I found this interesting comment on the making waves site - is it true. If it is then the commies at greenpeace need to stop bitching.
Greenpeace appears to have its facts in a muddle. I've studied the environmental performance of the leading companies and here is what I've found.
1. Apple is rated best in class in environmental performance for both portables and desktops by the US Environmental Protection Agency's EPEAT tool (
www.EPEAT.net). This tool is based on a 2006 IEEE standard for product environmental performance.
2. In August, Greenpeace conducted extensive tests on leading laptop brands to establish whether or not they were compliant with a European substance ban directive. Apple's laptops were subjected to more than one hundred tests and they were unequivocally found to be RoHS compliant. Note that Greenpeace has subsequently buried this report.
3. Greenpeace found 200 parts per million of TBBA (a harmless brominated flame retardant currently used by all manufacturers) in an Apple fan assembly. TBBA is not banned, and even if it were you would need to quadruple the quantity that was detected in the Apple fan assembly before it reached the European definition of concentration that are permitted for 'banned' substances.
4. HP's laptop failed the compliance test, and Greenpeace ranked HP as the top performer in their August score-card ranking.
5. Despite being ranked at the bottom of Greenpeaces scorecard, Apple is the only manufacturer to have commited to phasing out PVC and TBBA without qualifiers (i.e if economically viable)
6. Apple is the only manufacturer to have eliminated DecaBrome from all plastic parts.
From my research, I can only conclude that Greenpeace is targeting Apple because of the 60 million iPod customers out there. Pity, I used to have a lot of respect for Greenpeace.