Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple doesn't give a damn what Greenpeace thinks. If Apple is environmentally friendly, then it is because Apple wants to, not because of Greenpeace. If Apple could be environmentally friendly and hide it from Greenpeace so that these guys suffocate from the foaming of their mouths, they would do it. It is well known that Greenpeace started ripping on Apple when Apple refused to give them any donations.

Perfect example in the article: Apple uses solar power for their data centre. Greenpeace complains about a "lack of a stated advocacy policy for clean energy". According to Greenpeace, blowing hot air is the only thing that is green.


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...

Apple will actually give you cash for an old iPod when you buy a new one. And you can return your used computer to them.
 
Last edited:
Go to any computer/e-waste yard and look at how many generic beige towers and old Dell/HP/Compaq/etc. machines there are.

How many Macs do you see?

In the time that I've had my MacBook Pro, my dad has purchased *four* PC towers because each got too slow/bloated for his purposes, and hey, they were cheap.

So are we really looking at environmental friendliness on equal footing here? Even if one Apple was a bit less "clean" to produce than one equivalent PC, are we taking into account that (a) for market share reasons alone, there are at least 10 times more PCs being made, and (b) for the lifespan of one Mac, multiple PCs get purchased in the equivalent timeframe?
 
Dell still makes computers?

Not surprised by the jump from Apple. The last few presentations by Jobs focused a lot about their products being greener. Also, using glass and aluminum instead of plastic makes a big difference.
 
Greenpeace is like the majority of "groups" these days promoting something. They use high-profile tactics as a way to garner media attention and just point fingers. Peta is another group of a similar thought process.

You can even through in the two majority political parties in the United States too. Heck, throw in any number of religious fanatical groups …do what I say not as I do.


That aside, I have read about this before and saw the "you don't promote all the green stuff you do so we won't give you a high mark" but let's face it, we as a society are using lots more electric for many reasons. Electric clocks/TV boxes/kitchen gadgets that are always plugged in or have lights.
If it makes you feel better to help a company high on the list or to think this list is about actual numbers great.
 
The irony of the "green movement"....They want to reduce C02, yet increased C02 results in faster plant growth and increased vegetation...It is an easily proven fact that C02 increases plant growth...In reality if they were really "green" they would want more C02...lol
 
It depends on how you generate the electricity used for processing, you focus on fixing / cleaning that and the rest follows. Aluminum is a great material for recycling as is glass, etc. but those do take energy to reprocess.

Also don't ignore the energy, natural resources, and chemicals, etc. needed to make other materials that you may think (using some arbitrary measure) are better then something like aluminum.

Yep. That's why I mentioned the "footprint" which includes this kind of data. Now, Apple does not produce one singe unit of electronics. We know that. Now, tell me how harsh Chinese environmental laws are and show me that the companies Apple contracts do use any recycling metals at all and I buy in your argument. Reality is different: If you look deeper into it, you will see how in China the environment suffers from pollution etc. for their booming industry - amongst that the aluminum industry. I have seen several reports but I didn't look for it right now (sorry - if you are interested to find it, use Yahoo or Google etc).

And with your argument about electricity: China has the highest amount of coal power plants and is still building them for the emerging industry. So, get your facts before you argue ;)
 
And with your argument about electricity: China has the highest amount of coal power plants and is still building them for the emerging industry. So, get your facts before you argue ;)
Did I say anything about current production realities? I clearly said the issue isn't really aluminum but on the energy generation side of things. That was my point...
 
Apple use solar farms

Yea for their offices... not the outsourced production. Not everything is that simple.

----------

Did I say anything about the production? I clearly said the issue isn't aluminum but the energy generation side of things for that. That was my point...

EXACTLY! Aluminum itself doesn't "consume" electricity. The PRODUCTION of aluminum uses tons of water and electricity. And electricity in China usually comes from coal power plants. Remember the Olympics? They had to forbid the industry to run so that the air is somewhat bearable for visitors...

Edit:

World:
aboutus5-1.jpg


China:
pic1.gif


Oh and their Hydro-power comes from dams which are sometimes detrimental to the environment even though the energy does then not affect the CO2 levels.
 
Last edited:
WESTERN companies rank FIRST while ASIAN companies rank LAST in this chart

WESTERN companies rank FIRST while ASIAN companies rank LAST for respecting the environment (exception of RIM)
 
WESTERN companies rank FIRST while ASIAN companies rank LAST for respecting the environment (exception of RIM)

And herein lays the problem: WESTERN companies let other ASIAN companies produce their goods. Like my blood diamonds come from the jeweler at the mall. He didn't kill someone to get them either. So, everything is okay. (I know, that is a little graphic and blood diamonds are not supposed to be on the market anymore, thanks to the De Beers monopoly).
 
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.

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.

Yes and no. I do agree that Greenpeace likes a vocal advocate of being green and IMO that really shouldn't count against a company, however that's not the only thing that holds Apple back.

Apple has just recently started to focus on having their datacenters being powered by renewable energy sources. Greenpeace has previously pointed out that major datacenters of other companies like Google (not on this survey) have been powered by renewable energy. Apple is only very recently looking to build a solar plant for their NC datacenter... a datacenter has been under construction for years. Apparently the news of Apple's solar farm was so new that it didn't figure into Greenpeace's rating, so that should give Apple an additional boost next go-round.

In the end, while I am not a supporter of everything that greenpeace does, I don't think there can be any denying that it has been largely due to their pressure that we have seen Apple really focus on being more environmentally friendly these past few years; for that, I give them kudos.
 
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

Huh? Aluminum is the 3rd most abundant element on the planet (just behind oxygen and silicon). It's the most common metal and unlike your Saran Wrap, it can be recycled almost indefinitely.
 
Apple got low marks in the "Use of Recycled Plastics in Products" category.... but alot of Apple products don't use that much plastic or how much unnecessary material they use per product.



.
 
Coupled with that, we know our current warming trend is unprecedented
disease
less polar ice

It's been cooling for 15 years.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/11/...g-trend-of-15-years-continues-37-degrees.html

Malaria rate is down

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/234593.php
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14685612

Arctic ice is increasing

Arctic sea ice extent increased rapidly through October. Ice extent during October 2011 increased at an average rate of 114,900 square kilometers (44,360 square miles) per day, about 40% faster than the average growth rate for October 1979 to 2000. On October 30, Arctic sea ice extent was 8.41 million square kilometers (3.25 million square miles), 226,000 square kilometers (87,300 square miles) more than the ice extent on October 30, 2007, the lowest extent on that date in the satellite record.
 
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.

The IR absorption of CO2 is lower than the IR absorption of water vapor. Or, for you non-scientists, this means that clouds have more impact than CO2. Further, a very large portion of the atmosphere is clouds, while a tiny fraction of it is CO2. The variability in the amount of cloud cover is completely out of control of man, and several orders of magnitude more impactful than CO2. This disproves the core of global warming theory.

The claim of "Global Warming" is that at some point we might run into a runaway greenhouse effect. But the reality is, both CO2 and temperature, have been much higher in the past than they are reasonably projected to get now, without this greenhouse effect showing up. Notably CO2 has been higher by orders of magnitude more than the "scare" numbers they're screaming about, in the distant past, before the wheel was invented, without negative effect. Global Warming is disproven by history as well.


Coupled with that, we know our current warming trend is unprecedented

This is a flat out lie. The planet has been getting warmer and cooler in every ice age cycle as far back as people can measure. Further, it has been doing this with every sun cycle as well.

Since we recently came off of a solar maximum, for the last several years the planet has been getting cooler. Despite this, over the very same time period, these same tinfoil hat types have been screaming that CO2 is rising faster than ever! You know what? That right there disproves their theory, once again. CO2 UP, global temperature Down. (which is why they call it "climate change" now, but that's even more absurd since that's just another term for "weather".)

We also know much of the harm that warming causes, and will continue to cause (from melting glaciers

You know how much harm has come from melting glaciers? Really? Based on what study? Can you point to a single study of the net growth or decline in glacier sizes across the globe?

You can't, because there is no such study. There are millions of glaciers in the planet-- in fact, so many, that nobody knows how many there are. Nobody has ever counted them all, let alone measured whether they are melting or not.

All talk about glaciers melting due to "global warming" is anecdotal. But Glaciers melt and grow every year and whether they gain or lose year to year is certainly dependent on weather patterns, so in order to make a claim about a global effect, you'd have to study all of them.

As the glacier example, and your ignorance of the effect of cloud cover, shows, the proponents of global warming are not basing their opinions on science. They are basing it on anecdotes and aspirations.

Global Warming is a political movement perpetrating a scientific hoax in order to gain political control over industries.

The socialists a century ago used the claim that they were protecting the workers in order to install socialist and communist and fascist regimes around the world. Of course, as we can see today in North Korea and in the past in the USSR, these "workers paradises" are anything but.

That dog don't hunt anymore.

So, they're ginning up a fake crisis in the name of "global warming" to try and take over industries exactly the same way.

Anyone, with any scientific knowledge, who looks into this, doesn't buy it. Disproving global warming is trivial: The IR absorption of CO2 is less than water vapor. Cloud cover has hundreds of thousands of times the impact on global temperature than "greenhouse" gasses.

This is why, rather than trying to convince people... these scientifically ignorant hoaxers always take the position that its "settled science" and anyone who points to scientific fact is a "denier". Even their fake term "greenhouse gases" implies the existence of a greenhouse effect that is proven to not have happened (otherwise the planet would have become uninhabitable millions of years ago.)

Anyone perpetrating the Climate change hoax is not to be taken seriously. And when you find them, if you challenge them on the science, you'll find they don't have any. All they can do is link to propaganda sites and their "authorities" are politicians with a vested interest.
 
Greenpeace is like the majority of "groups" these days promoting something. They use high-profile tactics as a way to garner media attention and just point fingers.

Its worse than that, the attention is just a side effect.

The real thing greenpeace is after is money. This is a shakedown racket.

They go around "rating" companies, and at the same time hitting them up for donations. Of course, if you give money to greenpeace, you're helping the environment, right?

Ralph Nader became a millionaire using this tactic.

----------

98% of scientists agree with him/her.

No, they don't.

I think its really profoundly anti-intellectual that the proponents of this hoax respond to anyone who brings up the science of the situation with the claim that "all the scientists agree with global warming" or by just calling people names like "denier".

If your position had a scientific basis, you could defend it with science, rather than a logical fallacy of appeal to authority when the authority in question is non-existent (e.g.: there is no pledge that %98 of scientists have signed stating their agreement.)

In short, you're lying.
 
Uh... not so much....

I always find it ironic that the same people screaming about the evils of global warming and the need for technology companies to become more "green" A.S.A.P. to offset it are relying on COMPUTER models for most of their collection and analysis of data and predictions, including climate change models and simulations.

GreenPeace is an extremist group (yes, like P.E.T.A. or the National Humane Society) who preys on people's guilt and genuine desire to do good, and turns it into a ridiculous crusade.

Much of what allowed Apple to go from the bottom of their charts to such a relatively high ranking was simply a choice to build Apple computers with a lot of aluminum and glass instead of plastic. What *real* environmental impact does that have for all of us? I'd argue nobody is really sure, at best. Sure, plastics are made from crude oil so they're "bad" in that respect. On the flip-side though, we're learning how to recycle plastics these days, just like we do more traditionally "recyclable" materials. Plastics are also relatively light-weight, meaning it consumes less energy transporting products made from it than from heavier materials. Meanwhile, although you CAN recycle glass, it's made from sand -- which nobody has ever been concerned about shortages of! It probably consumes more energy running blast furnaces to create and shape glass than any supposed environmental benefits obtained by using such a "recyclable" material, and even more energy usage if you're really going to collect the old glass up and transport it to some facility to re-use it.

At some point, you simply get diminishing returns. You can't make circuit boards full of electronic components without involving some materials that are pretty environmentally unfriendly. When safer alternatives were available, they've already been used in most cases (such as going with lead-free solder).


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.
 

Now the only problem is that CO2 and heat absorption is absolutely irrelevant in the discussion about global warming. It is the infrared trapping by reflecting IR waves back to earth at night time and the reflection during daytime from sunlight hitting earth. That is similar to the Ozone layer but with IR instead of UV (keeping in mind that a lot of the spectrum of waves gets transformed into IR on earth).

And about the glaciers... If you live in Europe, virtually all glaciers are constantly monitored over more than 100 years - and even if we had 7 warm years, the permafrost alpine mountains are melting first time inside. How do we know it is first time? Because they fall apart when that happens and occasionally kill people. But that is not the big problem. The big problem is that the ocean level is rising to record heights. Also no problem unless you live in the Florida keys, the Netherlands, or Polynesia. Problem is: People live there...

Other indicator: First time since human records, there is an ice free passage over northers Russia. That was a few weeks ago - not 8 years.

I could go on an on but I think you won't get my point because you don't want to get it. Yes, there were times with higher CO2 concentration. That was before significant animal life. That carbon is bound in fossil fuels now and we burn it everyday back into the atmosphere.
 
The IR absorption of CO2 is lower than the IR absorption of water vapor. Or, for you non-scientists, this means that clouds have more impact than CO2. Further, a very large portion of the atmosphere is clouds, while a tiny fraction of it is CO2. The variability in the amount of cloud cover is completely out of control of man, and several orders of magnitude more impactful than CO2. This disproves the core of global warming theory.

Yes it really should be called "Global Climate Energization" not warming.

After all as CO2 and other green house gases reduce the ability of warm Earth to radiate IR into the inky blackness of space so the planet relies more and more on moving energy to the upper atmosphere where it can still radiate. That does mean more energy driving the atmosphere and it weather patterns, but it's not like high energy weather events are a problem to industry or anyone they certainly don't do crazy stuff like wipe out whole cities in a weekend. :D
 
No, they don't.

I think its really profoundly anti-intellectual that the proponents of this hoax respond to anyone who brings up the science of the situation with the claim that "all the scientists agree with global warming" or by just calling people names like "denier".

If your position had a scientific basis, you could defend it with science, rather than a logical fallacy of appeal to authority when the authority in question is non-existent (e.g.: there is no pledge that %98 of scientists have signed stating their agreement.)

In short, you're lying.

Don't try to obfuscate reality and science for a political agenda.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/evidence-for-a-consensus-on-climate-change/
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.