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

[swingerofbirch]

I cannot speak at all to the Greenpeace report or what Apple does--I simply don't know enough.

But, I have always thought that computers are somewhat wasteful in how often they are replaced. A school will at once replace hundreds of computers. And I as a consumer will replace a computer and iPod every couple of years.

On the other hand, things like televisions hang around a bit longer.

I wonder in the scheme of things though if using oil and coal as sources of energy isn't a much larger problem. I don't really know. I just always assumed it was.

 

[Spectrum]

Something else to note - the most likely reason greenpeace is pissed of is becaue of this "withholds its full list of regulated substances." Does that really have anything to do with how environmentally friendly they really are? No - does that make greenpeace mad that they aren't being "respected" by Apple? Yes. Enough to make them 4th worst? Absolutely...

You make an interesting point. My counter: Why are Apple not releasing the full list of regulated substances? Do they have something to hide?

 

[sjo]

Have you read what you just wrote? Who said anything about hunting whales? Eating whale meat? Or being poor?

No one.

Conclusion? You're bigoted.

There's no denying that Greenpeace is further towards "Extremist" than towards "Moderate." That's the jist of what he's saying, and he's right.

-Clive

Whalehunting is sort of implied, but in order clarify: in Norway Greenpeace is discredited largely because they are against whalehunting which, for Norwegians, is part of their policy of trying to keep their large countryside inhabited. Greenpeace is against whalehunting so Norway, as many on this forum, see fit to try to discredit them as being "bigoted" or "extremists" or "treehuggers" instead of providing facts.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

oh oh...Brainfart

I consider myself a tree hugger, but this is rediculous. Greenpeace will only make the enviromentally concerned people look like idiots if they begin to rate every single industry. They should concentrate on the big issues instead of coming down on computer manufacturers. CFC is one thing, but this???

 

[Stella]

There seems to be plenty of people who appear not to care about the environment, which is an extremely sad point of view.

In the last 200 years we've cut down vast amounts of trees ( the Lungs of the earth ), polluted the seas, the atmosphere , killed off many species of animals, etc. Over all that, all you people are saying "SO WHAT?".

Get a ****ing life.

If this planet dies, we die. This planet is a sick one, and we have to stop polluting - what ever happens to this planet, happens to us. We pollute this planet and that has consequences on every living thing on this planet like a domino affect.

I suppose you don't care about your children. This is not OUR planet to do what we want, its our future childrens planet. The way we are going - we will royally **** this planet up for them and they will have to live with it. There will be plenty of wars over scarce resources such as Food, water, farming land etc. This will make todays problems with terrorism a walk in the park.

 

[calvin66]

psuedo-stats?

While I'm sure Apple and everyone else has a long way to go with regard to clean manufacturing practices, I'm not sold on Greenpeace's approach to the ratings.

If you look at their scoring system, it is a compilation of Greenpeace's subjective evaluation of a variety of practices by each company. Much of what Dell gets credit for is timelines for changing its business practices, and openness with regard to information on hazardous substances in the manufacturing process. When you look at what they are doing (rather than what they are saying), Dell and Apple score the same--a +2 (partially good) on amounts recycled, and a 0 (bad) for PVC & BFR free products. The report doesn't say how it quantifies these rankings, nor the underlying data regarding the score....which is kinda funny given their harping on full disclosure for all the companies mentioned.

It turns out Greenpeace is like everybody else--manipulating the data to support its goals. It sure doesn't help their credibility.

 

[wdogmedia]

You make an interesting point. My counter: Why are Apple not releasing the full list of regulated substances? Do they have something to hide?

Because it's not required, and not the law. If Apple was not complying with current EPA regulations, they'd be investigated by the US Government. Greenpeace is asking them to go beyond current laws, which are quite stringent as is.

 

[bokdol]

i think alot of people care about the environment.. but alot of people dont care about greenpeace. in my eyes greenpeace has become a joke. i dont know mush about them but it does not seem like they do anything helpfull but to yell at the top of there lungs at people that can get them the most amount of publicity.

the way i see it is. apple is really popular in the public eye. so they become a natural target for anyone that wants their voice heard. well at least thats how i see it.

the last time i heard somethign from greenpeace was back in the 90's.

 

[Spectrum]

Can we talk about Greenpeace's environmental track record for a minute?
- They mourn the millions of gallons of gasoline burned by cars, but refuse to support diesel fuel, which, while slightly more polluting than gas, is nearly twice as efficient, meaning collective fuel consumption would be cut dramatically.

But diesel has significantly more particulate matter in it - bad for respiratory health - particularly in cities.

- They champion E85, which provides only about 70% of the efficiency of gas and requires nearly a gallon of gas to manufacture per gallon of E85.

How much gas does it take to manufacture 1 gallon of gas? What if the E85 started being manufactured without using energy from oil?

- Ditto the above for hydrogen-based fuels.

In the future, H-based fuels can be manufactured with renewable energy sources. Gas/oil is never going to be a sustainable route because the raw products are finite.

- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.

Out-right banning GM is a mistake. But putting the control of GM foods into the hands of powerful multinationals - and not in the hands of the people of Africa - would be a bigger mistake.

So who is Greenpeace accountable to?

You and I. Just like everybody is.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

There seems to be plenty of people who appear not to care about the environment, which is an extremely sad point of view.

In the last 200 years we've cut down vast amounts of trees ( the Lungs of the earth ), polluted the seas, the atmosphere , killed off many species of animals, etc. Over all that, all you people are saying "SO WHAT?".

Get a ****ing life.

If this planet dies, we die. This planet is a sick one, and we have to stop polluting - what ever happens to this planet, happens to us. We pollute this planet and that has consequences on every living thing on this planet like a domino affect.

I suppose you don't care about your children. This is not OUR planet to do what we want, its our future childrens planet. The way we are going - we will royally **** this planet up for them and they will have to live with it. There will be plenty of wars over scarce resources such as Food, water, farming land etc. This will make todays problems with terrorism a walk in the park.

I couldnt agree more, but...
Statements like that of Greenpeace take the focus from the big issues. Our extreme use of fossile fuel or cutting down the rain forest is a much MUCH more urgent problem.
From an enviromental impact perspective, the your choice of computer is pretty much as a fart in hurricane. We can make a much bigger difference by e.g. get more fuel efficient car.

 

[Spectrum]

Because it's not required, and not the law. If Apple was not complying with current EPA regulations, they'd be investigated by the US Government. Greenpeace is asking them to go beyond current laws, which are quite stringent as is.

But if they really are environmentally conscious, they have no risk at all in releasing this information. If it is good news, it would bolster their standing. Put them at number one in the Eco-company category. Free publicity. So: what is stopping them?

 

[wdogmedia]

But diesel has significantly more particulate matter in it - bad for respiratory health - particularly in cities.

Not after the 2007 US regulations go into effect. Even with current regulations, though, diesel has less particulate matter per mile traveled than pump gasoline, if you factor in the increased efficiency.

How much gas does it take to manufacture 1 gallon of gas? What if the E85 started being manufactured without using energy from oil?

I should have clarified, sorry. I meant to say that E85 requires the same amount of oil-based energy to create as the gas refining process.

In the future, H-based fuels can be manufactured with renewable energy sources. Gas/oil is never going to be a sustainable route because the raw products are finite.

True. But the assumption of energy innovation is a mistake, given the failure of oil-alternatives over the past 100+ years. This does not mean that looking for alternatives is fruitless (the opposite is true), but giving up on fossil fuels before an alternative is found is a gross error.

Out-right banning GM is a mistake. But putting the control of GM foods into the hands of powerful multinationals - and not in the hands of the people of Africa - would be a bigger mistake.

God forbid that someone gets richer by ensuring that my family doesn't die.

EDIT: Can I just clarify that it's nice to discuss these things without suggesting that Greenpeace "F Off" or that Apple is causing World Destruction?

 

[bryanc]

...
The other 90%+ of the greenhouse effect (the REAL reason the Earth's climate is warming) is caused by....drum roll....naturally occuring water vapor!
...
Let's also not forget that 30 years ago (when manmade pollution was FAR worse than it is today) these same people were warning us of a coming Ice Age.

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

 

[Rend It]

RoHS?

I see a lot of people in this thread are either blindly making excuses for Apple, or for the industry in general. I am most surprised that there is any Hg (mercury) anywhere in Apple's line. Likely, there's a Hg-vapor lamp for the LCD backlights.

An actual link to Apple's materials usage:

http://www.apple.com/environment/materials/

I'm not really sure what Greenpeace's deal is with the PVC and BFRs. What about the thousands of miles of PVC pipe in use in homes and elsewhere? As for BFRs, it's pretty damn important to make sure an object doesn't catch fire. Again, there are plenty of nasty non-asbestos fire-abatement materials used in building manufacturing. I'm not making excuses for Apple, but I think some perspective is called for here. I assume that Greenpeace's major issue is the toxicological effect these substances have on the environment. However, in terms of the actual amounts used, the electronics industry probably uses much less than the construction industry. True, there are probably companies leading the way in green building materials, but it certainly isn't an industry standard.

Apple is in compliance with RoHS; otherwise it couldn't sell computers in CA or in Europe. That means that they have probably stopped using Pb-based solders (which contained 40% Pb!). I'm dissappointed with the Hg issue, but it is a relatively small amount (less than 3.5 mg per lamp). Hopefully, the industry will soon find a replacement for these lamps, as well as the conventional printed circuit board materials. More importantly for Apple, I hope that they show more of a leadership role in this area than they have in the past.

 

[moose.boy]

Nokia green

How the hell can nokia be one of the top companies - here in the UK, the phones it makes are seen as throw-away. If you get the average pay as you go user upgrading every 9 months or so, the amount of waste produced is ridiculous.

Also nokia is based Scandinavian country (finland i think) and i'm sure there are tougher laws on environmental issues over there than the US/UK. Therefore, is what nokia does because of it's own volition, or because they are forced to.

 

[jaduffy108]

Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.

Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.

### "what they can"? ..and that's enough for you? That's what every company says. If we don't shift our values...we won't be here to debate them anymore! Geez. God I glad I'm in europe now. US values are sooo f'd up. Apple should be a leader in socially responsible business practices. *I* would pay more for their products as I do for Patagonia, etc.

 

[jaduffy108]

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

### Well said!

 

[macenforcer]

The earth is going to end up a burnt chunk of concrete unless all construction and production of materials stops today. Its is never going to happen so just start looking for other planets.

 

[Rend It]

But diesel has significantly more particulate matter in it - bad for respiratory health - particularly in cities.

That's what particulate filters are for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_Particulate_Filter

Low-sulfur diesel fuel standards are being phased in now, to make the US diesel more like that available elsewhere, like Europe, where diesels are much more common. At this point in time, diesel represents the most feasible option in terms of improving our individual utilization of fossil fuels in cars. A Jetta TDI is easily capable of 40+ mpg. Ideally, it would be a hybrid with diesel. Eventually, with the same hardware, we can move to biodiesel, and further reduce our oil dependencies.

 

[Doraemon]

- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.

That by far the stupidest thing, I have read in a very long time. It's plain absurd.

 

[Sheebahawk]

One important factor!

that needs to be accounted for... the lifespan of an apple computer. Its about 3 times that of a dell, at least in my experiance. I've saved all my old macs cuz they still work.

 

[BoyBach]

- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.

Do be frank you're talking crap!

There is more than enough food being produced and, more importantly, wasted to ensure that nobody goes to bed with an empty stomach. The reason millions, not thousands, of Africans have died, and continue to do so, are varied and complex.

But to simplify, as you have, surely the blame lies with corrupt African governments that line their own pockets with Western aid whilst their population die of disease and hunger? To 'save' Africa, the leadership needs to be strong, and it's main aim must be the well-being and protection of it's citizens.

GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.

 

[Doraemon]

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?

So am I.

 

[theheadguy]

Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.

Obviously, they aren't.

They don't even release timelines for many things while other companies do. Apple can defend itself, they don't need you or anyone else to stick up for it when you aren't informed on what they are doing. Just as people complain that Greenpeace doesn't know what they are talking about, many people defending Apple are totally clueless also. It's just important to know that if you really care about the situation.

 

[macenforcer]

You know its not just apple, its intel and many other companies. You see it is not profitable to make something last nowadays. Remember when TV's could be repaired? Not anymore.

Ever wonder why every time a new mac comes out or any computer comes out you need to buy all new ram? Its not really that much faster. How about the CPU's? When a new one comes out why can't I just put it into my old computer and go. Socket this and socket that, they are all just sockets. Why does the Xeon need a different socket than the Core 2 DUO? Same CPU basically. Although with core intel has kept the same sockets as Pentium Ds but you need a new chipset.

We as a society could reduce the amount of computer waste by half immediately if a standard was devised to allow upgrades to work without purchasing all new computers. Heck, apple could just sell motherboard upgrades for its entire line of old computers and that would be great. No company will ever really do what it takes to save the environment because that costs them $$ in the end.

Humans are a cancer on the planet. Look at pics of the earth from space. Its disgusting.

Earth is going to look like Cybertron (Transformers home planet) folks. Just give it time.