Apple Pulls Products from Environmental EPEAT Registry

[gnasher729]

...we see that corporations care more about profit than about the planet. This is a stupid shortsighted move by Apple, very disappointing. I haven't bought any new Apple products in a long time and am unlikely to do so. Apple...this is you being a bad neighbor, a bad part of the global community.

You would be right, except that you didn't actually read this article carefully. Certain Macintosh models will not be recyclable using just tools that you find in a DIY store. However, if you have a Macintosh that needs recycling, you just return it to Apple, and Apple surely has the right tools.

That's the only difference. Any Macintosh will be recycled if the owner can be bothered to return it to Apple. You don't even need to return it directly, you go to a website, fill in a form, and they send you a box to return it in.

<Some common sense>

You know they had to vote you down, didn't you? Can't have a reasonably argument interfere with people's rage.

 

[sazivad]

...What if Apple's reasoning is that all Macs should be returned back to Apple for recycling, and Apple themselves will disassemble the computer for proper recycling?...I don't think Apple is saying "screw recycling!", I think they're saying "it takes an special tools to recycle this MacBook, and while we will happily do that for you, we can no longer certify it with EPEAT."

I hope you're right.

 

[MuppetGate]

The trick is to bump up the processor and RAM to the next price point (not the highest that really breaks the bank) and you'll be set with that laptop for 5+ years.

Which is how most companies buy their laptops.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

It does if they recycle it. Which they do.

Another poster said (and I can't vouch for its accuracy) that by fusing the glass to the aluminum of the screen as is done in the iPad and MBPR, it becomes impossible to recycle.

 

[Giuly]

If you were to recycle those MacBooks, you could pry out the battery with standard tools, and the display is attached with Philips screws.

As LCD usually have a glass build-in, using that one as the front glass doesn't change anything in terms of recyclebility

That is, of course, if you define "recycling" as "taking it apart, then seperating the metal, plastic, glass, etc. and recycle those".
If you define it as "removing the LCD and battery from a broken MacBook and selling it on eBay", then you're SOL.

 

[MuppetGate]

i happen to live in a place thats about 3 hours flight from the nearest apple store. does that still apply?

What?

They don't need to land a plane at your house.

Go to the website, fill in the form.
Apple will send you a package.
Stick laptop in package.
Take package to post office.
Go home. Wait for Apple to grind your old machine into aluminium chips.
Job done.

and having to put something as big and heavy as an imac, mac pro (if apple still knows those two products) and a display dosent that kinda negate the environmental impact of recycling?

So what are you saying? People should 'upgrade' their displays now? What would that involve? Buying a new screen and trimming it to fit the existing casing?

 

[JohnDoe98]

Do you have a link somewhere that shows that removable batteries have higher failure rates than glued batteries? That gluing is better than using screws?

No I don't. But you'll note screws can get loose over time, allowing for the battery to start moving around in there.

 

[haravikk]

I suspect that Apple just wants all its unwanted kit returned to them.

If that were the case then it's still better for them to build machines that are semi-easy to disassemble, as glued components are no easier to take apart for Apple technicians than the average joe or a general purpose recycling centre worker.

Since everything's packed in so tight into Apple laptops it's hard to see glue is needed at all, some notches on the case, or spacers on whichever component goes in last (keyboard?) would be enough to hold everything in place. Clever use of spacers even has the added benefit that they can absorb heat for cooling systems to deal with.

 

[johncrab]

This is just another ISO scam. Back in the 90's EVERYTHING had to be ISO compliant and then the spec began changing almost weekly to force companies to re-certify under the revised spec. Then a cert made it impossible to change the font on the product label and even made it impossible to fix flaws when they were found. ISO died because everyone finally saw it for the scam it was. This is no different. I predict the spec will now shift to accommodate Apple because with a mega player like APple pulling out, they will start to lose others as well. They'll want Apple back. They'll bend.

Users who want Apple products will simply exempt them from this goofy requirement. You hate Wal-Mart but need a part for a lamp that is only sold there? You put on dark glasses and go to Wal-Mart to solve the problem. I'm glad Apple isn't going to waste its money certifying to this dumb spec.

 

[MuppetGate]

Another poster said (and I can't vouch for its accuracy) that by fusing the glass to the aluminum of the screen as is done in the iPad and MBPR, it becomes impossible to recycle.

I think 'accuracy' is part of the problem here. Again, fusing the glass to the aluminium would mean that it can't be dismantled without easily, which is one reason why Apple didn't submit this thing to the standards body.

But does this mean that that Apple can't recycle it if the machine is returned to them?

 

[AaronEdwards]

One major argument here is that Apple is going to do the recycle and that we shouldn't worry.

Does anyone making that argument actually know anything about Apple's recycling program?
Who, where, how, and then what?

 

[JohnDoe98]

If that were the case then it's still better for them to build machines that are semi-easy to disassemble, as glued components are no easier to take apart for Apple technicians than the average joe or a general purpose recycling centre worker.

Since everything's packed in so tight into Apple laptops it's hard to see glue is needed at all, some notches on the case, or spacers on whichever component goes in last (keyboard?) would be enough to hold everything in place. Clever use of spacers even has the added benefit that they can absorb heat for cooling systems to deal with.

Let's think the gluing situation through for a moment. Let's ask, why did Apple glue the batteries? Hypothesis 1: it is cheaper. Gluing the batteries in place is cheaper than screwing them into place.

So far so good. But let's keep thinking. When it comes time to actually service the battery, what is more expensive, having the Genius unscrew the battery and pop a new one in, or sending the entire case in to Apple's service depot, necessitating them to remove it with expensive equipment? Clearly, when it comes to servicing the machine, it is much cheaper to use screws. Any cost savings in using glue over screws is lost at the time of servicing the units. So why did Apple actually glue the darn batteries in? It seems to me hypothesis 1 cannot possibly be right and there were carefully thought out design reasons for going with glue. I already suggested some such reasons in an earlier post.

 

[MuppetGate]

If that were the case then it's still better for them to build machines that are semi-easy to disassemble, as glued components are no easier to take apart for Apple technicians than the average joe or a general purpose recycling centre worker.

Well, it doesn't have to be easy. It just has to get done. Since Apple is offering replacement batteries for the Macbook Retina then I assume that they have a way of removing them. If the machine can be recycled by the average joe, then how do you know that the average joe will do it properly. He could just take the machine apart and dump the battery in the bin.

Since everything's packed in so tight into Apple laptops it's hard to see glue is needed at all, some notches on the case, or spacers on whichever component goes in last (keyboard?) would be enough to hold everything in place. Clever use of spacers even has the added benefit that they can absorb heat for cooling systems to deal with.

Mmm. I don't think I'd be comfortable with a laptop where the components weren't securely fastened down. Far too easy to damage.

 

[JohnDoe98]

One major argument here is that Apple is going to do the recycle and that we shouldn't worry.

Does anyone making that argument actually know anything about Apple's recycling program?
Who, where, how, and then what?

Do you know those details regarding any recycling program? The typical users just takes for granted any recycling is better than none, in terms of environmental impact.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Apple is neither environmentally conscious nor greedy.

Apple is about making amazing products. Everything else is secondary. Aluminum and glass look great together. They happen to be easy to recycle. Therefor, for a few years, Apple's products were easy to recycle. Greenpeace was slamming on Apple for not having recyclable products, so Apple took the easy step of spending a minute in their keynote pointing out "No, you're full of crap, our products are highly recyclable."

If Apple is heading into a direction where their products are no longer recyclable, oh well. I always either hold onto my old Macs and give them odd tasks (IE, I have a G4 tower that acts as a media player in my entertainment center,) or I sell them to make a little of the money I spent on them back.

 

[MuppetGate]

Mmm. I don't think I'd be comfortable with a laptop where the components weren't securely fastened down. Far too easy to damage.

But that doesn't mean they shouldn't use screws and brackets.

 

[AaronEdwards]

Do you know those details regarding any recycling program? The typical users just takes for granted any recycling is better than none, in terms of environmental impact.

EPEAT states that products should by easily be disassembled with common tools.

Apple can no longer fulfill that and people are arguing that it's not a problem since Apple is doing it themselves.

And that's why I'm asking if anyone knows anything about Apple's own program to recycle.

 

[JohnDoe98]

But that doesn't mean they shouldn't use screws and brackets.

So what's your hypothesis, why did they use glue?

 

[MuppetGate]

Do you know those details regarding any recycling program? The typical users just takes for granted any recycling is better than none, in terms of environmental impact.

Good point. But do we know anything about any recycling programme? Just because the machine is easy to dismantle doesn't necessarily mean that the parts are disposed of properly.

But yes, I am making the assumption that Apple's recycling program is genuine.

 

[JohnDoe98]

EPEAT states that products should by easily be disassembled with common tools.

Apple can no longer fulfill that and people are arguing that it's not a problem since Apple is doing it themselves.

And that's why I'm asking if anyone knows anything about Apple's own program to recycle.

I understand that, what I don't understand is why that condition is there. What difference does it makes if the product can only be disassembled with uncommon tools? Yes less plants can recycle the machine. Fine. But if we are asking "how recyclable is the machine?", then so long as there is one place that can do the recycling, and so long as there is a program in place that makes it easy to get the laptops to that location, it seems to me nothing has changed in terms of the machine's environmental impact.

All Apple has to do is further advertise their recycling program. After all they give you a gift card when you return old products to them.

----------

Good point. But do we know anything about any recycling programme? Just because the machine is easy to dismantle doesn't necessarily mean that the parts are disposed of properly.

But yes, I am making the assumption that Apple's recycling program is genuine.

Same. And their plants obviously don't give a crap if the screws are atypical, or if they need to defuse the screens and unglue the batteries. So the fact that the EPEAT Registry requires that seems pretty arbitrary to me. If Apple didn't have a recycling program I could understand the complaint, as it is, I'm finding it hard to appreciate those conditions in the EPEAT certification.

 

[MuppetGate]

So what's your hypothesis, why did they use glue?

Mmm. A couple of possibilities:

By using glue they can shave the odd millimetre from the size of the machine.

If you use screws then people will either attempt to replace the battery themselves or take it to some back street dealer and have it done cheap, which can lead to this:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3602097/ao-2011-149_final.pdf

The technical examinations found that a small metal screw had been misplaced in the battery bay of the mobile telephone; the screw puncturing the battery casing and causing an internal short circuit leading to heating and thermal runaway. It was probable that the screw had been misplaced during an earlier repair carried out on the telephone. That repair had not been conducted by an authorised service provider.
This investigation highlights the risks associated with the use of non-authorised agents for the repair of lithium battery-powered devices, and reinforces the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) recommendations that these devices should be carried in the cabin and not in checked- in baggage.

 

[AaronEdwards]

I understand that, what I don't understand is why that condition is there. What difference does it makes if the product can only be disassembled with uncommon tools? Yes less plants can recycle the machine. Fine. But if we are asking "how recyclable is the machine?", then so long as there is one place that can do the recycling, and so long as there is a program in place that makes it easy to get the laptops to that location, it seems to me nothing has changed in terms of the machine's environmental impact.

All Apple has to do is further advertise their recycling program. After they give you a gift card when you return old products to them.

If only company X is able to recycle their own products then what happens if company X ends up going out of business (rather unlikely in this case), decides to stop recycling their old products, or changes their recycling process into something worse?

What happens if a product from company X ends up at a recycling plant that can't disassemble those products?

 

[JohnDoe98]

One major argument here is that Apple is going to do the recycle and that we shouldn't worry.

Does anyone making that argument actually know anything about Apple's recycling program?
Who, where, how, and then what?

As per Apple's website:

Responsible recycling.
All e-waste collected by Apple-controlled voluntary and regulatory programs worldwide is processed in the region in which it was collected. Nothing is shipped overseas for recycling or disposal. Our recyclers must comply with all applicable health and safety laws, and Apple does not allow the use of prison labor at any stage of the recycling process. Nor do we allow the disposal of hazardous electronic waste in solid-waste landfills or incinerators.

Source:

http://www.apple.com/environment/

 

[nagromme]

So when Apple takes these back for recycling, do they give an evil laugh and chuck them in a landfill, or do they recycle them WITHOUT common tools?

If the latter, that’s just obvious and I’m OK with it. EPEAT is a worthy effort that Apple can’t participate in for reasons which bring actual benefits. Those benefits are worth it IF and only IF the products are still recyclable by non-EPEAT means.

What matters to me (even more than being being thin and light) is recyclability. Does it have to be EPEAT-certified recyclability? That I care much less about—a good thing, yes, but maybe not a necessary thing.

And if Apple stuff starts to sell well then even non-Apple recycling companies will increasingly obtain the “non-common” tools to dismantle them more fully. The problem IS solvable.

I also care a lot about how long Macs last and stay useful, compared to the steady churn of PCs getting landfilled or (occasionally) recycled. None of my Macs have ever died, and even the ones with weak batteries from the 90s still run great on wall power.

 

[gnasher729]

One major argument here is that Apple is going to do the recycle and that we shouldn't worry.

Does anyone making that argument actually know anything about Apple's recycling program?
Who, where, how, and then what?

Go to the apple store website and enter "recycling" into the search box.

If only company X is able to recycle their own products then what happens if company X ends up going out of business (rather unlikely in this case), decides to stop recycling their old products, or changes their recycling process into something worse?

What happens if a product from company X ends up at a recycling plant that can't disassemble those products?

When Apple goes out of business, decides to stop recycling their old products, or makes their recycling process worse, you ought to complain here very loudly and will be rightfully applauded for your complaint. But I can't see any reason to assume that would be happening.

And let's say Dell has a place that recycles a million Dell computers, and they receive a stray Retina MBP. Common sense would be that they wait until they have a truckful of Macs, and then they send them all to Apple. And Apple does the same thing if they have a decent amount of Macs. More likely, they make use of the same recycling company which has they right tools for both companies.

And for a bit more common sense: Apple may use some non-common screws in places, which is the problem with EPEAT. But you don't really need to recycle the screws. They are tiny. So a recycler might, instead of unscrewing the screws which takes time, just drill them out.