Apple Launches New Environmental Publicity Initiative

[MacRumors]

BusinessWeek reports that Apple has launched an expanded environmental section of its website to offer extensive information on the company's green initiatives and provide a closer look at the environmental impact of its products over their complete life cycles, from raw materials to customer usage to recycling.

Apple, which has received criticism from environmental groups such as Greenpeace over its environmental impact, is hoping to change the way companies are judged on those issues to include actions instead of promises and to look at the full impact of both production and usage.

"A lot of companies publish how green their building is, but it doesn't matter if you're shipping millions of power-hungry products with toxic chemicals in them," says CEO Steve Jobs in an interview. "It's like asking a cigarette company how green their office is."

Apple notes that 53% of the company's greenhouse gas emissions comes from customer usage of its products, placing focus on its efforts to reduce power consumption through a variety of methods. Apple also notes that it is the only company in its industry to have its entire computer product line certified as Energy Star compliant.

The company is also highlighting extensive reports on the environmental impact of each model it sells , noting the reduction and elimination of a number of toxic chemicals from its products.

The company is disclosing new product information, as well as overall carbon emissions. Apple will document on the new Web site data that it ended the use of controversial polyvinyl chlorides (PVCs) and bromide flame retardants (BFRs) in its devices last year. HP and Dell had promised to do the same by 2009, but recently pushed that back. Apple is also going further and pushing suppliers to get rid of bromine and chlorine, the harmful ingredients in PVCs and BFRs.

Apple's increased willingness to share environmental information and changes to its practices have started to turn the tide in the eyes of several environmental groups. The Carbon Disclosure Project recently gave Apple a score of 73 out of 100 for the breadth and depth of its public disclosures, whereas the company scored only a rating of 7 in 2008.

Article Link: Apple Launches New Environmental Publicity Initiative

 

[iGod 2.0]

Apple always does a great job when it comes watching their impact to the environment. More companies need to get on the ball because this rock, for now atleast, is the only one we have to live on.

 

[zombitronic]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?

 

[chrisrh57]

it took a bit too long, but it looks like Apple now "gets it" and really wants to be a leader on this front. Congratulations are in order !!

 

[Hattig]

Also: 1 recycled liver.

 

[Kebabselector]

A lot of companies publish how green their building is, but it doesn't matter if you're shipping millions of power-hungry products with toxic chemicals in them

I wonder if that's a dig at a certain company who's just opened a big data centre in Ireland, with state of the art passive cooling etc.

 

[haraya]

Great!

Wow, this is really nice to hear. It's good that more companies are now thinking about the environmental impact of their products. I long for the day when Apple's computers start running on renewable energy. 🙂

 

[velocityg4]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?

Some people are tired of hearing about Environmentalism. And having "green" products shoved down our throats. So there is an automatic reflex to see anything to do with this concept as a negative. Especially when most Green products are a joke.

If you truly believe in the impact of these products on the environment and that you should do something about it. Then you should not use any of them at all.

Not as bad does not equal good. From a purely environmental standpoint anything you do that has more impact than a Deer or Wolf is bad.

Now I do believe in recycling as it makes sense. Why dig up more stuff when it can be re-utilized? But for global warming I have not seen compelling enough evidence that the temperature fluctuations are greater than what is natural. On other environmental issues my opinion varies.

 

[kinless]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?

I never vote + or - on these articles, but I suspect that any negative votes are directed more towards the extremist policies of these "environmental groups" that are basically strong-arming Apple to publicly expand on these types of programs (from a PR standpoint).

As Jobs once said, he's always had policies in effect, but not disclosing them got them in trouble by these activists. I personally think it's ridiculous. I'm all for Apple (or any company) genuinely doing what they can to reduce emissions, but having a bunch of wingnuts dictate that for you is lame.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Some people are tired of hearing about Environmentalism. And having "green" products shoved down our throats. So there is an automatic reflex to see anything to do with this concept as a negative. Especially when most Green products are a joke.

Agreed. I'm pretty tired of hearing about it. I guess I'm "part of the problem". Oh well, I guess just shoot me to save the planet.

Although, I am glad that when mountains of iPods and iPhones are burned in open pits by Chinese children looking for bits of gold, they will be exposed to fewer heavy metals and toxic chemicals.

Maybe they should stop using gold...

 

[remmy]

What would be better is if they made it easier for the customer to repair there product, for example being able to replace a battery in a ipod.

 

[UngratefulNinja]

Also: 1 recycled liver.

Post of the day! 😀

 

[ismash]

hilarious

Also: 1 recycled liver.

that's the smartest comment!😀

 

[adriaanmulder]

a

 

[notjustjay]

Although, I am glad that when mountains of iPods and iPhones are burned in open pits by Chinese children looking for bits of gold, they will be exposed to fewer heavy metals and toxic chemicals.

So, does it strike anyone else that we seem to be trying to solve the wrong problem?

 

[Schizoid]

Hi,

As you know, we're rapidly running out of 'big cat' names for our operating systems (Phil did suggest lynx, but my Atari Lynx broke in 1996 and I've never forgiven them.)

To this end, and to tie in with our new environmental initiative, we will now refer to our software by names of endangered animals starting with Mac OS X v10.7 Panda.

I'm sure you'll agree this is an excellent combination of savvy marketing and environmental awareness.

I look forward to Panda with great enthusiasm, and we're already working on Mac OS X v10.8 Gorilla

Steve

p.s. Our earlier idea of naming Mac OS X after internal organs has been shelved indefinitely.

 

[bruinsrme]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?

the by products of the devices we use and many companies sell are just plain nasty.
no matter how (not just ) Apple preaches green I call BS.
the prouct line up may be more green but its far from green, JMO

 

[gnasher729]

it took a bit too long, but it looks like Apple now "gets it" and really wants to be a leader on this front. Congratulations are in order !!

Actually, what Apple is "getting" now is that groups like Greenpeace don't give a damn how "green" you are, but only look at what promises you make. As an example, Greenpeace slammed Apple because HP had made promises to stop using certain unhealthy materials in their packaging by 2009, and Apple had not. The reality was that Apple hadn't been using those materials for years, so it never occurred to them that they should promise to stop using them. While HPs promises that made it Greenpeace's best friends were just that - promises.

The article quotes the "Carbon Disclosure Project", which also apparently doesn't rate companies by what they are doing, but by how loud the talk about it. So yes, Apple took very long to "get" that hot air is more important to some than cool and green computers.

What would be better is if they made it easier for the customer to repair there product, for example being able to replace a battery in a ipod.

One user replaced battery = one old battery thrown into the garbage can that starts rusting, leaking whatever stuff is inside, and causing massive pollution. One battery replaced by Apple = one old battery being recycled and being taken care of properly. Now we can discuss what is cheaper or easier for you in another thread, but Apple replacing the battery is certainly more environmentally friendly.

 

[Sweetfeld28]

Its a start. I think it is a definite improvement though.

 

[barkomatic]

I think any attempts to reduce toxic chemicals in products will have a negligible postive impact on the environment. With more affluent people able to afford all manner of products at the same time that the world wide population continues to rise the "environment" is basically doomed.

Is it better to have 1,000 more toxic laptops buried in a landfill or 100,000 slightly less toxic laptops?

There are too many people, ultimately too few resources, who will someday be crammed into too small a space.

 

[ghostface147]

While I applaud companies trying to go green, I find it funny how some other companies are talking about going green or having a green week. Whatever. They should be green all the time, no need for a special week or promotion.

 

[Peace]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?

I'll explain why. Jobs said " It's like a cigarette maker saying their building is green"..

90% of Macs are produced in China the number one greenhouse gas violator in the world.

 

[neiltc13]

Funny, they still ship their iPods in plastic boxes - how wasteful is that?!

 

[Eidorian]

Can someone who voted negative on this article please explain why?

You're looking a bit too much into it.

 

[Saladinos]

"environmental groups" that are basically strong-arming Apple to publicly expand on these types of programs (from a PR standpoint).

Do you read what you write? Using PR = not strong-arming.