Greenpeace Gives Apple a B- in 'Guide to Greener Electronics'

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
49,588
10,902



Greenpeace today published its Guide to Greener Electronics, which provides insight into the environmental practices of 17 major companies including Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, Samsung, and more.

Among all of the companies Greenpeace evaluated for energy, resource consumption, and chemicals, Apple received the second best marks, trailing behind only Fairphone, a device designed with minimal environmental impact in mind.


Apple was lauded for its commitment to renewable energy and reducing supply chain emissions and its efforts to be transparent about the chemicals that are used in its products.

According to Greenpeace, Apple is the only company to have set a renewable energy goal for its supply chain, and several of its suppliers have already committed to using 100 percent renewable energy.

Apple is also committed to renewable energy at its own facilities and is ultimately aiming for a closed-loop supply chain. As for chemicals, Apple is one of two companies (along with Google) that have eliminated all brominated flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride.

Apple's overall Greenpeace "grade" was a B-, but broken down, the company received an A- for the aforementioned environmental efforts, a B for chemicals, and a C for resources, due in large part to the lack of repairability of its devices and its use of proprietary parts.

Apple continues to design products with proprietary parts to limit access and actively lobbies against right to repair legislation in New York and Nebraska.

It is reported that Apple and Sony have blocked attempts to strengthen environmental electronics standards that would encourage device designs that are easier to repair, upgrade, and disassemble for recycling.
Greenpeace has previously targeted Apple in a repairability campaign to combat planned obsolescence, accusing Apple's difficult-to-repair devices of shortening device lifespan and leading to more electronic waste. Apple is not likely to make changes to the way its devices are manufactured to make them easier for third-parties to repair, but its efforts towards a closed-loop supply chain could eventually result in far less waste.

Earlier this year, in Greenpeace's annual green report, Apple was ranked the most environmentally friendly technology company in the world. That report focused on factors like energy transparency, energy efficiency, renewable energy commitment, and advocacy.

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Greenpeace Gives Apple a B- in 'Guide to Greener Electronics'
 

Juan007

macrumors 6502a
Jun 14, 2010
753
838
More like BS! Apple is basically number one, only topped by a socialist organization known as Fairphone (who has heard of them? how many phones do they sell?) and they only get a B-?!?

That's like saying Apple just cured cancer, they get a B- for innovation.
 

Cloudsurfer

macrumors 65816
Apr 12, 2007
1,297
332
Netherlands
More like BS! Apple is basically number one, only topped by a socialist organization known as Fairphone (who has heard of them? how many phones do they sell?) and they only get a B-?!?

That's like saying Apple just cured cancer, they get a B- for innovation.
It is a Dutch company (hence that's why I've heard of them) that produces modular phones, that can be easily upgraded to prolong its life. Last I heard though, they ran android and a pretty old version at that. You're better off buying an iPhone if you care about the environment.
 

Juan007

macrumors 6502a
Jun 14, 2010
753
838
It is a Dutch company (hence that's why I've heard of them) that produces modular phones, that can be easily upgraded to prolong its life. Last I heard though, they ran android and a pretty old version at that. You're better off buying an iPhone if you care about the environment.
Thanks for the heads up, interesting idea but it will fail. Phones are getting smaller and more integrated. Making them modular is a step backward, you simply cannot manufacture a phone like the iPhone 8 in modular form. It doesn't work, you'd have to double the size just to fit the connectors.
 

Dreamer2go

macrumors 6502a
Jun 23, 2007
650
238
More like BS! Apple is basically number one, only topped by a socialist organization known as Fairphone (who has heard of them? how many phones do they sell?) and they only get a B-?!?

That's like saying Apple just cured cancer, they get a B- for innovation.
lol why so angry?
They do have an issue with resource consumption though.
Anyways, such a "low" score can help motivate companies like Apple to improve. And as history tell us, Apple does tend to answer these environmental group's harsh criticisms and addresses it.
 

farewelwilliams

macrumors 68040
Jun 18, 2014
3,202
13,142
Well hold on for a second. If Apple has a recycling method (Liam?) to break down the products so that they can reuse the materials, why would there be a "repairability" score? Isn't it better if users let Apple recycle their phones?

Example:
Let's say the iPhone is super repairable. I break my phone's screen. So then I pop off the screen, THROW AWAY THE SCREEN INTO THE TRASH, and pop a new one in (as well as trash all the packaging that came with the new screen).

OR

I can dump the phone onto Apple and let them break it down. I'm sure they can figure out a use for my broken screen (melt down the glass maybe?) as well as all of the components.
 

Zaqfalcon

macrumors 6502
Mar 22, 2010
361
138
LOL where are the As? Greenpeace should not exist.
You don't get an A grade just because everybody else is worse than you; what kind of a quantitative system is that?
[doublepost=1508214666][/doublepost]
Well hold on for a second. If Apple has a recycling method (Liam?) to break down the products so that they can reuse the materials, why would there be a "repairability" score? Isn't it better if users let Apple recycle their phones?

Example:
Let's say the iPhone is super repairable. I break my phone's screen. So then I pop off the screen, THROW AWAY THE SCREEN INTO THE TRASH, and pop a new one in (as well as trash all the packaging that came with the new screen).

OR

I can dump the phone onto Apple and let them break it down. I'm sure they can figure out a use for my broken screen (melt down the glass maybe?) as well as all of the components.
Because repair and reuse are higher in the waste hierarchy than recycle.
 

Zaqfalcon

macrumors 6502
Mar 22, 2010
361
138
repair isn't part of the hierarchy, only reuse is.
apple can reuse/recycle the materials better than i can.
therefore, apple shouldn't get dinged because a user couldn't repair it.
Repair is considered one of the elements of minimisation as it takes less resources to recycle just the screen than the whole phone.
 

ThomasJL

macrumors 6502a
Oct 16, 2008
820
1,562
Despite Steve Jobs wisely choosing to act mostly apolitical, while Tim Cook chooses to act like a divisive and self-righteous SJW, Jobs was more environmentally friendly when it came to Macs having a longer usability life.

Under Jobs, all Macs had user-upgradable RAM and user-upgradable hard drives, both of which used industry standard connectors and form factors. Jobs wanted you to be able to buy the cheaper third-party RAM and hard drives so you won't have to shell out a lot of money on a new computer too soon.

Now, under Clueless Cook, on MacBook Pros, MacBooks, Mac Minis, and some iMacs, Apple uses soldered RAM which is impossible to replace. Apple's hard drives use proprietary connectors and form factors. Only limited third-party hard drives are available, for expensive prices because the connector and form factor are proprietary. Also, if you do replace the hard drive, your warranty (including AppleCare if you bought it) is voided.
 
Last edited:

Tech198

macrumors Pentium
Mar 21, 2011
15,058
1,956
Australia, Perth
This is like going back to school... even companies can't escape being "graded" :p

Despite Steve Jobs wisely choosing to act mostly apolitical, while Tim Cook chooses to act like a divisive self-righteous SJW, Jobs was more environmentally friendly when it came to Macs having a longer usability life.

Under Steve Jobs, all Macs had user-upgradable RAM and user-upgradable hard drives, both of which used industry standard connectors and form factors. Jobs wanted you to be able to buy the cheaper third-party drives and RAM that you can so you won't have to shell out a lot of money on a new computer too soon.

Now, under Cook, on MacBook Pros, MacBooks, Mac Minis, and some iMacs, Apple uses soldered RAM which is impossible to replace.
Gotta take the bad with the good in some cases. Tim has now flipped this upside down, and focus on renewable energy but at a cost of disposable devices.
 
Last edited:

goobot

macrumors 603
Jun 26, 2009
5,760
2,503
long island NY
Despite Steve Jobs wisely choosing to act mostly apolitical, while Tim Cook chooses to act like a divisive and self-righteous SJW, Jobs was more environmentally friendly when it came to Macs having a longer usability life.

Under Jobs, all Macs had user-upgradable RAM and user-upgradable hard drives, both of which used industry standard connectors and form factors. Jobs wanted you to be able to buy the cheaper third-party RAM and hard drives so you won't have to shell out a lot of money on a new computer too soon.

Now, under Clueless Cook, on MacBook Pros, MacBooks, Mac Minis, and some iMacs, Apple uses soldered RAM which is impossible to replace. Apple's hard drives use proprietary connectors. Only limited third-party hard drives are available, for expensive prices because the connector and form factor are proprietary. Also, if you do replace the hard drive, your warranty (including AppleCare if you bought it) is voided.
Apple would have done the same under Jobs. He removed user replaceable battery’s in both computers and phones and would have moved on to hardrives and ram too.
 

MH01

Suspended
Feb 11, 2008
12,107
9,298
Well according to they image, they are second highest and ahead of all the major companies. Title is kinda misleading , as a b- sees them as the top major company
 
  • Like
Reactions: ILikeAllOS

redheeler

macrumors 604
Oct 17, 2014
7,659
7,501
Well hold on for a second. If Apple has a recycling method (Liam?) to break down the products so that they can reuse the materials, why would there be a "repairability" score? Isn't it better if users let Apple recycle their phones?

Example:
Let's say the iPhone is super repairable. I break my phone's screen. So then I pop off the screen, THROW AWAY THE SCREEN INTO THE TRASH, and pop a new one in (as well as trash all the packaging that came with the new screen).

OR

I can dump the phone onto Apple and let them break it down. I'm sure they can figure out a use for my broken screen (melt down the glass maybe?) as well as all of the components.
Replacing the screen yourself and giving Apple the whole phone to recycle aren't the only options you know.

https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/screen-damage

Biggest downside is the price though. Why would I spend $170 on repairing my aging iPhone 6s Plus (which does actually have cracked screen glass), the same amount it costs to repair a brand new model with improved hardware? Makes no sense to me, except from Apple's point of view - to push people to upgrade instead of making the most of their older device.
 

M2M

macrumors 6502
Jan 12, 2009
348
488
Well hold on for a second. If Apple has a recycling method (Liam?) to break down the products so that they can reuse the materials, why would there be a "repairability" score? Isn't it better if users let Apple recycle their phones?

Example:
Let's say the iPhone is super repairable. I break my phone's screen. So then I pop off the screen, THROW AWAY THE SCREEN INTO THE TRASH, and pop a new one in (as well as trash all the packaging that came with the new screen).

OR

I can dump the phone onto Apple and let them break it down. I'm sure they can figure out a use for my broken screen (melt down the glass maybe?) as well as all of the components.
Making phones more easily reparable may be better for the environment , because even if apple has LIAM not all users may bring there broken phones to apple for recycling and just throw them in the trash. In case of easy repair they may just go to the next small shop in town to repair.
 

cult hero

macrumors 65816
Jun 6, 2005
1,025
788
Apple's environmental commitment is something I actually really applaud.

With that said, I really find their policy on repairs and some of their moves that I can only describe as "douchey" really annoying. The old unibody MacBook Pros were some of the easiest laptops to repair and keep alive. While I totally understand that some of the realities of miniaturization and power savings require certain compromises... there are things that make me just go, "You know, that's BS."

Case and point, gluing in the SSDs on the new MacBook Pros—at least the Touch Bar models. Clearly is totally unnecessary from a technical perspective because because it's not done on the non-Touch Bar models. So what now? Specialized repair shops and Apple Stores need special equipment to even read data if the logic board bites the dust? Pure douche move. The easiest way to extend the life of a machine is by upgrading the storage, period.

Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.

There's a reason recycle is LAST. The first two have a much greater environmental impact. (Not to mention a financial impact as well.)

Then fighting legislation on repairs? It really just seems hypocritical. I'm generally okay with most of Apple's business practices but this one always bothers me. It makes Apple's environmental commitment seem more like a selling point than anything ideological. I mean, it's still a net gain in my opinion, but two-faced. I'll take it over Amazon's, "Watch the world burn..." attitude though. lol
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.