Apple Issues Statement on EPEAT Registry Withdrawal

[doelcm82]

I love how people supporting Apple on this in thread upon thread are just ignoring the fact that Apple made their MBPs less recyclable and less serviceable than they used to be. Just because Apple will take them back (and give you some small pittance in the form of a gift card for the parts they can sell or re-use: do you REALLY think they're losing out on the deal?) doesn't mean they're as environmentally friendly as the previous, non-retina MBPs.

So people are basically saying, screw the environment! Screw the consumer! Screw third-party Apple dealers! If Apple wants to glue a battery to their motherboard and make it so that only Apple can do anything to repair the machine, it must somehow magically be a good idea!

I love Apple products, but I do actually still use critical thinking when faced with new information. It's not good for consumers or the environment to suddenly come out with a product that is less eco-friendly and less serviceable, and also pull the rest of your products out of consideration as well for the environmental standard that you've been bragging about until recently.

When I first started buying Apple products in the mid-2000's, I remember that Apple was having a hard time getting certified as "green" by anyone. Their products at the time had higher than average levels of toxic materials. Looking back on those days as "the good old days" is like thinking fondly of our childhood when we'd collect the mercury from broken thermometers so we could roll the pretty, harmless, liquid metal across our palms.

Thank Steve Apple made a conscious effort to use fewer harmful materials in their products, and thinner computers use less material overall.

 

[theluggage]

As an example, EPEAT requires that a product contains 25% recycled plastic. So if one product has 1000 grams of plastic of which 250 gram come from recycled sources, and another has 200 grams only with none coming recycled, think about which is more environmentally friendly, and guess which one follows EPEAT standard.

At least try to look at the big picture. Its not about some simplistic measure of green-ness of the device currently in your hand, or what one particular manufacturer does.

By requiring an arbitrary amount of recycled plastic in every product, you ensure that there is a market for recycled plastic, creating an incentive to collect plastic for recycling. Insisting on 100% wouldn't work - there will be technical reasons why some parts can't be recycled - while not require any would mean manufacturers wouldn't consider recycled if it cost 1 cent more per ton.

Concequence: even your product with 200g of non-recycled plastic is more likely to get recycled because of the standards.

Likewise, people have been saying 'oh, but I sell on, or donate my old computers, and I can always take it back to the Mac store' - fine, but when San Fransisco clears an office building in ten year's time do you expect them to sort everything by manufacturer (including those who have gone bust or disappeard in a string of takeovers) and send them back individually (while also ensuring that each company isn't just having them buried or incinerated in the third world)? I bet commercial recyclers don't get a $5000 gift voucher for rolling up at an Apple store with a truckload of g4s. Nope, that's when you want an army of minimally trained (because it ain't gonna pay well) people with screwdrivers breaking stuff down into metal, glass, plastics and 'electronics'.

...and even if you sell on, or donate your old stuff, that gets it out of your mind but it doesn't cease to exist. Eventually, its going to be scrapped and someone has to get rid of it. Repairability (not so much the ability to take it back to a certified apple repairer, but to cannibalize parts from other old computers) will help delay that - but when it finally does die, that's when the ability to easily break it up into metal, plastics, 'electronics' and batteries, and deal with each appropriately, becomes important.

 

[vmachiel]

I kinda get why they did it, with regard to the repairability. It's not that their going to go wild with toxics and bigger packaging all of the sudden.

 

[KnightWRX]

The 12 posts before yours contain nothing of the sort.

Of the 12 posts before yours, I see only one that tangentially fits this description.

Of the 12 posts before yours, I see only one person making this suggestion and it's nothing even remotely like an attack.

Maybe you missed the 2 other threads on EPEAT we've had this week. There's a lot more than 12 posts before his. Of course, then you wouldn't be able to attack him like you criticize him for doing right ?

Pot, meet kettle.

Anyway, on topic : People are quick to assume EPEAT is outdated (Apple said no such thing however, notice how they completely dodge saying what in EPEAT made them pull out). However, who's to say an updated EPEAT standard would be less restrictive ? If anything, it might be even more restrictive as environnemental concerns are growing year after year.

 

[driceman]

What is helpful for the environment is to do things that are good for the environment. What is not helpful for the environment is following standards about the environment.

Apple is saying here "we could follow EPEAT standards, but it would make our products worse, and it wouldn't help the environment". It is common sense tbat if there is an "environmental standard" demanding things from you that are not actually beneficial for the environment, then yes, you attack the standard. Or do you want the environment to be damaged because companies blindly follow standards that don't help the environment?




As an example, EPEAT requires that a product contains 25% recycled plastic. So if one product has 1000 grams of plastic of which 250 gram come from recycled sources, and another has 200 grams only with none coming recycled, think about which is more environmentally friendly, and guess which one follows EPEAT standard.




I think you are talking about the infamous Greenpeace report. Greenpeace didn't compare levels of toxic materials. Greenpeace compared companies promises to remove toxic materials. In one case (bromide flame retardants) they marked HP up for promising to get rid of BFRs within two years, and marked Apple down for not making any such promise. They just failed to notice that Apple had removed BFRs two years earlier so obviously wouldn't make any promises to do so in the future. (They also didn't get that Apple preferred actions to words, so they wouldn't announce plans, they would just do it. Get's you negative points when Greenpeace finds it easier to judge companies by their promises).




So you make some blind accusations without any shred of evidence, and when you are called to actually show evidence, you follow by more blind accusations without any shred of evidence, and you get voted up. Brilliant.

Listen to this guy.

 

[whooleytoo]

I pity the EPEAT standard folk. A few days ago, many here probably had never even heard of them, now they're public enemy #1. Have EPEAT even made a comment regarding the rMBP?

 

[MH01]

Do you know what the EPEAT environmental standards are? If you do,
would you please explain them to everyone. Please explain how the evironment
will be better off if Apple continued to adhear to them. It will be very interesting.
If you don't really know, then your post is nothing more than a loud mouthed jackass braying at the moon. So, I hope you'll enlighten us.

Dunno..... Environment + Standards =

A: Pointers on how to **** up the environment
B : Pointers on how to reduce damage to the environment
C: Apple is right... whatever the issue/question is.

 

[cdmoore74]

Call me crazy but if I was in charge of IT at a large school or company do you really want be responsible for computers that cannot be fixed on site? Or computers that cannot be discarded easily without paying a huge disposal fee? Or be responsible for computers that break down after the warranty is over?
Man Apple, you guys just made Acer look more desirable.

 

[KnightWRX]

I pity the EPEAT standard folk. A few days ago, many here probably had never even heard of them, now they're public enemy #1. Have EPEAT even made a comment regarding the rMBP?

Google partners with Apple for the release of the original iPhone, Eric Schmidt on Apple's board = Google is good! Moar Google.

Google finally releases Android after 3 years, Eric leaves Apple's board since he's useless as he's been avoiding strategic iOS meetings over conflicts of interest = Google is bad! Down with evil Google.

Consumer reports ranks the iPhone the number #1 smartphone choice over all other models = Consumer reports is on the forefront of technology and the best publication there is.

Consumer reports notes that it can't recommend the iPhone 4 over the antenna issues faced by all shipped units (unfixed to this day, required a change of design for the iPhone 4S) even though it's their highest ranked phone = Consumer reports are dinosaurs and bad.

Adobe releases yet another version of Photoshop, flagship software that's putting Apple on the creative map for publicity, marketing and photography everywhere = Adobe are gods amongst men.

Steve Jobs publishes a letter on Flash = Adobe are a bunch of ****.

Gizmodo gets their hands on an iPhone 4 prototype, confirms it is the real deal, does an extensive review and photoshoot of the device = Gizmodo is great!

Apple revokes Gizmodo's invitation for breaking their secrecy = Gizmodo ruined the iPhone 4 launch, they shouldn't have spoiled it, bunch of idiots, Chen should get deported.

Apple signs on with EPEAT gold certification for their products, ushers in a new age of environnemental reform and decide to head unto a road to greener products = EPEAT standards should be followed by everyone, a great example this industry needs.

Apple removes certification for their products to meet new design goals, says they will try to remain green in other areas not measured by EPEAT = EPEAT are out of touch and out of date, they should lessen their requirements, bunch of fascists!

Macrumors. As predictable as ever.

 

[Abazigal]

Call me crazy but if I was in charge of IT at a large school or company do you really want be responsible for computers that cannot be fixed on site? Or computers that cannot be discarded easily without paying a huge disposal fee? Or be responsible for computers that break down after the warranty is over?
Man Apple, you guys just made Acer look more desirable.

The problem is that you are looking at the purchase of computers solely from the POV of what will result in the least trouble for the school's IT support staff, and not necessarily what will benefit the recipients (the students and teachers) most. Yes, these are valid points, but they cannot be the main deciding factors, at most a tie-breaker in the event of a tie between 2 competing choices.

What's the point of having computers that can be repaired on-site when the issue is that they break down ever so often? It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. My school had the pupils purchase acer laptops (part of their 1-to-1 scheme) and I saw pupils' laptops entering and leaving the technician's lab from time to time. Not to mention that Acer's after-sales support stinks. In the 2nd year, they moved to Toshiba.

Conversely, we have 2 labs of imacs and to my knowledge, they have not had to service them even once.

So which one is more trouble now?

 

[jmgregory1]

The thing people must not forget is that Apple was the one to pull products from EPEAT, not EPEAT pulling the products. I will assume Apple's reason is as they noted, the standards do not fit Apple's current manufacturing processes.

I've been involved in similar industry certification programs that are created for all the right reasons, but in general become mired in their own bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. If EPEAT has not changed or altered their standards and certifications over the past couple of years, let alone the past decade, chances are really good - as in you can guarandamntee it that they have not changed, then it's going to take companies like Apple pulling out to force the change.

And for those people that think the changes will simply cow-tow to Apple resulting in a net negative for the environment, you're smoking dope. So, let's look at another industry where recycling is a big issue - cars/trucks. Do you think we should be telling the auto industry that they should stop gluing and welding their cars and have all parts screwed on with phillips screws? That's a great idea. And homes too - they should be built with walls that are screwed together with exposed screws so we can disassemble them ourselves and recycle the parts properly.

This is such a perfect example of misinformation - and I'm not talking about what Apple is doing.

 

[gopnick]

This is a highly political thread, but oh well.

Four years working in environmental have now taught me two things:

(1) Environmental standards and regulations since 1987 have little bearing on protecting the environment and more to do with protecting incumbent giant corporations. Many of these standards (and regulations, too) can't possibly be met by anyone. People just find ways to make it all technically work out with high dollar consultants, while their emissions/waste go up or down as technology and demand change.

(2) When companies and consumers pay disposal costs, it is in their financial best interests to reduce the amount of hazardous waste in their products. Apple will do the right thing for the environment because customers, who must pay disposal fees (and hefty taxes in some states) will demand it.

This doesn't merely apply to standards compliance organizations or environmental.

Read about how the FDA is protecting big pharma. It's sickening.

I hope Apple grows up as a company and tells these idiots (who wouldn't know how to protect the environment even if they cared) to go get bent.

 

[Taipan]

I don't get it. When wie are talking about Recycling we are talking about defective or outdated devices that are not used anymore, aren't we?
So whether or not a cable breaks when the battery is torn out shouldn't be an issue. Neither is soldered on RAM, because the materials are basically the same as the mainboard's anyway. So the only issue I'm seeing are the screws.

 

[macingman]

The average consumer would GO TO THE NEAREST APPLE STORE AND TAKE THEIR DEVICE FOR RECYCLING AND GET A GIFT CARD FOR DOING SO..if there are no Apple Store nearby, the average consumer will get Apple to ship it for free to recycle their old device and get a gift card for doing so.

P.S. I got a $163 for recycling my old ass almost dead iMac..

http://www.apple.com/recycling/

Actually your the first person I've ever heard of that has ACTUALLY done this.

----------

smallest and lightest is what the consumer want. do you want your portable gadget to be heavy and bulky?

I honestly can't believe don't see sarcasm even when it is so blatantly there.

 

[Kaibelf]

Hmmm, thats a pretty good point there.

It still doesn't excuse making it harder for an average consumer to tear apart the device to take it in for recycling.

Although I imagine have the ability to dismantle your device was more useful back when there weren't as many places to take old devices to recycle.

Just contact Apple an have them handle it. For free. Seriously, who complains about having LESS work to do?

 

[samcraig]

I pity the EPEAT standard folk. A few days ago, many here probably had never even heard of them, now they're public enemy #1. Have EPEAT even made a comment regarding the rMBP?

Hyperbole? They are hardly Public Enemy #1. Not even by a longshot.

Why would EPEAT have to make any comment about any company/product to single them out? EPEAT has standards. If something doesn't meet their standards - they don't give it their "blessing."

If EPEAT were going to release any statement it would be the products that DO meet standards. Why would they release statements about millions of products that don't?

 

[Thunderhawks]

What a bunch of drivel by those who want to knock Apple.

Are you really telling us you recycle your electronics based on the EPEAT standards?
(If you recycle at all)

Let’s see:

I get myself a screwdriver. Wait don’t have TORX, so off to Home Depot to buy one.
Darn! Only available in a set of 5 .

Okay, got the computer open. What am I looking at?

Darn! Need smaller screwdrivers Philips and slot.
Off to Radio Shack. Home Depot doesn’t have these small sizes.

Okay, got it all disassembled.

Made 10 piles:

Glass to the left. Should I have wiped off the olefin coating with some solvent and breathe that in.
What would I do with the rag with the coating in it?
Wash it and the chemicals go into the sewer and ground water?

Hammered the glass into little pieces , so nobody gets hurt later.
One never knows.

All cables clipped out (Don’t ask, had to go to get a small clipper ☺
Pulled the plastic coatings off all the cables. If I save the copper wires maybe in 25 years I may have a pound
of it to get $ 1.29 at the local scrap yard.

That disk drive/burner still looks good. Who knows if I can use it later. Put that one into a drawer.
Same for fan (dusty) and loud speakers.

Battery, still held a charge. Maybe if I buy another computer that uses that size I can reuse.
Into the drawer with that one too. Hard Drive is a little slow and old technology, but I’ll keep it as a backup.
Into the drawer will buy a case for it, whenever. (Note: the word NEVER is in whenever!)

Memo to self into cloud to remember what drawer and that I have that stuff at all!

Mother boards, hm. Should I unsolder everything? I just came back from Radio Shack and should have bought
a soldering kit with the suction bulk to collect all the solder.
Can’t really do de-soldering, as the fumes are not good for the environment and tickle my nose.

Plastic shells top and base in hand. Is that number 1 or 2 category plastic my local guys don’t recycle number 6.

Metal frames, magnets and weight. Okay metal pile. It’s already 6 oz.

..........and so on and so on.

This really looks like something 99% of all consumers would do.

All that hubbub when everybody knows you can just give the stuff back to Apple.

Really?

 

[bad03xtreme]

I'll take "San Francisco thinking" over most of the "red state thinking" any day.

Wait - does using "red state" and "thinking" in the same sentence constitute an oxymoron? I think that it does....

Yea and where has that gotten them, oh thats right...

 

[Amazing Iceman]

When I first started buying Apple products in the mid-2000's, I remember that Apple was having a hard time getting certified as "green" by anyone. Their products at the time had higher than average levels of toxic materials. Looking back on those days as "the good old days" is like thinking fondly of our childhood when we'd collect the mercury from broken thermometers so we could roll the pretty, harmless, liquid metal across our palms.

Lol, I used to play with Mercury too. Actually, I had at least about 10cc of it, given to me by the Lab teacher to make a thermometer.
I haven't turned into a mutant yet.
Oh, and what about those amalgam tooth fillings? You could extract the Mercury by heating the amalgam in a probe.

 

[KPOM]

Yes, yes, yes. Because to get from Los Angeles to Silicon Valley you need to pass through (or near to) Bakersfield and Fresno.

Yes!

No wonder your state is broke, despite having the 2nd highest taxes in the country and corporate headquarters of lots of profitable companies like Apple.

The high speed rail project has been a boondoggle from the start.

Apple is being shortsighted. Instead of manufacturing systems to the current standard, and working *with* the standard to adopt it to new techniques - Apple is turning its back on a group that it's been touting for years.

If this is the "Tim Apple", then may the lord have mercy.

If they lose out on too many sales, they can change back. However, they don't sell much to enterprises, anyway, and consumers likely didn't even know about EPEAT until this story came out. In the meantime, even EPEAT recognizes some of its standards are outdated. Apple is probably attempting to make a deliberate statement by pulling all of its products out rather than just not submitting the ones that won't qualify.

Perhaps they are trying to convince EPEAT to come out with an "EPEAT 2," or perhaps they want to try to lobby the government to repeal the Bush-era rule that says that 95% of federal government purchases need to comply with EPEAT (in favor of more flexible standards that allow for company-managed recycling programs).

 

[gnasher729]

Call me crazy but if I was in charge of IT at a large school or company do you really want be responsible for computers that cannot be fixed on site? Or computers that cannot be discarded easily without paying a huge disposal fee? Or be responsible for computers that break down after the warranty is over?
Man Apple, you guys just made Acer look more desirable.

A school or company absolutely shouldn't buy computers that can only be discarded by paying a huge disposal fee (if they do, that should be added to the purchase price, and that kind of thing would just guarantee that lots of computers end up not recycled, not even in landfill, but along some roadside where they have been dumped to avoid disposal fees).

However, Apple in the USA takes back all their computers. There are no fees; depending on the state of the computer you may actually get money for it. If you can't get the computer to an Apple store, Apple's recycler will send you a box for the computer, postage paid.

No, but if the battery breaks and explodes or leaks toxic goo, then you have to equip your recycling staff with hazmat gear. Or if the display breaks and leaves big chunks of glass bonded to the aluminium shell then, as well as the 'elf and saftey issues (which you can deride but not ignore) it's going to reduce the yield of your recycling.

You return the computer to Apple, and Apple gives it to a recycler. There will be a contract between Apple and the recycler where, based on the cost of recycling and the money the recycler makes from the leftover bits, one side pays money to the other side. If it's harder to recycle, then Apple will pay more for recycling. _Or_ Apple has figured out all these problems that you see and just told the recycler how to avoid breaking batteries.

 

[theluggage]

So whether or not a cable breaks when the battery is torn out shouldn't be an issue.

No, but if the battery breaks and explodes or leaks toxic goo, then you have to equip your recycling staff with hazmat gear. Or if the display breaks and leaves big chunks of glass bonded to the aluminium shell then, as well as the 'elf and saftey issues (which you can deride but not ignore) it's going to reduce the yield of your recycling.

I suspect its the "gluing things together" issue with the RMBP (and the iPad3 iif/when EPEAT gets extended to mobile devices) behind this issue - not simply the fact that it is non-user-replaceable.

Using glue makes a lot of sense if you're trying to shave millimetres of thickness - apart from not needing brackets/grooves/flanges, making the battery permanently bonded to the case means that it can rely on the case for strength and doesn't need such a rigid casing itself. Similar arguments for the display. ISTR it was reported that Apple will "repair" these by swapping entire case sections, so they never have to ship a 'naked' display or battery module outside of their own factory.

Unfortunately, it then means that you can't easily separate the battery from the aluminium for recycling... hell, forget recycling, you really need to separate aluminium, glass, plastics and batteries for safe and efficient disposal.
.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

"Hey we're still environmentally friendly! Almost as friendly as before!"

Which was not that good.
Force obsolete with software blocks on products. Everything is throw away and not upgradeable.

Forcing something to be obsolete before it really is and then have it be trash is not friendly no matter how you cut it.

 

[theluggage]

However, Apple in the USA takes back all their computers. There are no fees; depending on the state of the computer you may actually get money for it. If you can't get the computer to an Apple store, Apple's recycler will send you a box for the computer, postage paid.

So, couple of questions:

(a) Does that just apply to consumers - or can a commercial contractor pitch up with a truckload of mixed* computer equipment and have it disposed of for free?

(* or do you expect the contractor refitting a school to sort all the old electronic junk by manufacturer, and look up the recycling policy for each one)

(b) Will they still be offering this facility in 10 years time?

 

[r.harris1]

To be honest, I'd never heard of EPEAT prior to Apple pulling out of it. I only looked at Apple's environment specifics and thought they seemed reasonable. I took a fresh look at them today and they still seem reasonable.

I find it difficult to get worked up about the whole thing and in fact, if a company's environmental profile looks reasonable before and after pulling out of a certification body, I'd question the relevance of the body to anything real. But that's just me.