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

[GulGnu]

I'm not sure you understand the situation we're in right now.

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.

Indeed - repent sinners, etc. etc. It's an old game - and the catastrophe is always just so far into the future that the doomsayers can never be held to account once the apocalypse fails to materialize... How convenient!

Plus, it's always nice to have the "preserve freedom of speech!" and 'Viva Che!' in the same sig - lends a nice air of irony to the post!

 

[wdogmedia]

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.

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.

I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?

I'm ranting now, sorry. 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. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.

Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), 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.

No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?

And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot?

 

[theheadguy]

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?

Absolutely. People act as if this world is expendable. As soon as you mention Greenpeace, morons seem to go on auto-pilot and once they do that you can't stop them.

 

[bokdol]

Do be frank you're talking crap!

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.

i think what he is trying to say is. greenpeace is against genetic modification. even if that modifaction is helpful to the environment.
as in the case of the enviropig

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11786176/site/newsweek

clearly greenpeace has something against science and genetic modifiaction. even if it is helpful to people and or the world. while i dont know much about this pig it soulnds like a good idea. maybe i need more research.

 

[wdogmedia]

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.

Notice the words "indirectly" and "thousands" in my post, not "directly" and "millions." You are correct that GM foods will not save Africa, and also correct that African goverments are as corrupt as they come.

But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.

 

[BoyBach]

Groups like Greenpeace border on fanatical...

​

And nobody on these forums are bordering on the fanatical in the defence of Apple Computers?

 

[wtfk]

Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says.

There's little reason to. Penn & Teller blasted them real good on their TV show "Bulls hit!" on Showtime.

 

[mrblah]

I swear, some people will excuse Apple of genocide if given the chance. How is it that Apple is doing "everything they can" when Dell is doing so much better? They both make the same things! Same with Motorola and Nokia. We even have some conspiracy theorists thinking Greenpeace is out to get Apple (although they seem to miss the part where Acer scores worse, and happens to be a PC maker). Its simply impossible to try and excuse Apple when a company like Dell does better, not caring about companies destroying the environment is one thing but trying to pretend Apple is actually doing a good job is another.

 

[I'mAMac]

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

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Where is SUN? Brother, Samsung, Kodak, Minolta, SONY, etc?

I don't see any Television manufacturers? Philips? JVC? etc?

 

[theheadguy]

I swear, some people will excuse Apple of genocide if given the chance. How is it that Apple is doing "everything they can" when Dell is doing so much better? They both make the same things! Same with Motorola and Nokia. We even have some conspiracy theorists thinking Greenpeace is out to get Apple (although they seem to miss the part where Acer scores worse, and happens to be a smaller PC maker). Its simply impossible to try and excuse Apple when a company like Dell does better, not caring about companies destroying the environment is one thing but trying to pretend Apple is actually doing a good job is another.

You're spot on. Some people can't face the facts. It hurts their feelings to realize Apple can do some things very poorly.

 

[wtfk]

As soon as you mention Greenpeace, morons seem to go on auto-pilot and once they do that you can't stop them.

Do you think Greenpeace's behavior might have something to do with that?

 

[I'mAMac]

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.

I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?

I'm ranting now, sorry. 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. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.

Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), 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.

No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?

And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot?

cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.

 

[IlluminatedSage]

i am sure apple will get better at recycling.

they are making improvements already. shouldnt be an issue.

 

[wdogmedia]

cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road.

Absolutely 100% false.

According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.

Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )

 

[macenforcer]

cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.

Exactly. There are more people. So if people today create 1/2 the pollution they did 20yrs ago but now there are twice as many people there is no change.

We are doomed!

 

[wdogmedia]

The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.

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.

 

[macenforcer]

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

Even early man built fires to stay warm.

Yeah but he should have been using Taun Tauns.

 

[I'mAMac]

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

Even early man built fires to stay warm.

Im not saying stop using energy. I'm saying use a different source. Wind, water, sun. theres plenty of other ways to heat your home out there. Geothermal too

 

[I'mAMac]

Exactly. There are more people. So if people today create 1/2 the pollution they did 20yrs ago but now there are twice as many people there is no change.

We are doomed!

You understand my point

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Notice the words "indirectly" and "thousands" in my post, not "directly" and "millions." You are correct that GM foods will not save Africa, and also correct that African goverments are as corrupt as they come.

But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.

It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.

 

[Cowinacape]

Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?

Basically I agree with you, who really gves a rats rumpuss what Green Peace has to say about anything any more, where do there ships dump their bilges when they have finished trying to save the world from it's self?

Hard to take opperations like Green Peace seriously, when their primary motive for being in operation is making money. When they no longer spend about 85% of their budgets on administration, for their fancy corporate offices and top end wages, then maybe what they have to say might be worth something.

The Green Peace, that exsists now in mearly a shell of it's former self, that started just up the coast from where I live, and acctually had purpose and meaning when it was founded. Now it is just a machine, like the rest of the corporate world.

 

[wdogmedia]

It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.

Ditto stem cells.

 

[I'mAMac]

Absolutely 100% false.

According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.

Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )

It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW

 

[BoyBach]

Notice the words "indirectly" and "thousands" in my post, not "directly" and "millions." You are correct that GM foods will not save Africa, and also correct that African goverments are as corrupt as they come.

I stand by comments regarding this statement.

But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.

You may be right about GM produce, as long as they are not the 'terminator' type crops.

But, the problem still remains that the multi-nationals will have to deal with the governments, and so long as some governments are actively seeking to kill masses of their population through civil war and starvation, no amount of aid or science can help unless there is a change of leadership first.