Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So, what? You're in favor of hunting whales and putting more lead BACK into the iMacs?

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

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

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

I have yet to see any group who complains how bad we all are come to a table with a solutions that makes sense, meets the needs and does not impact the environment. They just tell us we are wrong.
 
Weren't LED-displays supposed to be worse technology than the current or am I remembering some other news article that was here some time ago :confused:
 
Everyone should love Greenpeace.

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

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

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2362
 
Excellent! I am glad you are in a career that does not require the use of a laptop, however some of us require a laptop for our work!

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


Now is the time for you to look at this link to see the price of a backlit LED display. Now compare that price to the garden-variety LED display of the same size. Now apply that to the price of a laptop. Besides what does any of this have to do with a "top of the line" laptop? This would be a change that is across the board, from the MB to the MBP.

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


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

I do not ignore other things but you have to start somewhere.
 
Big bad Greenpeace again. They're such bastards for trying to make the planet a better place for future generations to live in!

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



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


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

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

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

Bill the TaxMan
 
There are other areas Apple could improve upon. how about energy consumption? you take take the AppleTV for an example, no options to shut it off or go into a Deep Sleep mode.
I've never understood this. It's not expensive to provide a power switch, so why do Apple (with the Apple TV) and companies who sell cable boxes, routers, etc. so often omit power switches, forcing us to unplug devices when we don't plan to use them and want to save that energy?
 
Mydel said:
I DO use laptop everyday and also iMac and other displays as well, BUT I will gladly pay 50 or 100$ more for enviromental friendly product. Thats my point!
$50 or $100 I will do, especially if there is a non-enivronmental benefit for the user.

And you dont have to buy 50" LCD if you cant afford it. 42 will do as well or even 37"
It is not so much the size as the price difference. A standard LCD monitor in 20" is around $300, while a backlit LED monitor is almost $1700. Thats almost 6 times more expensive! That ratio will still carry over into smaller screens. This is why I don't think it will be just a $50-$100 increase in price.
 
I really like these statements from Steve Jobs- gives a personal touch. Makes me smile, 'ya know? And the stock go up. That helps.

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

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

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

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

I used to think like that.

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

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

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

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

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

So even though they seem like hypocrites, remember they have limited options and are trying to change that.
 
Glad to see Apple is finally taking some responsibility for being so un-environmentally friendly and cleaning up their act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's why people get pissed at environmentalism- they are told the problems in the world, without a solution to them, particularly not without big changes in lifestyle. As such, it sounds like blame and shame without a way out, AKA, just making somebody feel crappy. But a problem without an easy solution is the reality here, whatever you may feel about it.
 
Man I just bought a new 23" last week, any takers? :mad:

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

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

-Clive
 
Post Consumer Waste or Manufacturing Waste?

The letter says:

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

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

Doug
 
After seeing "An Inconvenient Truth"...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Way to go Steve and Apple! :)

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

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

-=|Mgkwho

I'm merely associating Al Gore's intentions (via his movie) to his actions (via his huge home energy bill). I never said anything about content.
 
I have yet to see any group who complains how bad we all are come to a table with a solutions that makes sense, meets the needs and does not impact the environment. They just tell us we are wrong.

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

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

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


[/snippet]

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

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

HP does a lot more in terms of environment than Apple. Not only do they have recycling program but they have projects in thrid world countries such as one in india to loan woman a laptop and digital camera to take pictures, tripling their income. They do a lot more than apple even though everyone thinks theyre are just another corporation and Apple is the only one that thinks differenty and CARES.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.