Greenpeace Rates Apple 4th Worst Eco-Friendly Tech Business, Apple Responds

[mpstrex]

I'll agree that Apple is secretive, esp. for a company that is publicly traded. But it's because of trade secrets and "tipping" the hat to rival companies.

 

[bryanc]

30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.

Linky? But really, it doesn't matter. I'm quite sure that there was never a scientific consensus that an ice age was imminent, or that one may be caused by human actions. There are a lot of scientists in the world, so there will always be a few that hold significantly divergent opinions, and this is usually a good thing. There are only a few issues where a clear scientific consensus has been reached. The validity of evolutionary theory is one. That humans are affecting the climate is another.

I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor.

No I don't dispute that, but what you clearly don't get is that the amount of H2O(g) in the atmosphere is a function of temperature, and that H2O cycles in and out of a liquid state (mostly) independently from biological intervention. Carbon, in contrast, cycles between CO2(g) and reduced organic carbon compounds, in a biologically-dependent way (the only way for CO2(g) to be 'fixed' into reduced carbon compounds is through photosynthesis in plants). So as we cut down trees, and burn all the fossilized plant material (coal, oil, and other fossil fuels), we release massive quantities of CO2 that had been trapped over millions of years of photosynthesis, and simultaneously decimate the primary mechanism for pulling the CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

Very slight changes in temperature have significant effects on the solubility of carbonates in the ocean, so the mineralized CO2 is also released more quickly as the water heats up, and the photosynthetic plants in the ocean die as the pH goes down (due to build up of carbonic acid and its reaction products). This, of course, also increases the amount of H2O(g) that stays in the atmosphere.

The point is that the issue is not what the dominant gasses are, its which processes are acting as triggers that activate feedback loops increasing global temperature. Clearly, the combustion of fossil fuels is a major one.

It depends on which experts you ask. Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming. Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth.

However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false

You're simply incorrect here. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue (see this article, for example) and there has been for some time. The fact that scientists can almost never agree on anything should make this consensus even more compelling.

Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?

This is one of my pet peeves. Medical doctors are NOT scientists (although many of them think they are). They're engineers.

The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect.

I hope I've explained it well enough above. It *is* taken into account, but it's not something that is talked about in the media because it isn't something we directly affect. Our CO2 emissions increase the amount of water vapour indirectly, so the way to decrease the amount of water vapour is to decrease the amount of CO2.

worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.

Actually, Kyoto has not been ratified by the major CO2 emitters, and CO2 pollution continues to increase dramatically. However, even if we were to succeed in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, all the models predict that global warming would continue for quite a long time (centuries, probably) until the systems found a new equilibrium.

This is one of the reasons it's so pressing that we get this issue under control as quickly as possible. We don't know how badly we've damaged our system already, and we don't know how hard it will be to live with the effects we've already set in motion. If we haven't completely wrecked our planet (some of the models predict a 'run-away' green house effect, which would result in a planet like Venus, and the extinction of all life on earth), we may be able to survive the damage we've done, and we may even be able to gradually restore a better balance. But the first and most obvious step is to try to stop making it worse.

Thanks to political leaders like George Bush and Steven Harper (who, it might be relevant to note, believe their magical hero is about to come and take the faithful away Real Soon Now, and therefore don't give a damn about the long term survival of life on earth), it's getting harder, rather than easier, to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.

Cheers

 

[mpstrex]

I just find it odd that some of us would suddenly consider running out and buying a Dell because of this. That's crazy!

 

[mpstrex]

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html

http://michaelcrichton.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html

 

[bryanc]

Greenpeace are terrorists.

The only death's I can recall being associated with Greenpeace occurred when the French government illegally bombed and sank the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand, killing a journalist on board. So who's the terrorist?

Cheers

 

[bryanc]

Hey, if they correct this problem and be more environmentally friendly (which I hope they do) it will be just one more reason to be a proud mac user

This is the attitude that I hope Apple will take to this issue. Step up to the plate and be a leader. Accept the criticism, fix the problems, and be an example of how corporations can be good citizens and still be profitable.

I'd gladly pay more for my Macs if I knew they were being produced as sustainably as possible.

Cheers

 

[twoodcc]

well i'm not too concerned.....yet

 

[Spectrum]

Bigoted? ... I don't subscribe to hatred, but before you start labelling anyone who disagrees with your opinions and beliefs a bigot...

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from their own.

...and irresponsible...

In ethics, moral responsibility is primarily the responsibility related to actions and their consequences in social relations. It generally concerns the harm caused to an individual, a group or the entire society by the actions or inactions of another individual, group or entire society.

...think about how you're trying to stifle our freedoms of speech. Again, a few of those crossed the line, but I hope you aren't trying to stop us from talking.

Quite the opposite in fact. I would like everyone to keep talking. That way we can all learn a thing or two.
My problem with the list of comments is that they show no apparent reasoning or balance.
I have stated my position on selfishness and personal responsibility already:

People with selfish views harm ALL other people and the planet. By contrast, people with selfless views only harm those that are selfish. Thus, the fewer are the selfish, the better the world will become for the majority of the people.

 

[hayesk]

Wow, what BS in this thread.

People who lean toward environmentalism are labelling those who disagree with them as "fanboys".
People who are disagree with greenpeace are labelling others "pot smoking tree-huggers."

The way I see it is:
- Greenpeace judged Apple on their own set of criteria which is NOT the be all and end all of being environmentally responsible.
- Apple does a lot to be environmental
- Apple could do more for environmentalism
- Apple is nowhere near as bad as Greenpeace makes them out to be. They get no points for making long-lasting products, and others have not lost points for making "disposable" computers.
- Apple lost points for not giving them the information they wanted. If Greenpeace were truly objective, they wouldn't judge them on that category and admitted they didn't have the facts to judge properly. But greenpeace marked them down even though Apple has no obligation to give them information.

 

[bryanc]

The way I see it is:
- Greenpeace judged Apple on their own set of criteria which is NOT the be all and end all of being environmentally responsible.
- Apple does a lot to be environmental
- Apple could do more for environmentalism
- Apple is nowhere near as bad as Greenpeace makes them out to be. They get no points for making long-lasting products, and others have not lost points for making "disposable" computers.
- Apple lost points for not giving them the information they wanted. If Greenpeace were truly objective, they wouldn't judge them on that category and admitted they didn't have the facts to judge properly. But greenpeace marked them down even though Apple has no obligation to give them information.

Well said. I agree, although I would also like to see Apple take up the gauntlet, and say that, while some of these criticisms are not valid, others are, and we're going to change our practices to be better corporate citizens.

Then they could challenge their competitors to make similar changes, turning themselves into environmental champions and consumer favourites.

 

[Free2B]

BryanC:

Ok, you may be right in that a majority of scientists believe in global warming, but there is no "consensus". I would point you to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal by Dr. Lindzen of MIT, entitled "There is No 'Consensus' On Global Warming" from June 26, 2006. There he lays out evidence that runs very contradictory to the global warming theory.

As for evolutionary theory, that may also definitely be a majority, but also not a consensus. Behe's work on the lack of evolutionary explanation surrounding biochemistry throws many, many questions at evolutionists that they have yet to answer fully. (See "Darwin's Black Box".)

 

[fall3n]

How do we know this Greenpeace report is accurate?

Sometimes activist organizations will target big name companies just to get more attention.

Apple is more green than dell. period.

Makes me question the whole report if greenpeace thinks dell is more green then apple.

bunch of hewwie

my thoughts exactly. Though it may not be complete hewwie, Greenpeace dose tend to target large popular companies to gain attention. I'd like to see the actual reports, what categorizes one company from another, where they retrieved their information, etc.

I'm always skeptical about what Greenpeace has to say.

 

[nightotter]

When I first started reading this thread I thought the majority of posts would be anti-Greenpeace. Even though there are posts with their ‘gut feelings’ and wishes for ‘toe sucking’ and telling GP to ‘shove it’, I was glad to read a lot of intelligent and thoughtful comments as well. Kudos.

I am amazed that people would wish that Greenpeace mind their own business. Who would we rely on then? The EPA? The FDA? These are agencies run by federal government. And the government is tied to big business. How many scandals do we need to read about before we realize that independent groups like GP, radical though they may be, might just be saving lives?

And if they were gone, just maybe, all you people with ‘gut feelings’ or wishes for ‘GP to suck your toe’ will be saying one day, “Dude, what’s that toxic waste lapping up at my doorstep? I hope it doesn’t interfere with my wireless connection. I’m into some heavy World Of Warcraft and can’t be disturbed”

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

BryanC:

Ok, you may be right in that a majority of scientists believe in global warming, but there is no "consensus". I would point you to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal by Dr. Lindzen of MIT, entitled "There is No 'Consensus' On Global Warming" from June 26, 2006. There he lays out evidence that runs very contradictory to the global warming theory.

As for evolutionary theory, that may also definitely be a majority, but also not a consensus. Behe's work on the lack of evolutionary explanation surrounding biochemistry throws many, many questions at evolutionists that they have yet to answer fully. (See "Darwin's Black Box".)

Wall Street Journal is not a scientific peer reviewed journal. Never has been, never will been.

 

[bryanc]

BryanC:

As for evolutionary theory, that may also definitely be a majority, but also not a consensus. Behe's work on the lack of evolutionary explanation surrounding biochemistry throws many, many questions at evolutionists that they have yet to answer fully. (See "Darwin's Black Box".)

This is now way off topic, but I just can't leave this uncorrected. Behe's book was debunked in the scientific world over a decade ago. It's rubbish. It did, however, succeed in getting Mike Behe out of a dead-end research career and onto a lucrative lecture circuit funded by various creationist organizations with deep pockets. I'm sure he doesn't regret it for a second, but it has nothing to do with science anymore.

Unless you require an absolute 100% consensus, which will never occur on any non-trivial subject, there is a consensus on a few scientific issues. Evolution is probably a bad example, because the consensus is so complete and has been for so long, that it's really an exceptional case. Climate change is a much more recent issue, and one about which there is still lots of disagreement on the details, but there is a consensus on the generalities: the earth is getting warmer, and human activity is causing at least part of it.

And, for the record, I should say that I am not a climatologist, but I am a scientist and I do understand how the scientific community and processes work.

Cheers

 

[macidiot]

I try to have a low environmental footprint (sometimes I fail, but I try to be aware of when and why I fail) and I do hope Apple improve their game.

As one poster said above, the Apple board are on record as reccomending preventing the start of their computer recycling program. That kind of appalling head-in-the-sand-ism doesn't give me high hopes for their other green credentials.

I think the low rating is a combination of several things :

1. Apple stupidly refusing to release info that would improve their ratings.
2. Vast overpackaging on their products. Apple products typically come inside a white bleached box inside a white bleached box inside another white bleached box. Dell probably uses recycled unbleached cardboard for their packaging. To be honest, when I opened my powerbook packaging, while I appreciated its nice design, I was also staggered at what a waste of space and resources it was.
3. Maybe, possibly, the Greenpeace survey didn't take into account the lifespan length of Apple computers as being designed to last longer than similar PCs.
4. Millions upon millions of Ipods. Many overpackaged, and intended to be thrown away when the battery goes... (yes some people have replaced them, but it's not a designed feature)

I have sort of noticed that many 1960s hippies or ex-hippies have a very me-me-me attitude - they meditate, go to workshops, do nice things etc, and it's all to improve themselves. Rarely do they think about actually improving others or the world in general. That's one advantage that the post-hippies generation has - they have a better ecological awareness (if I can be so general.)

I'll put my flame-pants on now and wait for you to contradict me.

I don't know about you, but I thought that my iPod and MacBook Pro packaging was about the minimum they could use and still provide protection.

I agree about the boomers though. They are the biggest group of selfish, self-absorbed hypocrites the world has ever seen. They "recycle" with a holier than thou attitude while they drive around in school buses, er, SUV's.

It's pretty apparent now that the hippie movement was just an incredibly elaborate scheme to get laid.

 

[Free2B]

Understand WSJ isn't peer reviewed, it's just an editorial page. My point was that there are prominent scientists that don't accept the global warming theory at face value. And there is evidence that is conveniently ignored by the global warmists and the media which directly contradicts the theory.

 

[mpstrex]

Quite the opposite in fact. I would like everyone to keep talking. That way we can all learn a thing or two.
My problem with the list of comments is that they show no apparent reasoning or balance.
I have stated my position on selfishness and personal responsibility already:

Spectrum,

Tell us about your thoughts on people who don't subscribe to environmentalism, please? Or the people who vote conservative.

And greenpeace fits into this definition perfectly.

 

[macidiot]

Oh yeah? Please kindly explain to all of us just what the "real agenda" of these "evil groups" such as Greenpeace is...

With all due respect, are you asleep?

Greenpeace, along with PETA, are politically motivated, interested in power. And these groups often employ terrorist tactics, endangering, if not actually harming, people.

It's a common path that these groups have. Like MADD. Once you actually achieve some of your goals, what do you do? Especially after you've devoted a significant chunk of your life to it? Instead of moving on, they attempt to utilize their power to promote their agenda, which is often simply holding on to power, whether or not it relates to their original goals.

I'm not defending Apple here, I think they have more to do. But Greenpeace, along with those other freak groups, are hardly the voice of reason.

 

[macidiot]

I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?

Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
Edit: Added a couple more gems.
Edit: One more.

Your right. But that doesn't change the fact that Greenpeace is a sick joke.

 

[Free2B]

This is now way off topic, but I just can't leave this uncorrected. Behe's book was debunked in the scientific world over a decade ago. It's rubbish. It did, however, succeed in getting Mike Behe out of a dead-end research career and onto a lucrative lecture circuit funded by various creationist organizations with deep pockets. I'm sure he doesn't regret it for a second, but it has nothing to do with science anymore.

Unless you require an absolute 100% consensus, which will never occur on any non-trivial subject, there is a consensus on a few scientific issues. Evolution is probably a bad example, because the consensus is so complete and has been for so long, that it's really an exceptional case. Climate change is a much more recent issue, and one about which there is still lots of disagreement on the details, but there is a consensus on the generalities: the earth is getting warmer, and human activity is causing at least part of it.

And, for the record, I should say that I am not a climatologist, but I am a scientist and I do understand how the scientific community and processes work.

Cheers

OK, you are correct, this is way off topic. But I couldn't let your original statement go about it being a consensus. Yes, the definition of consensus is maybe up for debate. I just take exception to the fact when someone says there is a consensus, when there really isn't one.

Even so, I'm not sure exactly what you mean about the book being rubbish. I'm sure some people have shot it down. I thought the book made some very valid points regarding the intelligent design theory, which has nevertheless survived until today. Behe himself was not a creationist. Maybe he was trying to make a name for himself by calling into question the Darwinian theory. But his book helped spawn the ID theory which has been acknowledged by many scientists. The head of the human genome project is an ID proponent himself. There are plenty of others in the field as well. And there is still a debate which is ongoing.

 

[macidiot]

I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.

But, to get back on topic, I do think Apple should release well-documented information regarding what they are doing to reduce their environmental impact, and how they're going to change in the face of these criticisms.

Apple is supposed to be 'Different', and these challenges regarding the treatment of their labour force, and their environmental policies, should be viewed as opportunities to be a good example (and thereby earn more customer loyalty), rather than something to be spun and handled with PR.

Cheers

Gotta say, I didn't realize there were hundreds of thousands of climate researchers. I would have put the number in the thousands. If not hundreds.

But hey, if there are several hundred thousand climatologists, I really wouldn't be all that surprised if one of them read macrumors.

 

[Spectrum]

Spectrum,
Tell us about your thoughts on people who don't subscribe to environmentalism, please?

Hopefully, they are just misinformed about the consequences of their actions.

Or the people who vote conservative.

ditto

And greenpeace fits into this definition perfectly.

Now you've lost me...

 

[macidiot]

Interesting cyclical logic....heat makes the sun shine stronger....hmmmm. I think what you're trying to say is that methods for creating electricity put pollutants in the atmosphere, which is true.

So....should we just not heat our homes then? You first.

Even early man built fires to stay warm.

Good idea except for the fact that an open fire is incredibly bad for the environment.

Simple fact: burning any organic matter releases co2, or greenhouse gasses. Oil, plants, whatever. One of those little things that happens when the planet has carbon-based life.

 

[Spectrum]

OK, you are correct, this is way off topic. But I couldn't let your original statement go about it being a consensus. Yes, the definition of consensus is maybe up for debate. I just take exception to the fact when someone says there is a consensus, when there really isn't one.

Even so, I'm not sure exactly what you mean about the book being rubbish. I'm sure some people have shot it down. I thought the book made some very valid points regarding the intelligent design theory, which has nevertheless survived until today. Behe himself was not a creationist. Maybe he was trying to make a name for himself by calling into question the Darwinian theory. But his book helped spawn the ID theory which has been acknowledged by many scientists. The head of the human genome project is an ID proponent himself. There are plenty of others in the field as well. And there is still a debate which is ongoing.

Free2B: I'm a Molecular Biologist by trade. I can assure you that: Evolution by natural selection is a fact. Within the mainstream scientific community, there is no debate.