it's such a progressive issue, you'd think Apple would be all over it. I mean, AMD is making good marketing use of being energy efficient. It seems smart of them and makes them appear more cutting edge. Certainly Apple would do great to embrace this issue and make their products more eco-friendly. But you think about how the shell of your Mac can't really be reused to house new major computer components (such as mb, etc...). This seems wasteful. Think of all the packaging that is just being wasted. It's actually kind of shameful.
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
I'm sorry but....
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
DeepDish said:
Then that's nothing but semi-diluted Apple fanboi-ism which is, in my opinion, a lot worse than any Dell computer.
Given Greenpeace's mission and credibility, I think it's safe to assume that all manufacturers featured were graded on the same criteria. So at least in this survey, it's quite believable that Apple has dived compared to its competitors.
Apple does promote a hip, cool and socially aware image, but as a business it's quite far removed from that ideal.
The reason Apple "performs poorly" on recycling compared to Dell is that Apple computers, on average, remain in use approximately twice as long as Dell computers. Instead of being recycled, they are still being used. Apple does, after all, have a free recycling program. And there is no way that making computers that are replaced more frequently is more environmentally friendly.
It also seems that most of Greenpeace's complaints focus around Apple's refusal to provide Greenpeace with information on what materials are used in manufacturing its products.
Greenpeace does not have an exactly spotless record when it comes to ethics. Makes you wonder if it gets its computers from Dell at a discount.
It also seems that most of Greenpeace's complaints focus around Apple's refusal to provide Greenpeace with information on what materials are used in manufacturing its products.
Greenpeace does not have an exactly spotless record when it comes to ethics. Makes you wonder if it gets its computers from Dell at a discount.
Great ideas, folks.
Dell is doing something better than Apple? Well then the report must be wrong!
Problem solved, good job guys!
Lau said:
danielwsmithee is right.
Dell boxes have a shorter life span and need to be replaced more often. Dell sells a lot more CRTs than Apple does.
At work, we never throw out a mac. But the pc boxes get replaced often.
This report is about getting "big press"
danielwsmithee said:
I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.
But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?
If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...
Actually, the last shareholder meeting had the vote to start the computer recycling program. The board of directors recommended that the shareholders vote "No" but the shareholders decided that the recycling program was important.
I love Apple as much as the next guy, but that recommendation was irresponsible and backwards. Apple deserves this bad press.
[edited to fix the quote. i quoted the wrong post]
DeepDish said:
How come Dells last half as long? Because they're "better made"? Do they not actually function any more? Or is it that you don't throw and Apple out because of sentimentality?
The only reason we\ve dumped computers at work is because they're not worth upgrading. In the last six months that's included one dell, two PowerMac G4s (although I claimed them) and six iMac G3s. They simply weren't up to (business) task anymore. The oldest computer we have in the office is actually a Dell that we use for one program.
C
CompUser
Guest
Shame on you, Apple. Corporate greed wins again - so what else is new?
At least this report should get them moving... It took publicity to get them to finally start their iPod and expanded computer recycling program; had nobody said anything then these programs would probably not exist.
Thanks to Greenpeace, Apple will hopefully belatedly get its act together.
At least this report should get them moving... It took publicity to get them to finally start their iPod and expanded computer recycling program; had nobody said anything then these programs would probably not exist.
Thanks to Greenpeace, Apple will hopefully belatedly get its act together.
blueflame said:
I'm not sure you understand the situation we're in right now.
If we don't radically change the way we live and produce energy, and I mean radically, then before the Century is out the fate of our species and the majority of all life on Earth may be sealed.
Do you understand? Humanity may be destroyed. We're not talking about a natural disaster or two here, we're not talking about something like an economic depression, we're talking about a major, if not total anihilation of our species.
So you'd better start holding Apple, and everyone else, including yourself, accountable where responsible and start forcing change.
I used to be a member of greenpeace for about 8 years, 3 of which I was diehard. However, over the last few years I've really gotten sick and tired of them spouting stuff they really have no clue what the hell they are talking about. From friends and acquaintences I can personally vouch that Apple is trying very hard to be echo friendly. Of course if Greenpeace would say Apple is doing fine Greenpeace wouldn't get much attention... but by saying Apple is doing a lousy job, which I know for fact isn't fact...they get there name on the fron page. Though, I believe in the soul of greenpeace I reallly think that they need to go about this an entirely different way. They have a great rallying cry for 15-30 year olds and they can amass a huge lobying group if they actually put their best foot forward instead of these stupid gimmicks they have been pulling the last few years.
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.
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.
DeepDish said:
Try to think in the long term: where do you think these iPods will end up in 20 years? I highly doubt anyone will still be using an iPod they bought a quarter century ago.
I am afraid that, in that sense, iPods are very disposable.
Although the situation is becoming much more urgent with the rapic climate changes that are happening in the world faster than predicted, much of environmentalism is about thinking in the long term, and the environmental impact that company products and policy can have.
And in this regard, Apple indeed scores very low, which only goes to show that they are really no different than a typical corporation that cares far more about its immediate profit than the earth and its future generations.
Nuc said:Yea they're really credible...
Nuc
This report will be ripped to shreds if there are inconsistencies and to say Greenpeace are targeting Apple and not Dell for some corrupt reason is slightly pathetic.
And, one of the main gripes was Apple's refusal to give specifics on machine "ingredients", which is a bad move for a company that wants to be socially responsible.
Apple's spokesman is also a bit misguided when he says Apple has led the industry in reducing toxic chemicals from its products. A) It might be true in a couple of instances, but other companies (such as Nokia and Fujitsu Siemens) have actually done a hell of a lot more - especially in their European facilities. B) It's also a lot easier to do this when your product line totals around 5 computers, a few screens and a music player.
Remember Apple's iPod factory report? That has been criticised as being a shadow of the truth and glossing over ugly truths and missing out key details. So what makes you think that Apple is all goodness?
Yes it offers recycling in the US but does it offer it in the UK? No - but it will do come April next year because it will be forced to.
And why can UK users no longer buy iSights or Airport express base stations from Apple? Because new laws have come in restricting the use of hazardous substances in products. Sadly, Apple hasn't pulled its finger out and replaced those products with more environmentally friendly products.
Apple is not perfect, neither is Greenpeace. But look a little deeper and you'll have a better understanding of the story. Companies are taking this report seriously and it's rocking the industry. That's because companies do, or are beginning, to take the actual issue seriously. Apple's fast but weak response is testament to that and it once again demonstrates they have a lot of work to do on this front - despite their claims.
L
Lau
Guest
AlBDamned said:
Good post, AlBDamned.
Said a lot of things I wanted to say, but a lot more eloquently. My brain is mush this afternoon.
Just look at peopel today, even in this forum. Just 5 years ago there would be far less worried faces around, we left that to the lab coats and their crackpot theories.
I guess it was the recent natural disasters and the heatwaves that did it.
Well, if that's what's got you worried, then good. I hate to say it, but you need to be very, very worried. You thought this summer was hot? Think what it will be like in 10, 20, 50 years.
Think what it will be like in a 100.
Life on Earth is notoriously sensitive to temperatures. We were sweating like pigs with the increase of only a fractions of a degree.
By 2100 if we don't implement vast changes, and this is even if we maintain the rate we're at now, the Earth will have warmed by about 4 degrees C.
At this point human life expectancies will have probably halved. Give it another 100 years or so and that's it, game over, we're done, another species added to the no doubt vast list of intelligent species throughout the universe that have destroyed themselves in the pursuit of wealth.
I guess it was the recent natural disasters and the heatwaves that did it.
Well, if that's what's got you worried, then good. I hate to say it, but you need to be very, very worried. You thought this summer was hot? Think what it will be like in 10, 20, 50 years.
Think what it will be like in a 100.
Life on Earth is notoriously sensitive to temperatures. We were sweating like pigs with the increase of only a fractions of a degree.
By 2100 if we don't implement vast changes, and this is even if we maintain the rate we're at now, the Earth will have warmed by about 4 degrees C.
At this point human life expectancies will have probably halved. Give it another 100 years or so and that's it, game over, we're done, another species added to the no doubt vast list of intelligent species throughout the universe that have destroyed themselves in the pursuit of wealth.
Apple gaining marketshare, picking up momentum...
Stock scandal...
Battery recall...
Greenpeace report...
what's next?
Steve Jobs' departure?
Stock scandal...
Battery recall...
Greenpeace report...
what's next?
Steve Jobs' departure?