I'mAMac said:
I agree with you there....I'm just saying that humans don't have near the impact on global warming that we supposedly do. Deforestation and endangering other creatures is a different story, though.....
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 agree with you there....I'm just saying that humans don't have near the impact on global warming that we supposedly do. Deforestation and endangering other creatures is a different story, though.....
Care to explain that for the rest of us? In what way has UV radition to do with heat radiation?I'mAMac said:
The one thing that struck me on the report is the amount of marks given to companies who have committed to a timescale. For example, Apple have committed to removing all BFRs but given no timescale and are marked as "bad". Dell have committed to removing all BFRs by 2009 and are marked "Good". Don't get me wrong, it's good that companies are giving time scales, but they don't really mean jack until they're implemented (the UK committed to the Kyoto protocol and will miss it's commitments by miles), and I think it's a bit misleading to give any company full marks simply because they have given a date that may be missed. I would have preferred to see those marked as Partially Good because clearly a commitment isn't as good as actually delivering on promises.
I'mAMac said:
The post I was replying to said that there were 100x the cars today, which is 100% false. That the population has nearly doubled since then is true.
I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.
Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though....
The Precautionary Principle
Notice that one of the things that Greenpeace ranked companies on is the precationary principle: "The company fails to embrace the precautionary principle." I for one would prefer that my technology companies not embrace the Luddite, er, precautionary principle. As principles go, it is philosophically bankrupt, and not a scientifically credible basis for making technological and sociological decisions.
As for the anti-American sentiment out there, please, that bigotry is almost as productive as the fanatacism you purport to oppose. Greenpeace wears no halo; neither do corporations. Neither does the French government that used the South Pacific for nuclear testing; neither does the German government, nor the Chinese pollution complex. I want Apple to be even better at what it does and for which it has been lauded--longer life cycle products and aggressive recycling programs (notwithstanding what Greenpeace said). But like many here, I find the notion that Dell is more "green" than Apple so inherently laughable--look at why Greenpeace says Dell is more green, not because of reality, but because of how Dell interacted with them--that I cannot take this report seriously. "Greenpeace doesn't like Apple's attitude" might as well have been the report title. And on that note, I probably feel better about Apple accordingly.
Notice that one of the things that Greenpeace ranked companies on is the precationary principle: "The company fails to embrace the precautionary principle." I for one would prefer that my technology companies not embrace the Luddite, er, precautionary principle. As principles go, it is philosophically bankrupt, and not a scientifically credible basis for making technological and sociological decisions.
As for the anti-American sentiment out there, please, that bigotry is almost as productive as the fanatacism you purport to oppose. Greenpeace wears no halo; neither do corporations. Neither does the French government that used the South Pacific for nuclear testing; neither does the German government, nor the Chinese pollution complex. I want Apple to be even better at what it does and for which it has been lauded--longer life cycle products and aggressive recycling programs (notwithstanding what Greenpeace said). But like many here, I find the notion that Dell is more "green" than Apple so inherently laughable--look at why Greenpeace says Dell is more green, not because of reality, but because of how Dell interacted with them--that I cannot take this report seriously. "Greenpeace doesn't like Apple's attitude" might as well have been the report title. And on that note, I probably feel better about Apple accordingly.
stem cells is not altering the original genetical code. HUGE differencewdogmedia said:Ditto stem cells.
Dr.Gargoyle said:
The point is that Greenpeace opposes ALL R&D into GM foods, just as G.W. opposes ALL R&D into stem cell research, including research to use stem cells w/o harming the fetus.
lol kidding about nuking it. and yes stem cells are a different story i dont know which post I read.wdogmedia said:The post I was replying to said that there were 100x the cars today, which is 100% false. That the population has nearly doubled since then is true.
I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.
Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though....
stem cells
if anyone was wondering, Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell. wow stem cells are a life saver
if anyone was wondering, Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell. wow stem cells are a life saver
First, R&D should never be banned. However, we should not implement everything we find out in our labs. It is a huge difference in getting to know how we can alter the genetical code and actually do it in a grand scale. THAT if anything will be our end.wdogmedia said:
Stem cells is an entirely different story. That is a political/religious question about when life begins and also OT.
Apple isn't that great
If you head over to Apple's environmental page and read through it (which I have done several times) you'll see that much of what they claim to be doing for the environment is actually more along the line of what is called natural capitalism. That's not to say it's bad, but don't let them fool you into thinking they have the environments best interests at heart. They're looking out for the bottom line. They make claims about LCDs, but manufacturing energy and toxic inputs on LCDs vs CRTs is a pretty poor argument (read LCD vs CRT report by EPA to see exact figures). Apple can claim a lot of environmental victories, but many of them are simple side benefits of the movement in their product line. LCDs use less energy and have lower cooling costs in lab environments. Core Duos take less energy than G5s. These are true, but Apple didn't switch to save the world.
Dell has come under a lot of pressure recently for their poor environmental track record. From their lack of a takeback program to their recycling of components using prison labor. They're been forced to clean up their act. They have a pretty amazing takeback program. Apple has a really horrible one. I've used both. Apple needs to step up here. They have a program that seems to exist simply so they can say it's there. Apple has also pulled products from the European market instead of redesigning them to meet new toxics standards. Dell switched suppliers and kept their products world wide. Greenpeace should be targetting Apple here. I hope Apple reacts. Good quality products, with a long lifespan a low environmental impact benefit everyone.
If you head over to Apple's environmental page and read through it (which I have done several times) you'll see that much of what they claim to be doing for the environment is actually more along the line of what is called natural capitalism. That's not to say it's bad, but don't let them fool you into thinking they have the environments best interests at heart. They're looking out for the bottom line. They make claims about LCDs, but manufacturing energy and toxic inputs on LCDs vs CRTs is a pretty poor argument (read LCD vs CRT report by EPA to see exact figures). Apple can claim a lot of environmental victories, but many of them are simple side benefits of the movement in their product line. LCDs use less energy and have lower cooling costs in lab environments. Core Duos take less energy than G5s. These are true, but Apple didn't switch to save the world.
Dell has come under a lot of pressure recently for their poor environmental track record. From their lack of a takeback program to their recycling of components using prison labor. They're been forced to clean up their act. They have a pretty amazing takeback program. Apple has a really horrible one. I've used both. Apple needs to step up here. They have a program that seems to exist simply so they can say it's there. Apple has also pulled products from the European market instead of redesigning them to meet new toxics standards. Dell switched suppliers and kept their products world wide. Greenpeace should be targetting Apple here. I hope Apple reacts. Good quality products, with a long lifespan a low environmental impact benefit everyone.
Phil A. said:
That's not true. The UK will miss the targets that Tony Blair committed [us] to. Blair's standards were almost double the standard Kyoto targets. We'll miss the Blair targets (surprise surprise) but we should hit the Kyoto targets. See here.
Of course, much of Kyoto is rendered moot because the US refuses to ratify the treaty because "it will harm the economy."
Dr.Gargoyle said:
We're both in agreement here....I wasn't implying that we send of bags of GM rice to Africa without making sure it was safe, I was only saying that it's wrong not to research an idea that could (in theory) save so many lives.
For the record, I'm also not a fan of stem cell research if it kills the fetus, but I think it's maddening that GW won't fund research into harvesting stem cells WITHOUT killing the fetus....mind-blowing.
For those who don't know what the Precautionary Principle, it is a belief that essentially states that everything should be assumed to be harmful until proven otherwise. Therefore, it applies mostly to innovators and producers of new products that have not been made before. Apple, being an innovative company, introduces new technologies. Dell, on the other hand, copies what others have done. So, the only way that Apple could adhere as closely to the Precautionary Principle as Dell would be to become another Dell, and to only copy what other manufacturers were already making. So, including this principle in Greenpeace's analysis of the environmental friendliness of tech firms is laughable at best, conspiratorial at worst.
Am I saying that Apple could not do better as a steward of the environment? No, but I suspect that Dell, which should be stopping its distribution of CRTs (which consume much more power than LCDs and contain lead) and designing products to have a longer lifespan, is more in need of improvement than Apple is.
Am I saying that Apple could not do better as a steward of the environment? No, but I suspect that Dell, which should be stopping its distribution of CRTs (which consume much more power than LCDs and contain lead) and designing products to have a longer lifespan, is more in need of improvement than Apple is.
We've been modifying the genetic code of organisms (plants/animals) for centuries by selective breeding. GM is a more refined way of doing these same things, but more rapidly, as well as permitting the introduction of new genetic traits not possible through standard cross-breeding strategies.Dr.Gargoyle said:
It has the potential to end a great deal of suffering in the world from starvation. Not to mention potentially huge environmental savings from reduced use of pesticides, less irrigation, and transport.
However, this immense power needs to be deployed carefully and responsibly.
AlBDamned said:That's not true. The UK will miss the targets that Tony Blair committed [us] to. Blair's standards were almost double the standard Kyoto targets. We'll miss the Blair targets (surprise surprise) but we should hit the Kyoto targets. See here.
Of course, much of Kyoto is rendered moot because the US refuses to ratify the treaty because "it will harm the economy."
That's kind of my point - the UK committed (or was committed) to unrealistic goals and will fail to meet them. Anyone can commit to anything - actually delivering on those commitments is completely different
Phil A. said:
Well that's more to do with Blair being uninformed and making decisions because he likes to sound better than he is. If Blair hadn't been a pillock and stuck to the realistic, achievable timeline that everyone else stuck to, then it would have been achievable. Why he said we'd double those targets is beyond most people except the monkey labour spin doctor that suggested it.
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
To be honest I really don't care what green peace thinks. I wonder if you took all advancements that have benefited humanity made on macs versus all the work greenpeace has ever done who would come out on top. We definitely need to watch out for the environment but we need to do it logically not emotionally. Greenpeace is nothing but a group of eco-terriests in my opinion.
And it may still happen. If the north atlantic Gulf Stream ceases, northern Europe will be in an effective ice age. Currently, its behaviour is changing...
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=north+atlantic+keep+warm&btnG=Search&meta=
Even if, which I doubt, your theory of water vapour is correct - that does not give us the excuse to pollute this planet as we see fit. All industry and humans must clean up their act - literally.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=north+atlantic+keep+warm&btnG=Search&meta=
wdogmedia said:
Even if, which I doubt, your theory of water vapour is correct - that does not give us the excuse to pollute this planet as we see fit. All industry and humans must clean up their act - literally.
You know what I hate about crap like this?
People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"
Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.
Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"
Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.
Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
