Al Gore is on the Apple BOD, doesn’t Greenpeace know that gives them a pass on environmental issues?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Greenpeace Gives Apple a B- in 'Guide to Greener Electronics'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sometimes Greenpeace lives me wanting to hurl due to their stupidity but if they can put pressure on apple and all manufactures, with regards to the right to repair, I'm all for it. The desire on the part fo manufactures to control their product after it has been sold to an individual is hilarious and frightening.
I'd imagine..Google has lots of data centers and they're not small.
but normal people repairing the screen will lead lead the to throwing away the screen into the landfill
apple will recycle the materials
[doublepost=1508258130][/doublepost]
screen was just an example. the point is that apple can recycle and reuse the materials better you or the third party repair services can. so the net waste in landfill is less if you let apple take care of the broken parts
[doublepost=1508258201][/doublepost]
same can be said about the repair shop. what do they do with the broken parts? not all repair shops would do the responsible thing and make sure the broken parts are recycled
I was one of those people, and I mostly was harping on Greenpeace for rating statements of "We will do this in the future, we promise" higher than actions already being done. The biggest change Apple has made is to tout it more publicly.
That said, Greenpeace is also praising Apple for avoiding PVCs, when the lack of PVCs are one of the reasons Apple's cables fray easier than other manufacturer's. That leads to waste. And that reminds me of their famous flip-flop on the use of cardboard packaging. Way back, they along with others were pushing McDonalds to ditch cardboard to protect the trees. Then it turns out that polystyrene is even worse (and more recently, we are finding out just how bad it can actually get with plastics), and pressured them to switch away from the polystyrene.
They aren't exactly a research-driven organization when it comes to the changes they want others to make. At least when it comes to making the right trade offs, or deciding if forcing people off a particular material might just make things worse in other ways.
I'm a higher life form. I have no time for stupid scavenger strategies.
Dung beetles can worry about dung.
I cannot understand why so many dislike Greenpeace. I can imagine they have done mistakes (like any organisation?) but aren't their existence more beneficial for humanity than not? I would think so.
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.
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'
I DON'T CARE!
Eh, has anyone really care about these people in the past 10 years? Come back when you have less gimmicky practices and a less annoying name and overall attitude, then maybe people will take you seriously.
[doublepost=1508285589][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1508285589][/doublepost]
They take an actually worthy cause and make it seem like a scam, turning people against it. We have people categorically voting against anything aimed at protecting the environment because of people like them.
Last edited:
Realistically, an iPhone lasts longer than any other smartphone, in part because of the long term support. Fairphone supposedly uses parts from a more environmentally-friendly supply chain, though.
Something about moralizing & self-aggrandizing organizations getting all preachy that's kind of a turn off.
These orgs seem to be more of a net drag on humanity.
'Just shutting up and leading by example' is a much stronger statement,
and avoids the typical hypocritical pitfalls of finger-pointing belief clubs.
I'm sorry, did you just not say Greenpeace changed their goals when research showed they were wrong? Or should Greenpeace somehow know the results before the scientists?
Fixed that for you
Preachy about important stuff that matter, yes. It's not like there's no substance to what they bring to the table.
Or what is it that they do that's so bad according to you – care to give some examples?
How many revolutions have you seen succeed by "shutting up and leading by example"?
If you don't like Greenpeace, there are hundreds of other organizations ready and willing to take your money in support of the worthy cause. But let me guess: there's something wrong with all of them? We don't have people categorically voting against the environment because of Greenpeace, we have people in denial and people refusing to act on their better knowledge. In this respect Greenpeace is irrelevant, I have to give you that.
The positive thing about all the comments on this thread is that these people know what they should do even if they fight tooth and nail against actually doing it.