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 Rates Apple 4th Worst Eco-Friendly Tech Business, Apple Responds
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
redkamel said:
Well said, but to me, the way to address overpopulation is to increase overall education and wealth. Affluent, well-educated people do not have many children. To the contrary, they actually have a negative growth rate.
Oh, and get rid of the Catholic church. They love making babies with no regards to the consequences
Greenpeace's criticism of Apple bothers me far less than the amount of anti-Greenpeace, anti-environmentalism I'm reading here.
Since when have Mac users become reactionary corporatists? Is this what owning a Mac means today: to hell with the environment, we're pro-business, anti-consumer, extremists?
Almost makes one what to embrace Windows -- but not quite.
Since when have Mac users become reactionary corporatists? Is this what owning a Mac means today: to hell with the environment, we're pro-business, anti-consumer, extremists?
Almost makes one what to embrace Windows -- but not quite.
Spectrum said:
You just made my point: "within the mainstream". But there are few fringe crazies
out there that don't buy it. As for evolution, I can believe a finch's beak can change size based on environmental/food supply changes. But to believe that my legs were one time fins....billions of years ago, of course (no debate on age of the earth). I just can't get there. It's like some fantastic sci fi book in my mind. And I love sci fi. Trained as an aerospace engineer, no less.As for global warming--yes, the higher production of CO2 tends to have a warming effect on the earth. But there are many factors that affect the earth's weather patterns, and to alarmingly proclaim that we are destroying the earth is irresponsible. But GP's agenda is to use the threat of global warming to make us all think the we are somehow going to destroy the planet we live on and life as we know it. They use this alarmist threat to further their overall political agenda. Hey, I love this earth. I love the beauty of trees, mountains, lakes, animals, you name it. I don't believe we should go around "destroying" things. But I also think some fringe groups have gone overboard and are exploiting the fear of global warming.
Does Apple need to be criticized for their environmental policies? I thought they were doing a pretty good job--maybe they can do a better one. I'm sure they will do the right thing.
I just want to know when I will get to buy that real video iPod!!!
(Ohhhh, I'm so wasteful...bad, bad, capitalist!!)
numediaman said:
Anti-GP, yes. I love the environment, but think GP takes it too far.
I have always been a Mac user, and I'm also a "corporatist". Definitely pro-business, but pro-consumer as well. I've owned Apple computers all my life and I hate Microsoft. But that's the beauty of capitalism. Consumers "vote" with their dollars. I can't stand that Windows dominates and I hope that trend reverses, but it only will if the market chooses it. And I'm sure there are plenty of other conservative Mac lovers out there.
However hard to fathom, without a shadow of a doubt, everything we know of as today evolved from something of far more simple form, which at the time fitted perfectly within its environment, just as everything does now. What I think is difficult to appreciate is the immense time-scales that evolution has in order to achieve such apparently massive changes. If you were able to see evolution occur in real-time, or even within recent history, I'm sure it would make the process far easier to comprehend.Free2B said:You just made my point: "within the mainstream". But there are few fringe crazies
Greenpeace and other groups serve a great purpose in simply bringing these issues to the forefront. If these groups did not exist, do you think the world would be a better, worse, or just a less informed place? By the way: Are you afraid of global warming? Bear in mind what I just pointed out about the desperately slow speed of evolution...The dinosaurs didn't make it - and these were by far the single most successful animal group to ever grace the planet - they lived for millennia!. What says that we will...Free2B said:
Why are you sure? Because you think they have morals? Responsibilities? Apple only cares about their shareholder's bottom line. They'll do the right thing if it's in the best interest of the company. That's why you, and I, and all of us have to put pressure on companies (and governments). They have no incentive to change otherwise.Free2B said:
Not at all. But, buying for the sake of buying, or trashing goods that still do their job perfectly well, just to get a new model, is not a good environmental choice.Free2B said:I just want to know when I will get to buy that real video iPod!!!
(Ohhhh, I'm so wasteful...bad, bad, capitalist!!)
Spectrum,
Do you ever wonder what the consequences of the left are? I mean, Canada recently went Conservative, France is broke and at the will of the far left, the UK, Canada and France's universal health care costs its citizens on the left nearly half of their income in taxes AND it's still seeing its doctors flee to America and watch as the strain of its people's medical needs are bankrupting it?
Or maybe the people who burn homes and SUVs "for the environment?' They seem to put out a lot of pollution burning Hummer H2s in Covina, CA, some estimating more than what the H2s would've put out in emissions. Or those who say this: "Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." - Ingrid Newkirk, Prez of PETA.
The more I think about it, the more I realize, the environmental movement reminds me of my fundamentalist Chrisitan Aunt. I'd say, "What a nice day." She'd say, "That's because of God." Not, you know, atmospheric conditions and whatnot. I'd say, "Wow, what a rainy day in South Florida in July, the rainy season." And an environmentalist would say, "That's global warming." Huh. No facts either way, just faith in something. What did Michael Crichton, a renowned author, doctor, and researcher once say? Oh, yeah, this:
http://michaelcrichton.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html
I am now going to criticize myself and say, "Self, go back to defending the Mac and dissing the PeeCee." Even IF the Mac runs Windows now and has an Intel. At least we don't have viruses like PeeCees.
Do you ever wonder what the consequences of the left are? I mean, Canada recently went Conservative, France is broke and at the will of the far left, the UK, Canada and France's universal health care costs its citizens on the left nearly half of their income in taxes AND it's still seeing its doctors flee to America and watch as the strain of its people's medical needs are bankrupting it?
Or maybe the people who burn homes and SUVs "for the environment?' They seem to put out a lot of pollution burning Hummer H2s in Covina, CA, some estimating more than what the H2s would've put out in emissions. Or those who say this: "Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." - Ingrid Newkirk, Prez of PETA.
The more I think about it, the more I realize, the environmental movement reminds me of my fundamentalist Chrisitan Aunt. I'd say, "What a nice day." She'd say, "That's because of God." Not, you know, atmospheric conditions and whatnot. I'd say, "Wow, what a rainy day in South Florida in July, the rainy season." And an environmentalist would say, "That's global warming." Huh. No facts either way, just faith in something. What did Michael Crichton, a renowned author, doctor, and researcher once say? Oh, yeah, this:
http://michaelcrichton.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html
I am now going to criticize myself and say, "Self, go back to defending the Mac and dissing the PeeCee." Even IF the Mac runs Windows now and has an Intel. At least we don't have viruses like PeeCees.
I'm well aware of that, as I'm sure you are aware!mpstrex said:
It left me with an interesting thought when I wrote that: There is no word (that I know of) that means 10,000 years, or 100,000 years, or 1 million years. THAT is how difficult it is as a race to appreciate the length of time that the world has been around - the time that evolution takes to alter the appearance of species - we don't even have words to describe it well enough.p.s. I think the dinosaurs actually only lived for tens of millions of years, if you want to get pedantic.
pps. Ok scrap that. I answered too fast to your quote without reading it fully. Yes. In essence there is no such thing as a discrete species. Everything was and always will be a transient form best adapted to its current environment.
So you become a prominet scientist if you get to write an editorial? What evidence? From which peer reviewed journal have read this?Free2B said:
...so your point is that we are all becoming fundamentalist and reactionary. Maybe we are...mpstrex said:
I'm confused by your statement about healthcare: Since moving to America, I miss the NHS more than anything else.
RE: http://michaelcrichton.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html
This was a very interesting read. He gave me a lot to think about and research. Am I a religious environmentalist? I wonder... as a complete atheist, I'm a good candidate. But then I have no misconceptions about an earlier Eden. The world is in reasonable shape, but globally, resources should be shared more fairly. My stance on the environment is that we should be sustaining things as they are now (is that conservative?), and attempting to reduce all forms of man-made pollution. People should buy things only when they need to be bought. Don't over eat. Don't waste food or goods. These things give me a greater appreciation for the value of things. It makes me feel more connected to the planet. I do not want to live in a world where concrete takes over natural variety. I walk in the woods as often as I can, and dip my toes in the sea whenever I am there...
He was saying environmentalists believe in the environmental movement like it's a religion.
My friend from Canada hated his country's health care because it cost him nearly 50% of his income in taxes, along with other sending measures his taxes were needed for. He also hated trying to see a doctor when so many people were there for small things. I'm not giving the private health care companies in the US a break, but I've been hearing STDs are bankrupting Europe's health care services.
And if you tell people to only buy things they need, not want, eat what they should, not what they want, then that's not the world I want to live in. I believe in freedom of choice, not rules to dictate how I live my life, what I eat and more. That's why I love the U.S. We can make fun of our leaders and not be arrested. I heard it was a crime under Saddam, with death, torture, etc., as punishment.
My friend from Canada hated his country's health care because it cost him nearly 50% of his income in taxes, along with other sending measures his taxes were needed for. He also hated trying to see a doctor when so many people were there for small things. I'm not giving the private health care companies in the US a break, but I've been hearing STDs are bankrupting Europe's health care services.
And if you tell people to only buy things they need, not want, eat what they should, not what they want, then that's not the world I want to live in. I believe in freedom of choice, not rules to dictate how I live my life, what I eat and more. That's why I love the U.S. We can make fun of our leaders and not be arrested. I heard it was a crime under Saddam, with death, torture, etc., as punishment.
Yes. It's an interesting idea.mpstrex said:
50% ! Really?!? I hear this figure banded about over here in the US about European tax/health care costs. But in compariosn to the US it seems a lot cheaper: For a start, everyone is covered to the same level regardless of their income. But regarding tax. I used to lose about 30-35% of my earnings to direct taxation. And if you earn more, you pay more tax. Seems fair to me. In the US, when you've finished tipping everyone because they are all paid below the poverty line, you end up paying a similar amount - WITHOUT healthcare costs! So, I'm not sure exactly what taxes here are paying for...mpstrex said:
But that's part of being in a equal society. Or are some more equal than others?mpstrex said:
STD's! it seems like my compatriots have come along way in 3 short years!mpstrex said:
What if you decided to do these things for yourself? What if they were the moral values of the society you lived in?mpstrex said:
An abundance of rules already exist. Do they upset you? Most have a sensible moral grounding (don't kill/harm/steal/etc), which leads to a stable society. What I suggested are merely an extension to allow societies to live in a more sustainable way. They are no more dictatorial than saying that you cannot speed/steal/abuse/pollute.mpstrex said:
Would living more sustainably suddenly prevent that? - I hope not!mpstrex said:
And in many totalitarian regimes around the globe, I'm sure - but does that condone the action of the US and its allies in Iraq? What if Iraq wasn't in the middle east? If it didn't have strategic importance to a global economy based on oil?mpstrex said:
Clearly, in life a balance must be struck and maintained for a healthy existence. I'm not disputing that; in fact, I heartily agree with it.
However, given what kind of history Greenpeace has, how can anyone with maturity not see them as a bunch of crackpots? Let's not forget they've been known to open fire on ocean-going vessels. What kind of lunatic wackos do that sort of stuff?
I have no idea how well Apple truly does on a day to day basis. Nobody here, and probably very few in the whole corporation have a true handle on that kind of information. I'm certain they're better than some and worse than others.
Let's also not stop to forget that Apple contracts out the actual manufacture and assembly of the majority of their hardware products, so if you're going to point the finger of blame, point it at the manufacturers, wherre it actually belongs. Now, if you want to hold Apple responsible because they're the ones footing the bill here for services rendered, then fair enough. But at least be honest enough to admit it.
However, given what kind of history Greenpeace has, how can anyone with maturity not see them as a bunch of crackpots? Let's not forget they've been known to open fire on ocean-going vessels. What kind of lunatic wackos do that sort of stuff?
I have no idea how well Apple truly does on a day to day basis. Nobody here, and probably very few in the whole corporation have a true handle on that kind of information. I'm certain they're better than some and worse than others.
Let's also not stop to forget that Apple contracts out the actual manufacture and assembly of the majority of their hardware products, so if you're going to point the finger of blame, point it at the manufacturers, wherre it actually belongs. Now, if you want to hold Apple responsible because they're the ones footing the bill here for services rendered, then fair enough. But at least be honest enough to admit it.
I'm glad groups are bringing attention to such things, but I can't see myself without a mac... or a computer in general. Which will always be a negative on the invironment.
I don't plant trees for the co2 my car produces either.
I don't plant trees for the co2 my car produces either.
This will not influence me in the slightest. I got a mac because I was tired of windows, not to be a tree hugger, if Apple ranked last then I'd still get a Mac.
Spectrum,
To quote a leader:
"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."
To everyone,
At least we all love the Mac. At least I hope greenpeace hasn't suddenly made any of us run over to the dark side, aka, Dell. Michael Dell can't make a crowd gasp like Jobs did summer 2003 when he announced the G5 chip and the new Power Macs (and get my friends and I excited). Or frustrate us to know end with strange things like the Cube (interesting, but overpriced). That's what makes us such big lovers of Apple!
Dell can't hold a candle to Apple's tech support or Apple's great track record of computers, software and services. We're lucky to have such great computers and the freedom to buy them without anyone telling us what to buy and what not to buy.
To quote a leader:
"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."
To everyone,
At least we all love the Mac. At least I hope greenpeace hasn't suddenly made any of us run over to the dark side, aka, Dell. Michael Dell can't make a crowd gasp like Jobs did summer 2003 when he announced the G5 chip and the new Power Macs (and get my friends and I excited). Or frustrate us to know end with strange things like the Cube (interesting, but overpriced). That's what makes us such big lovers of Apple!
Dell can't hold a candle to Apple's tech support or Apple's great track record of computers, software and services. We're lucky to have such great computers and the freedom to buy them without anyone telling us what to buy and what not to buy.
Dr.Gargoyle said:
You are just wrong. This is obviously not your field.
If you had read the journal "Geophysics" on a regular basis as I do, you would realize that most classical Geophysicists do believe we are in a global warming cycle but they do not believe that man is responsible.
Only the environmental scientists who focus on computer models make this claim. I never said that models aren't a viable means of scientific study. I only stated that classical geophysicists believe that the current environmental models being used by environmental scientists are way too simple and not accurate. Just because their models are inaccurate does not mean that all models used in all science are inaccurate.
The current simple models do not take into account many factors which environmental scientists have very little known data about.
For example, carbonate reef production takes place at highly variable rates. In a CO2 rich environment the ocean can absorb high amounts of CO2 and produce carbonate rich sediment. This is not a static process. When C02 levels are low and temperatures are cool carbonate production is slowed. When CO2 is high and temperatures are higher this processs is increased. The amount of CO2 absorption is staggering in classical studies. Most environmental models do not take this properly into consideration.
Also as you know the suns activity level is on an approximate 11 year cycle. However there may actually be a larger cycle that is not being properly accounted for. The data is still out on that one.
Also the Earths core has many processes which also effect temperature and magnetic field strength. In fact there have been many periods of temperature cycle fluctions that occur around the periods when the earths magnetic pole flip-flop. North pole becomes South and South becomes North. The exact cause for this is unknown.
Also there is no accurate measurement on how much CO2 is lost to space. NASA just recently examined a solar flare which ripped-off a huge chunk of ozone and other atmospheric gases. Until this recent observation we were not aware that losses of this magnitude to space were possible.
You are also using the term "normal temperature cycles" improperly. The earth is well within past norms for periods of temperature fluctuation. The earth has had much, much , higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past. All you have to do is examine the geologic record. The earth has also been much, much, hotter in the past.
The normal cycles you are referring to are the normal measured cycles within the last several hunderd years. In fact this is what most of the environmental scientists base their data on.
Classical geologists and geophysicists base their studies on the rock column which is billions of years old. If you studied the Earth's past you would learn that at one time the entire Earth had a methane atmosphere which would have been deadly to life as we know it. But fotunately for us it changed. It is constantly changing there is no normal. The onlw way to survive long term on this planet is to adapt because change is going to happen. The environment will never reach equilibrium long term, regardless of what man does.
guez said:
At least we have Al Gore who will do what's needed to talk about the environment. In fact, on December 7, 1997, he burned an estimated 439,500 pounds of fuel (65,600 gallons, around $131,000) to go to Kyoto, Japan, to talk about global warming.
Dr.Gargoyle said:
I guess I used the word "prominent" because the guy is at MIT. Ok, just a tenured professor at a pretty good school known for its science.
Just because it's not in a peer reviewed journal you discredit that there is a difference of opinion? The evidence is apparent in the article--maybe you should go read it.
Meteorologists can barely predict the weather on a day to day basis. Who, therefore, can truly say what is causing global climate change? (My point, not the "guy at MIT"). I'm not saying there isn't any global warming and that humans aren't causing some change. I just don't think we should say the sky is falling and the world is going to come to an end unless we all move back to the caves.
