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

[Dr.Gargoyle]

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.

Ok, it looks like we agree. My point was just we should be careful so we don't kill off the planet while trying to save it.
Back to the topic; I think Greenpeace's statement is counterproductive. We have huge problems here on this planet and we just dont have the time to "polish the brass". I am afraid that people think that as long as they do something for the enviroment they are home free. That is just not true.
We dont save the planet by buying "greener" computers. True, it helps. But things are so f***d up right now, that we need to concentrate on the big issues, e.g. rainforest being chopped down, extinction of species, and most of all our consumption of fossile fuel.
Diverting the focus away from these issues, is almost as bad as f***ing up the earth in the first place. Greenpeace has developed to something quite different than it started out as.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

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.

Excellent summary.

 

[Xapplimatic]

Bunch of whiners going after the little guy again...

Why not target the bigger fish first? Too hard a target? Microsoft in its CD replication factories, Dell in its TV/monitor and board manufacturing facilities surely put out hundreds of tons of more toxic wastes than all of Apples productions combined. Why not start there?

 

[wdogmedia]

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.

Some of what I said was theory, but every factual statement I gave was just that - factual. No climatologist would argue with any of the facts I gave...it's just that, as with statistics, the interpretation of the fact differs.

And no, we have no excuse to pollute the planet....human actions proven to disrupt the environment (deforestation, toxic runoff, killing off animal species, etc.) should be stopped whenever possible. We are responsible for taking care of this planet, but at the same time we have to realize when advancements have been made. Our cars, boats, factories and city skies are infinitely more environmentally-friendly than they used to be, but if 30 years of industrial and personal "clean-up" have done nothing to stem global warming, it's only natural to wonder if maybe it's not us causing the problem.

In other words, if we've streamlined our machinery to be 99% more efficient, is it worth it to spend the billions of dollars to get rid of that last 1% if our original effort has done nothing to the greenhouse effect?

 

[Stella]

Why not target the bigger fish first? Too hard a target? Microsoft in its CD replication factories, Dell in its TV/monitor and board manufacturing facilities surely put out hundreds of tons of more toxic wastes than all of Apples productions combined. Why not start there?

Really, I thought it was a survey that happened to find Apple not so Green amongst other companies. Anything that puts Apple in a bad light is automatically deemed as "Singling out Apple".

I for one welcome this kind of thing - it names and shames.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Why not target the bigger fish first? Too hard a target? Microsoft in its CD replication factories, Dell in its TV/monitor and board manufacturing facilities surely put out hundreds of tons of more toxic wastes than all of Apples productions combined. Why not start there?

This shouldnt be about finger pointing.
The issues are real and we are in a dire need for a solution...fast.
One thing is sure though, the difference in enviromental cost between the "greenest" computer and the worst computer is insignificant in the big picture. There are much more urgent enviromental issues that we need to handle.

Knowing how many well-educated people there are in enviromental movement, Greenpeace's statement sounds, to me, more like a cry for additional funding than a cry to save the planet.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I dislike Greenpeace - their list may or may not have some relevance but this is one messanger I wouldn't mind shooting.

 

[I'mAMac]

Care to explain that for the rest of us? In what way has UV radition to do with heat radiation?

This is just logic. uv AND heat are more potent due to o-zone decimation. Let me see if i can think of an example...............................erm ok car windows filter out uv rays and are tinted so they keep out some heat. If the window is closed you are a little more protected and a little cooler, if it is open you are a little more unprotected and hotter. (in summertime when the temperature is hotter and the earth is tilted towerd the sun)

 

[Phil A.]

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?

I completely agree that a company that has a timeline for implementing change should be marked higher than one that says "we'll do it" but gives no dates. I still maintain, however, that companies should not be given full marks until they've actually delivered on their promises - at the present moment neither company is actually doing anything to protect the environment in those areas

 

[I'mAMac]

Dont you think people can google it for themselves if they feel a need to know?

sorry for trying to provide easy info...

 

[mpstrex]

Last I heard, Greenpeace makes millions of dollars a year. Non-profits are corporations. And like any large company that is into expanding to other parts of the globe and setting up seperate offices throughout the world, they need to have local politicians interested in their specialities. They donate to many political organizations.

And Apple IS eco-friendly, or so I thought--Al Gore is on the board. I got the impression he was sort of into the environmental movement...

 

[deconai]

Greenpeace are terrorists. I have seen them endanger human life for the sake of an environment that does a pretty good job of taking care of itself. I laugh at their hitlists. Hahahahaha. :|

Capitalism thrives on being able to recycle resources, but it must be profitable in the first place to become feasible. You can't expect companies to take large hits on their bottom line to appease the Greenpeace crowd (not that they couldn't afford it, that would just go against the policy of capitalism). You can, however, expect them to do whatever is in their power to make business as efficient and clean as possible, mostly because it's cheaper in the long run. That's what Apple does. We really can't ask for anything more, unless we're willing to see them pack up and move to India.

 

[deconai]

And Apple IS eco-friendly, or so I thought--Al Gore is on the board. I got the impression he was sort of into the environmental movement...

Actually, he's on the Al Gore movement.

 

[Lau]

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.

I know where you're coming from, but surely it's a good thing to try and get the companies we use to improve their environmental policy? If Dell does recycle more than Apple, then maybe Apple should recycle more. If Apple's stuff lasts longer, Dell should make their stuff last longer. And yes, at the same time, we should be putting pressure on companies to reduce food packaging and use less power and fuel. I don't really see it as a competition between companies, more that if one company does something environmentally better than another, the other should try and match it, you know?

 

[I'mAMac]

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.

I actually produce some of my own food. but it doesnt matter. Im not pointing fingers we are all the problem. If Greenpeace REALLY wants to make a difference they should actually do something instead of sitting back and say how anti-environment everyone is. and people should try to make use of other sources of energy. I forget town it was but somewhere in Minnesota, a man discovered that if he took cattails(not real cat tails, the kind you find near a lake) and compress them into small pellets he could use them to power his house. Later on he found that enough of them could power his town. I dont know how he did it i'll google it. but people should be doing things like that, innovation and utilization.
EDIT: just found out that they do make energy with them but it wont last that long. idk i guess there isnt enough

 

[BoyBach]

Greenpeace are terrorists.

Why the vitriol against Greenpeace? It appears that a lot of people on this forum HATE them. What have they done to deserve this?

 

[mpstrex]

Actually, he's on the Al Gore movement.

NO! Al Gore is in it for himself? I thought he was a selfless guy, out for the environment. I mean, his movie DID make over $20 million and the budget was REAL low, and the majority of the crew worked on it for free...

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=inconvenienttruth.htm

 

[wdogmedia]

I'd just like to inject here that Apple is apparently complying with all U.S. environmental regulations and, to my mind anyway, has no corporate responsibility towards the environment beyond that. They are certainly not bound by the law to have CPU and iPod recycling programs, for example.

If they were breaking environmental law, that would be entirely different. Their social responsibility towards the environment is to act within the law, which they are doing.

 

[puuukeey]

Branding != values
Zen packaging != Green company
Artsy propaganda != artist friendly
people in black turtle neck != leftist zen hipsters

This being said. computers are not the biggest ewaist problem. We should be scared of CDs. the very definition of a good CD is the opposite of biodegradable.

 

[I'mAMac]

Why the vitriol against Greenpeace? It appears that a lot of people on this forum HATE them. What have they done to deserve this?

I dont hate them i like what they are TRYING to do, they just aren't doing it.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

This is just logic. uv AND heat are more potent due to o-zone decimation. Let me see if i can think of an example...............................erm ok car windows filter out uv rays and are tinted so they keep out some heat. If the window is closed you are a little more protected and a little cooler, if it is open you are a little more unprotected and hotter. (in summertime when the temperature is hotter and the earth is tilted towerd the sun)

Hmmm... I don't want to be rude but you really should have some basic knowledge in physics before you make statements like that.

 

[I'mAMac]

Hmmm... I don't want to be rude but you really should have some basic knowledge in physics before you make statements like that.

bad example. ok so you think that o-zone deterioration has NO effect on global warming? come on. if no direct effects then there are indirect effects.

 

[Di9it8]

Long life computers

I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs. I'm serious people buy a new Dell every few years because they are garbage. Do you honestly think people give them back for recycling. They sell them on ebay or craigslist, and the new owner after about a year puts them in the dumpster. With Apple people keep their machines much longer, and are much more likely to recycle them because they are smaller and easier to take to a recycling center (no CRT). This alone makes Apple greener then Dell.

We are still using on a daily basis a G3 WallStreet laptop, the battery is gone but otherwise it is quite reliable. This long life must make Apples greener as we have disposed of 1 Toshiba and 2 IBM machines in the same time span

 

[iGary]

I know where you're coming from, but surely it's a good thing to try and get the companies we use to improve their environmental policy? If Dell does recycle more than Apple, then maybe Apple should recycle more. If Apple's stuff lasts longer, Dell should make their stuff last longer. And yes, at the same time, we should be putting pressure on companies to reduce food packaging and use less power and fuel. I don't really see it as a competition between companies, more that if one company does something environmentally better than another, the other should try and match it, you know?

My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.

I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.

You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.

I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness.

 

[I'mAMac]

My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.

I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.

You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.

right. why don't they invent something that doesnt pollute so we can all use it. (yeah right)