Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Jumps to Fourth in Greenpeace's Environmental Rankings of Electronics Companies

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
69,432
40,526



greenpeace_2011_rankings.jpg



Fortune notes that Apple has risen to fourth place in Greenpeace's annual ranking of electronics manufacturers by environmental criteria, as published in the organization's annual Guide to Greener Electronics. Apple moved up to fourth place this year from ninth place in last year's survey, making gains in the greenness of its products and sustainability efforts in its operations, but remaining below average in its energy scores.

apple_greenpeace_ranking_history.jpg



As noted in the report on Apple (PDF), the company does score some points on the energy front for its use of renewable energy sources, with select facilities in Texas, California, and Ireland powered by 100% renewable sources, representing 13% of the company's facility-related energy usage. Apple is also beginning work on a solar farm at its new North Carolina data center, an item unmentioned in Greenpeace's report. The most significant ding in Apple's energy scores according to Greenpeace is a lack of a stated advocacy policy for clean energy.

Article Link: Apple Jumps to Fourth in Greenpeace's Environmental Rankings of Electronics Companies
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/09/apple-jumps-to-fourth-in-greenpeaces-environmental-rankings-of-electronics-companies/
It's a good start, but Apple (and all the others) need to step-up and do more. Cause global warming can't be denied.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Lol @ RIM
 
I'm a little surprised they aren't already ahead of the pack ... their consumer outlook is very green, so their corporate practices must be poor.
 
iekozz said:
It's a good start, but Apple (and all the others) need to step-up and do more. Cause global warming can't be denied.
Click to expand...

Global warming can't be denied or man made global warming can't be denied?
 
I would love to see greenpeace manufacture, and ship millions of devices per year, and see if they can match or better any of the companies on the list.

The fact that the companies are trying is great, and it is nice to see continued improvement for many of them.
 
Dwalls90 said:
I'm a little surprised they aren't already ahead of the pack ... their consumer outlook is very green, so their corporate practices must be poor.
Click to expand...
They get knocked down because they aren't as vocal about being green as Greenpeace would like. This is what bothers me about Greenpeace, they aren't happy until you've completely committed to their side, and spend your time preaching about it. Any less is seen as bad to them, and this attitude can push people away from the very goals they want.
 
Awareness of these issues is critical. But when Greenpeace does it wrong, they hurt their own very important cause.

"lack of a stated advocacy policy”

Words ARE important. No question. But actions and reality are more important. Harder to measure, maybe but there’s no helping that!

Maybe they should have two separate scores: Best Stated Policy and Best Delivered Reality.

I don’t know where Apple would fall on the latter scale, but somewhere very high!
 
Hurda said:
Hm

In Newsweek's Green Ranking, Apple is 117th overall and 18th for companies into "Technology Equipment". :confused:
:D:apple:
Click to expand...

Well, Greenpeace's list only has 15 companies on it, for starters. Different criteria and focus would account for a lot, too.

(And it's worth noting that Apple gets dragged down significantly on Newsweek's list by their super-low disclosure metric, just like on Greenpeace's.)

The point behind these things isn't the rankings. It's the information.

nagromme said:
Maybe they should have two separate scores: Best Stated Policy and Best Delivered Reality.

I don’t know where Apple would fall on the latter scale, but somewhere very high!
Click to expand...
If you actually read Greenpeace's information, they already have thirteen separate scores.
 
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

ouimetnick said:
Meh. Greenpeace.. Didn't they VANDALIZE an HP building? Very unprofessional if you ask me. Just like PETA
Click to expand...

And back in the '70s they engaged in what bordered on piracy on the high seas (Rainbow Warrior) and they also welded shut an outfall pipe from a nuclear site at Winscale (now Sellafield) here in the UK - really intelligent thing to do NOT. So not exactly a group to take much notice of
 
TMar said:
Global warming can't be denied or man made global warming can't be denied?
Click to expand...

We know what pollutant gasses we produce (methane being the worst), we know the quantities we’re producing (record CO2 pollution this year, exceeding even worst-case predictions), we know these gases have heat-trapping properties, and we know what those properties are. This is solid science.

Coupled with that, we know our current warming trend is unprecedented (even climate skeptics have recently had to face that answer). We also know much of the harm that warming causes, and will continue to cause (from melting glaciers to unpredictable weather to disease: the “mosquito line” rises with temperature, allowing disease to reach cities previously high enough and cool enough to be protected). We know how these factors snowball faster and faster (for instance, less polar ice means less white reflecting heat back to space, and more dark sea absorbing it and heating the atmosphere; and permafrost melting to release even more greenhouse gases, previously trapped).

In the face of that, the “pro-air-pollution” stance is indefensible. Why are people so emotionally bent on making this problem worse, when making it better helps everyone—and even creates new industries?
 
Well, I don't know...

As much as I like Apple products, I know that it comes to a cost: The Aluminum Uni-Bodies are extremely hard on the environment since the production uses an exorbitant amount of energy. The Yes Men actually faked an Apple web page offering a green phone once to put the finger on unfair labor practices and environmental issues with the products.

Now, you can argue that Apple doesn't actually produce anything and therefore it is "green" but the design comes from Apple and is predominantly Aluminum. Also, if the labor practice would concern Apple, they could demand change, but they don't. But that is not the subject here.

And I am not a saint in this story either. I have 2 iPads, my wife has an iPod Nano & Touch 2nd Gen, and I have the iPhone 4. I know that this is not the best choice environmentally. I am just saying - if there would be a solid concern, other metals and even plastics have usually a better carbon/environmental footprint.

PS/Edit:
I avoid using aluminum foil as much as possible in the kitchen. I use saran wrap instead to save at least a little bit on the environment and to not waste important resources. If we all do that, Aluminum doesn't get more expensive and Apple can increase their win... :D
 
Last edited:
With the iPhone battery and audio issues, Siri outages, and the Kindle Fire coming out soon, the Apple loyalists can take comfort in Apple rising on the green scale.
 
They may be fourth in being green but they are number one in employee suicides! (blows horn and throws confetti)...wait WHAT?!:eek:
 
Dwalls90 said:
I'm a little surprised they aren't already ahead of the pack ... their consumer outlook is very green, so their corporate practices must be poor.
Click to expand...

Greenpeace rating historically have been more about words and promises then actions. Apple is doing relatively well on the green front but is generally quiet on the advocacy side of that. Apple is ranked lower then it likely should be (relative to other companies) because Greenpeace wants Apple to be more vocal... it doesn't fully reflect the realities of what Apple is doing well.
 
TMar said:
Global warming can't be denied or man made global warming can't be denied?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. The same practices that contribute to man-made global warming (whether you believe it has an effect or not) also contribute to massive air pollution. It's in our best interests to curb said practices regardless of the impact on global warming that one believes it has.
 
I had this argument with an Apple-hater a few months ago claiming that Apple had no consumer recycling program whatsoever, but that Dell had some kinda community outreach recycling thing...

But it always seems to me, that people just don't toss out their old Apple products, even if it's for bizarre sentimental reasons. I still have a working iMac G3 700 MHz sitting around... It's not currently in use, but last I checked, it was usable. Whereas, I'm sure any 2000-era Dell or HP tower or lappy that anyone in my family ever owned has been in a landfill for years.

I know I'm making a huge generalization, but I just see people holding on to even non-working old iPods. Whereas other little gadgets of similar vintage were probably tossed out with no hesitation.

I'm not saying Apple deserves the "greenest" title. I'm sure every company could do more. But I'm guessing the above phenomenom isn't considered in the rankings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back