A Greener Apple

[dontmatter]

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

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

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

Bill the TaxMan

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

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

 

[Clive At Five]

I used to think like that.

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

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

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

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

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

His efforts are commendable, but his methods are not.

-Clive

 

[Rocketman]

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

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

Rocketman

 

[clutchlove]

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

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

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

 

[Peace]

This can mean only one thing.

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

 

[JGowan]

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

God how negative.

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

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

 

[djellison]

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

Doug

 

[johnee]

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

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

His efforts are commendable, but his methods are not.

-Clive

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

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

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

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

 

[840quadra]

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

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

 

[nagromme]

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

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

 

[johnee]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RedTomato]

Official response from Greenpeace

Official response from Greenpeace

Lots of congratulations from Greenpeace for Apple:

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

Tasty news from Apple!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SPUY767]

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

 

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

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

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

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

 

[AidenShaw]

reality check time

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

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

 

[Clive At Five]

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

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

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

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

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

Link.

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

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

-Clive

 

[Doctor Q]

A message from the moderators

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

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

Thank you!

 

[clutchlove]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Maccus Aurelius]

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

 

[macleod199]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[macleod199]

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

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

 

[macleod199]

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

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

 

[iSee]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jono_3]

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

 

[Lycanthrope]

Kudos to Greenpeace. About time Apple.