For some it may be radical depending on how far up the ladder of superfluous living you are but that's hardly something for you to blame the rest of the world for. Actually it could be one of the greatest tests mankind ever have to take on, to see reasons beyond the short-term gratification of money.

[bobertoq]

Some people are tired of hearing about Environmentalism. And having "green" products shoved down our throats. So there is an automatic reflex to see anything to do with this concept as a negative. Especially when most Green products are a joke.

If you truly believe in the impact of these products on the environment and that you should do something about it. Then you should not use any of them at all.

Not as bad does not equal good. From a purely environmental standpoint anything you do that has more impact than a Deer or Wolf is bad.

Now I do believe in recycling as it makes sense. Why dig up more stuff when it can be re-utilized? But for global warming I have not seen compelling enough evidence that the temperature fluctuations are greater than what is natural. On other environmental issues my opinion varies.I agree. Nothing against being green, it's just some people go overboard with going green, however it Apple is not going overboard with it.

[173080]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?

Because all this green nonsense represents a cost that I am not willing to pay for. I am not even talking about higher prices, I am talking about a quality and experience cost.

Instead of Apple shipping all of their DVDs in solid, beautiful boxes they are now using plain clear plastic sleeves.

It also limits the materials that can be used to make a product because they're not recyclable. I want a carbon fiber Macbook Pro, and couldn't care less if it's recyclable or not. Think of all the awesome materials Jonathan Ive could work with if he didn't have these arbitrary restrictions.

The green mentality is holding back innovation and product design.

[xIGmanIx]

at the end of the day, the consumer is the one that will pay for this or not, regardless of the environmental impact. Its not like we didn't know as a whole some of the practices in place by all manufacturers was suspect, all that mattered was that safari was snappier. At the end of the day, there are other things that are brought to light too, like outsourcing labor that should be american.

[Thunderbird]

Green = Cost: Fact
Not Green = Bigger Cost: Speculation and Hyperbole

Simple everyday examples: Saving money through energy efficiency. I bike to work, saving me money. The list goes on and is rather long. These are facts, not speculation.
Hy-per-bo-le
noun Rhetoric. 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

"Not Green = Bigger Cost" does not fit the definition of hyperbole. Nice try.


This is why the green movement is a joke:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120882720657033391.html

The green movement is a left-wing agenda. Left-wingers learned green rhetoric to coerce companies into doing things they think is right, as they distrust free market capitalism and blah blah blah blah blah blah

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f309/hadza/untitled-2.jpg


The problem is that once these green organizations are created, and they improve our conditions, they can't go away because there's too much money to be had, so they devise and machinate scare stories in order to blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f309/hadza/foilhats_400.jpg




My post was about the founder of Greenpeace explaining why he left the organization he helped create.

There were several founders of Greenpeace.

That's an interesting opinion.


All the best,


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure (http://www.artandstructure.com)

Not opinion, fact.



It also limits the materials that can be used to make a product because they're not recyclable. I want a carbon fiber Macbook Pro, and couldn't care less if it's recyclable or not. Think of all the awesome materials Jonathan Ive could work with if he didn't have these arbitrary restrictions.The green mentality is holding back innovation and product design.

You obviously don't understand the basic laws of thermodynamics. Current computer technology uses a limited range of materials. These materials evolve slowly, and are not particularly innovative. The materials that are used come from the mindset of what is cheapest and easiest to dispose of. This is usually the most wasteful and inefficient method of production. Take something simple like plastic. Every computer uses it. Industry has synthesized many different types of plastics that are extremely difficult to recycle. Indeed, one reason recycling is so expensive is that people are literally paid to stand on factory lines hand seperating those plastics for recycling, and all those paychecks add up quickly, even if you pay a very low wage. You have different numbering systems for the types of plastic you recycle, and the processes themselves are extremely nasty from a chemical perspective. So get rid of petrochemical plastics, replace it with biodegradable, and you don't have to do any sorting whatsoever. Just throw the plastic into a big vat with bacteria (with hundreds of thousands of these recycling centers littered across the world, in every town or city which choses to use plastics).

There's your innovation.

It's not the green movement holding back innovation and product design, it's you and your tiny imagination.

[Jason Lee]

Thunder, if you can't participate in civil discourse maturely, then please don't bother at all.

The quality of your post tells me that you had nothing substantial to counter with, so you did the only thing you could, which was to mock me by posting images and altering my text, essentially calling me a nutty conspirator. You remind of those fundamentalist Christians who try to link the theory of evolution to Hitlerism, atheism to Satan worship.

Instead of labeling me and my views as conspiratorial, how about actually doing the hard thing by telling me why I'm wrong.

[Thunderbird]

Thunder, if you can't participate in civil discourse maturely, then please don't bother at all.

Oh I love the sanctimonious attitude. You know, if you don't want your comments to be mocked, maybe you should think them through a little bit more.

You remind of those fundamentalist Christians who try to link the theory of evolution to Hitlerism, atheism to Satan worship.

Huh? I linked your conspiracy theory to....well, a conspiracy theory, which it is.

Here's what you wrote:

"The green movement is a left-wing agenda. Left-wingers learned green rhetoric to coerce companies into doing things they think is right, as they distrust free market capitalism and prefer a top-down style of economics.

The green movement is neither left nor right, at least, that's what their pamphlet says in my mail box. You will find greens on the right as well as the left ends of the political spectrum. That's just a fact. I'm sorry but if you are not aware of this then I can't do anything more than suggest you read about the history of environmental organizing, as well as pay closer attention to the Green Party platform, for example, which is replete with appeals to market solutions.

It's funny because people on the far left claim the exact opposite: that the whole environamtal movement is one big scam concocted by a wealthy cabal of the world's capitalist elites. They cite the Pew Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefellers, The Heinz family, the Du Pont family, the Agnellis, Prince Bernhard, the Dutch Royal family and host of other dynasties and billionaires and even presidents like Richard Nixon (yes, that old time republican who presided over the world's first Earth Day) as being behind and funding the green movement. This is hardly a list of organizations and people who are "distrustful of free-market capitalism and prefer a top-down style of economics" as you claim. So when the far left claim the green movement is a right-wing agenda, and the far right claim it is a left-wing agenda, I split the difference and conclude they're both partly correct and partly incorrect, that the green movement must probably be on both sides. And if you follow the money, the campaigns, the protests and the rhetoric, it seems to bear out where the green movement's constituency is. They are literally from all walks of life and all political persuasions. You can't pin it down to one side or the other because the environment has become a universal issue. To say that the green movement comes from the dark corners of the left or right is to engage in conspiratorial thinking. Especially when you claim that they are somehow "coercing companies". I'm sure all the environmental groups wish they actually had that kind of power, because most of the time they are a pretty demoralized bunch who get burned out from long struggles they often end up losing.

The problem is that once these green organizations are created, and they improve our conditions, they can't go away because there's too much money to be had, so they devise and machinate scare stories in order to self-perpetuate and make more money. Currently, "green" has less to do with the environment, and more to do with advocating left-wing political beliefs.

To say that green organizations are in it for the money is just absurd. Go to a local grassroots environmental group fighting some local issue, and ask how much money they have in their piggy bank. You will be in for quite a surprise. Larger organizations may be different and better funded, but most of them still operate by volunteer staff. No one's getting rich.

As for left-wing political beliefs, you might want to glance through Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawken. It's become somewhat influential in green circles, and there's not one left-wing idea in its' 416 pages. Other similar books and schools of thought have sprung up around the same theme of creating a greener free market capitalism. Green ideas are coming from both the left and the right.

As always, I think people need to be skeptical, ruminate, and put things into perspective before being indoctrinated.

Right, so you chide me for mocking you, but you call people in the green movement "indoctrinated." :rolleyes:

Instead of labeling me and my views as conspiratorial, how about actually doing the hard thing by telling me why I'm wrong.

There....how was that.

[MorphingDragon]

I think any attempts to reduce toxic chemicals in products will have a negligible postive impact on the environment. With more affluent people able to afford all manner of products at the same time that the world wide population continues to rise the "environment" is basically doomed.

Is it better to have 1,000 more toxic laptops buried in a landfill or 100,000 slightly less toxic laptops?

There are too many people, ultimately too few resources, who will someday be crammed into too small a space.

Tokyo, Shanghai and HongKong on a world wide scale. :rolleyes:

At the first chance to replace my respiratory system with an Bionic alternative Im going for it. They are inefficient for the future.

[TMay]

Because all this green nonsense represents a cost that I am not willing to pay for. I am not even talking about higher prices, I am talking about a quality and experience cost.

Instead of Apple shipping all of their DVDs in solid, beautiful boxes they are now using plain clear plastic sleeves.

It also limits the materials that can be used to make a product because they're not recyclable. I want a carbon fiber Macbook Pro, and couldn't care less if it's recyclable or not. Think of all the awesome materials Jonathan Ive could work with if he didn't have these arbitrary restrictions.

The green mentality is holding back innovation and product design.

Carbon fiber isn't an ideal material for impact and delamination is the primary failure mode. It is also more expensive and difficult to fab. I can't speak for its thermal properties, but probably quite a bit less efficient than aluminum.

The basic promise of Green design, is that you take into account the life cycle of the materials and the energy footprint.

You are never going to get a carbon fiber Mac Book Pro from Apple, but you might be one to see it as an aftermarket business opportunity.

Kudos for Apple for creating the current line of Mac Book Pro's; power efficient, strong, impact resistant, attractive, and easily evolved.

[Takuta-Nui]

It all helps, guys - it all helps. =)

[richardtj]

Two years ago, Apple were severly criticised for their lack of Environmental Awareness, with activists citing their lack of a recycling programme for old Macs. At the time, Apple were lagging behind Dell and HP, who both had recycling programmes in place and were actively pursuing the Green IT issue. Since then, Apple has not just launced a recycling program, but lept ahead of other PC/ electronics manufacturers by incorporating designs that go beyond the simple ROHS compliance to include Organic LEDs, instead of backlights, which have the added benefit of lower power consumption. Apple has always been industry leaders, but this time were caught off-guard by the Green issue.

[ArtandStructure]

Yep, because most anti-environmentalism is based on opinions instead of fact.

That's an interesting opinion.

Not opinion, fact.

I reintroduced your original remark I responded to so your post makes sense. Otherwise you removed the whole substance to the quote. You made a remark which you insist is fact, but unless you have a significant formal and scientific study which validates your assertion that "most anti-environmentalism is based on opinions instead of fact" is in fact true, it is an opinion. I was pointing out the irony of your so-sure assertion regarding the difference between opinion and fact.

This is the crux of the discussion in this thread. If people weren't so quick to assert their own biases as fact but rather paid attention to and respected what was opinion, this thread would be much shorter and richer with untainted facts, instead of self-righteous and condescending "opinions".


All the best,


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure (http://www.artandstructure.com)

[Jason Lee]

Thunder, I wasn't "chiding" you, I was making a suggestion to maintain the quality of this thread. It's unfortunate that you equate civil discourse to sanctimony. What annoys me is that you automatically mark any criticism as "conspiratorial," which is fundamentalist behavior.

I linked an editorial by Patrick Moore and you ignored it. Why?

On BS he said, "Basically, they are using sensation, misinformation, and scare tactics. The environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric . . . to cloak agendas that actually had more to do with anticorportism, antigloblalization, antibusiness, and very little to do with science and ecology. And that's when I left. I realized that the movement that I helped started was being taken over by political groups . . . and that they were using it for fundraising purposes."

Thunder, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are never entitled to your own facts. The Green Party is both socially and fiscally left wing. And who are the people on the far left that blame the far right for the green movement scam? What's their source? Evidence?

And while you trust pamphlets, I disagree that the green movement is evenly split between the left and the right as you suggest. I don't think there are as many conservatives committed to green cause as liberals. The left and the right both make moral judgments, and while there's some overlap, currently, the right is more concerned with religion and sexual purity, while the left is more concerned with the environment and healthful foods. And I never said the "dark corners of the left . . ." That's your stupid attempt to make me look a nutty conspiracy theorist.

Green organizations are not in it for the money? Perhaps not at the beginning, but have you heard of carbon credits? And don't be disingenuous. You know that I'm criticizing the heavy hitters such as Greenpeace and RAN.

And green organizations have no influence on companies? That's the whole point of environmentalism. From Moore's editorial:

"Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.

Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children's toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.

Phthalates are the new bogeyman. . . . Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (DINP), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm. DINP is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.

Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of DINP. Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure."

A lot of people are indoctrinated into a lot of things, especially the green cause. Have you heard of the dihydrogen monoxide hoax?

To be clear, I'm not completely dismissing environmentalism/green technologies, but green hysteria/fundamentalism is retarded, especially when activists' motives may be more political than environmental. I just don't think criticism should be willfully ignored, and the importance of some of the environmental claims and efforts are exaggerated and counter-productive.

[TMay]

Thunder, I wasn't "chiding" you, I was making a suggestion to maintain the quality of this thread. It's unfortunate that you equate civil discourse to sanctimony. What annoys me is that you automatically mark any criticism as "conspiratorial," which is fundamentalist behavior.

I linked an editorial by Patrick Moore and you ignored it. Why?

On BS he said, "Basically, they are using sensation, misinformation, and scare tactics. The environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric . . . to cloak agendas that actually had more to do with anticorportism, antigloblalization, antibusiness, and very little to do with science and ecology. And that's when I left. I realized that the movement that I helped started was being taken over by political groups . . . and that they were using it for fundraising purposes."

Thunder, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are never entitled to your own facts. The Green Party is both socially and fiscally left wing. And who are the people on the far left that blame the far right for the green movement scam? What's their source? Evidence?

And while you trust pamphlets, I disagree that the green movement is evenly split between the left and the right as you suggest. I don't think there are as many conservatives committed to green cause as liberals. The left and the right both make moral judgments, and while there's some overlap, currently, the right is more concerned with religion and sexual purity, while the left is more concerned with the environment and healthful foods. And I never said the "dark corners of the left . . ." That's your stupid attempt to make me look a nutty conspiracy theorist.

Green organizations are not in it for the money? Perhaps not at the beginning, but have you heard of carbon credits? And don't be disingenuous. You know that I'm criticizing the heavy hitters such as Greenpeace and RAN.

And green organizations have no influence on companies? That's the whole point of environmentalism. From Moore's editorial:

"Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.

Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children's toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.

Phthalates are the new bogeyman. . . . Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (DINP), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm. DINP is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.

Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of DINP. Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure."

A lot of people are indoctrinated into a lot of things, especially the green cause. Have you heard of the dihydrogen monoxide hoax?

To be clear, I'm not completely dismissing environmentalism/green technologies, but green hysteria/fundamentalism is retarded, especially when activists' motives may be more political than environmental. I just don't think criticism should be willfully ignored, and the importance of some of the environmental claims and efforts are exaggerated and counter-productive.

A little online search will show that there are in fact concerns by the scientific community that specific phthalates have links to

http://www.ewg.org/chemindex/term/480

"Phthalates have been found to disrupt the endocrine system. Several phthalate compounds have caused reduced sperm counts, testicular atrophy and structural abnormalities in the reproductive systems of male test animals, and some studies also link phthalates to liver cancer, according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control’s 2005 National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Though the CDC contends the health hazards of phthalates to humans have not been definitively established, for some years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has regulated phthalates as water and air pollutants.

The Environmental Working Group has focused on phthalates since 1998, when bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found in Beauty Secrets, found that dibutyl phthalate was present in the bodies of every single person tested for industrial pollutants."

Phthalates are hardly the safe family of plasticizers that you would argue, and studies indicate that fetuses and children are especially at risk. Enough to warrant legislation of specific limits of phthalates in children's toys especially those that would be chewed.

Here's an easily read article that lays out the health issues.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-schapiro/the-case-against-phthalat_b_93092.html

[Jason Lee]

A little online search will show that there are in fact concerns by the scientific community that specific phthalates have links to

http://www.ewg.org/chemindex/term/480

"Phthalates have been found to disrupt the endocrine system. Several phthalate compounds have caused reduced sperm counts, testicular atrophy and structural abnormalities in the reproductive systems of male test animals, and some studies also link phthalates to liver cancer, according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control’s 2005 National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Though the CDC contends the health hazards of phthalates to humans have not been definitively established, for some years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has regulated phthalates as water and air pollutants.

The Environmental Working Group has focused on phthalates since 1998, when bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found in Beauty Secrets, found that dibutyl phthalate was present in the bodies of every single person tested for industrial pollutants."

Phthalates are hardly the safe family of plasticizers that you would argue, and studies indicate that fetuses and children are especially at risk. Enough to warrant legislation of specific limits of phthalates in children's toys especially those that would be chewed.

Here's an easily read article that lays out the health issues.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-schapiro/the-case-against-phthalat_b_93092.html

Hey, T, I actually read those articles already when I was researching the issue. The comments section in the Huffington Post article does a good job in explaining why that editorial was meaningless.

Have you read these?

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS187857+27-Jul-2009+PRN20090727

http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/acc-addresses-misinformation-about-phthalates-school-supplies

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS177604+25-Jun-2009+PRN20090625

http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_phthalate/sec.asp?CID=1907&DID=8755

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605104540.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102567295

http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_phthalate/sec.asp?CID=1906&DID=7585#NPR

Those are the most recent studies I could find.

There's plenty more, but a careful—not a little—Google search will take care of that for you.

[TMay]

Hey, T, I actually read those articles already when I was researching the issue. The comments section in the Huffington Post article does a good job in explaining why that editorial was meaningless.

Have you read these?

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS187857+27-Jul-2009+PRN20090727

http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/acc-addresses-misinformation-about-phthalates-school-supplies

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS177604+25-Jun-2009+PRN20090625

http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_phthalate/sec.asp?CID=1907&DID=8755

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605104540.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102567295

http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_phthalate/sec.asp?CID=1906&DID=7585#NPR

Those are the most recent studies I could find.

There's plenty more, but a careful—not a little—Google search will take care of that for you.

The jury is still out. Caution and reduced exposure to phthalates is justified in utero and children. Until there is a consensus, which there is not now, those cautions are prudent.

[Thunderbird]

I reintroduced your original remark I responded to so your post makes sense. Otherwise you removed the whole substance to the quote. You made a remark which you insist is fact, but unless you have a significant formal and scientific study which validates your assertion that "most anti-environmentalism is based on opinions instead of fact" is in fact true, it is an opinion. I was pointing out the irony of your so-sure assertion regarding the difference between opinion and fact.

This is the crux of the discussion in this thread. If people weren't so quick to assert their own biases as fact but rather paid attention to and respected what was opinion, this thread would be much shorter and richer with untainted facts, instead of self-righteous and condescending "opinions".

Yes, the "irony" of it all, as if every written sentence must be taken as mere opinion unless coupled with extensive references. I don't need a significant and formal scientific study to state a fact, only to prove one, something that would require more space here than people would be willing to read. If you disagree with my assertion, your welcome to begin an argument to the contrary. Of course, that would make the thread longer, not shorter. As it is, you've added to the length with your attempt at being cute.

Thunder, I wasn't "chiding" you, I was making a suggestion to maintain the quality of this thread.

Please look up the word chide.

It's unfortunate that you equate civil discourse to sanctimony.

I used sanctimony to describe your righteous and dismissive tone. If mocking is considered uncivil, then so is calling anyone in the green movement "indoctrinated".

What annoys me is that you automatically mark any criticism as "conspiratorial," which is fundamentalist behavior.

I wasn't marking just any criticism as conspiratorial, only claims that are based on the belief that a group of people are somehow coercing corporations and who "devise and machinate scare stories in order to self-perpetuate and make more money". That is a claim about the nefarious activities of a group of people i.e. a conspiracy. And please look up the word fundamentalist.

I linked an editorial by Patrick Moore and you ignored it. Why?

Becasue I know the history of Greenpeace, personally have met a few of its founding members, and know through those people and others how little regard most environmentals have for him. He is a disgruntled ex-member of an iconic organization who now shills for Big Business. His criticisms are baseless and he fools no one with his bombast and rhetoric. The statement " I realized that the movement I helped started was being taken over by political groups" is nonsensical, since the movement he helped start was obviously itself a political group, by definition. Now, that's irony.


The Green Party is both socially and fiscally left wing. And who are the people on the far left that blame the far right for the green movement scam? What's their source? Evidence?

The Green Party draws its platform from both right and left economic policies, as it needs to appeal to a wide crossection of society for votes. Perhaps you don't know what left or right economic policies are. Socially, they are more leftist, that is true. The far left that I refer to are revolutionary socialists, trots, and some council communists. Since my views are no where near these groups, I can't give you website links as I don't read them. I'm basing this on personal knowledge of local groups in my city. Their sources are the annual reports from the Trusts and Foundations that I mentioned, and funding source-watch sites. What's the source and evidence for your opposite claims?


And while you trust pamphlets, I disagree that the green movement is evenly split between the left and the right as you suggest. I don't think there are as many conservatives committed to green cause as liberals.

I never said they were "evenly split" I said they were from all walks of life and from both ends of the political spectrum. It would be difficult to quantify how many greens were from traditionally left vs. right camps anyway. You seem to know there are more on one side than the other. What's your source?


Green organizations are not in it for the money? Perhaps not at the beginning, but have you heard of carbon credits? And don't be disingenuous. You know that I'm criticizing the heavy hitters such as Greenpeace and RAN.

What do carbon credits have to do with Greenpeace? I really don't understand your point.

And green organizations have no influence on companies? That's the whole point of environmentalism.

You didn't say 'influence', you said coercion. Are you suggesting that companies be allowed to do whatever they want?

[Jason Lee]

Becasue I know the history of Greenpeace, personally have met a few of its founding members, and know through those people and others how little regard most environmentals have for him. He is a disgruntled ex-member of an iconic organization who now shills for Big Business. His criticisms are baseless and he fools no one with his bombast and rhetoric. The statement " I realized that the movement I helped started was being taken over by political groups" is nonsensical, since the movement he helped start was obviously itself a political group, by definition. Now, that's irony.

It appears that I've wasted my time.

[Thunderbird]

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS187857+27-Jul-2009+PRN20090727

http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/acc-addresses-misinformation-about-phthalates-school-supplies

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS177604+25-Jun-2009+PRN20090625

http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_phthalate/sec.asp?CID=1907&DID=8755

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605104540.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102567295

http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_phthalate/sec.asp?CID=1906&DID=7585#NPR

Those are the most recent studies I could find.

um... those aren't studies, those are news releases, all of which (with the exception of the NPR piece and the Science Daily article) are responses by the American Chemistry Council who refer to studies. The ACC is a PR firm for the chemical industry. :rolleyes:

[ArtandStructure]

Yes, the "irony" of it all, as if every written sentence must be taken as mere opinion unless coupled with extensive references.

Oh not at all, but your statement that, "most anti-environmentalism is based on opinions instead of fact" was definitely opinion, not fact. It is a broad generalization with no basis in study or fact. It's not much short of a stereotype. Stating it is fact and not opinion doesn't make it so.

If I were to say, "most liberals respond to disagreement with condescension and baseless facts", that too would be a generalization and an opinion. There is no way one could effectively study something like that and prove it as fact.

I don't need a significant and formal scientific study to state a fact, only to prove one

Totally agreed. However if you state something is fact and someone else questions the validity of that fact, it is customary and expected for you to provide the basis of that fact, the proof, which you refuse and are unable to do.

If you disagree with my assertion, your welcome to begin an argument to the contrary.

I already have, and very succinctly three times now. Here is a fourth: In science, nothing is called "fact" which is mere opinion or even theory, and when something is stated as "fact" it is backed up by something concrete or else it is refuted by the community. Calling out a fact is again customary. Since this thread revolves around scientific validity, it is entirely fair to expect you to back up your generalization or admit it is opinion. When questioned, it is the onus of the individual proposing the "fact" to prove it is correct, not on the questioner to prove the opposite is correct.

Facts aren't facts until proven when questioned. Dancing around the issue leaves the fact unproven, in question, and relegated to opinion.

I think this is where some of the folks on this forum take issue with the responses both for and against. Some responses are quite acceptable; others are dismissive, selective in the parts of the discussion they want to address while avoiding the ones they can not, or altogether constructed of straw-man arguments.

Again the importance of this little diversion is as an example of the tone of this entire thread where folks are brandishing about "science" and "facts" and clearly not demonstrating an objective sense of the meaning of fact versus opinion or bias. This is typical of the "environmental" movement as a whole. There are parts of it which are valid, proven and of value but it is so clouded with rhetoric, straw-men, opinion and bias it's a mess.

Responding without providing anything to back up the fact when questioned is a case in point. If you can provide a respected and valid proof, I will gladly give you kudos, otherwise take a deep breath, reconsider fact versus opinion and concede you phrased it improperly and it is your opinion. That I can not argue. Your opinion is yours and you are certainly welcome to it.


All the best,


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure (www.artandstructure.com)

[Thunderbird]

Totally agreed. However if you state something is fact and someone else questions the validity of that fact, it is customary and expected for you to provide the basis of that fact, the proof, which you refuse and are unable to do.

Except you didn't question or dispute the validity of it, you didn't even ask me what the basis of my assertion was, you simply tried to be cute in pointing out the 'irony' of my statement by saying "That's an interesting opinion." I was therefore under no obligation to provide any such 'proof'. I could have just as easily countered by saying your assertion that my statement was opinion and not fact, was itself another opinion, since you stated it as a fact. I should have then expected from you 'proof' that your own assertion (that my statement was opinion and not fact) was indeed a fact, and we could have gone round and around playing that game for a long time. But that would have been pointless, as seems to be your modus operandi here.

Anyway, congratulations on extending the thread even further.

I am done with your incoherent and pedantic nit picks. Get a life.

[ArtandStructure]

Except you didn't question or dispute the validity of it, you didn't even ask me what the basis of my assertion was, you simply tried to be cute in pointing out the 'irony' of my statement by saying "That's an interesting opinion." I was therefore under no obligation to provide any such 'proof'.

Actually, stating it was an opinion is a clear assertion on my part it isn't a fact. Rather than provide a proof to put an end to any question on the matter you simply replied it is a fact matter-of-factly (no pun intended).

On my second reply I clearly disputed it as a fact and asked you to validate it to which you again avoided providing proof essentially saying you did not need to. I then disputed it at least twice more in my following reply and requested your proof to which you again do not provide. So yes, I questioned and disputed your assertion 4 times and no you never even bothered to offer any proof.

I could have just as easily countered by saying your assertion that my statement was opinion and not fact, was itself another opinion, since you stated it as a fact. I should have then expected from you 'proof' that your own assertion (that my statement was opinion and not fact) was indeed a fact

This I did. I stated a fact is only a fact if proven, otherwise it is opinion. That would be my "fact". I knew you could not possibly prove such a statement because it falls under generalization, speculation, stereotype, etc. As proof of my "fact" you repeatedly refuse to offer proof showing your assertion is anything more than opinion. Therefore your "fact" is as yet unproven true, which is the essence of an opinion. Again the onus is on you.

So no, this is not a circular discussion. It is simply you repeatedly refusing to offer proof.

I am done with your incoherent and pedantic nit picks. Get a life.

My remarks have been clear. You were caught making a false statement but rather than just do the objective thing and admit it you want to sweep it away. Some of your pro-environmentalist remarks are fair, but you damage your veracity by refusing to remain objective or admitting when you were mistaken. It is apparently more important for you to not be wrong than to be right, and in all fairness admitting you are wrong is right and I would respect your admission. You would serve your purpose more greatly if you instilled balance and integrity in your posts.

What was that opinion I had about disagreement being met with condescending dismissal?

Again this seems to be indicative of many discussions of this nature. There appears to be a disproportionately vocal minority who denounce whatever they disagree with, espouse what they do believe and fail to fill in the gaps where there are inconsistencies. Instead they hold to those inconsistencies believing the longer or more often they insist it to be true, the more it will be or the more people they will convince it to be true. Thus there is difficulty separating the wheat from the chaff and all the average citizen gets is some biased, flawed sound bite moving them one way or another.

It is dangerous politically, morally, and humanly, yet those who act in this manner apparently are more concerned with their own personal agenda or bias than preserving the integrity of the political system, society and humanity itself as this behavior (especially in our media driven, quick take society) leads to an uninformed mass easily swayed by the next tide. WMDs anyone? "environmentalism" isn't inherently bad but it is laced with the same behavior. Why not step back, put egos aside and have a meaningful, objective and embracing discussion. If this topic is so vastly important to the survival of the world, does it not deserve that? I suppose it is too much to ask of a flawed mankind.


All the best,


Jesse Widener
Art and Structure (http://www.artandstructure.com)

[bobertoq]

Oh I love the sanctimonious attitude. You know, if you don't want your comments to be mocked, maybe you should think them through a little bit more.That bike analogy is bad one. Bike makers don't market their bikes as green alternatives to cars. Here is a better one: CFL lightbulbs. They usually cost several times more than an incandescent lightbulb, and the only good they do is use a tad less electricity. Buying a CFL is going to cost you a lot more up front. Most people don't care if you can save a whopping 30 cents a month, or if you don't have to replace it every short year. Not only that, they flicker and have a horrid color temperature. I could go on and on. Most consumers don't care if they can save the polar bears, truth is, one person can't, or if they can save a few bucks a month, or anything like that. Truth is, I'd rather have a cheap product that works then one that is expensive and an ugly color.