“Greenpeace recently released their ‘Guide to Greener Electronics,’ rating fourteen consumer electronics vendors. Following in the same tradition as the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Greenpeace issued a press release that specifically called attention to Apple and assigned the company a failing grade,” Daniel Eran writes for RoughlyDrafted.
“While the Greenpeace report attempted to rank vendors based upon useful and practical criteria, the actual scorecard and the methods used to collect information for their report were sloppy and incompetent. This should come as no surprise to anyone aware of Greenpeace activities,” Eran writes.
“The report’s ranking criteria, available online, suggest that Greenpeace was reporting more on each vendor’s web marketing savvy than their actual environmental record,” Eran writes. “Criteria included points for companies that had advertised a chemical policy and had published ‘policies’ and ‘timelines’ for phasing out the use of specific chemicals. Other points were awarded based on companies’ own reports of the amounts of e-waste they collected and recycled, and their advertised takeback policies.”
Eran writes, “Across the nine items, the report ranked each company either bad, partially bad, partially good, or good. The criteria report doesn’t explain how ‘partially good’ compares to ‘partially bad,’ but it is obvious that the ranking puts far more weight upon what companies publicly say rather than what they actually do. It is also clear that Greenpeace intended the report more as an attention getting stunt than a serious rating of corporations’ actual responsibility.”
“It’s the low end consumer market that commonly ends up dumping their old electronic equipment improperly. The machines on the low end of the market are also the most toxic, due to their reliance on cheap CRT displays to hit a low price point,” Eran writes. “The vast majority of cheap PCs are pumped out by Dell and HP, supposedly the two ‘greenest’ companies, according to the worthless Greenpeace report.”
Eran writes, “Not only did Greenpeace fail to understand the real issues involved, but their data came primarily from manufacturers’ websites rather than real research or third party auditing.”
“Greenpeace is more interested in putting themselves in a lot of headlines, rather than in presenting real information on the state of the tech industry’s environmental record, or in calling attention to the responsibility of consumers to make smart decisions that might actually have some impact on environmental issues,” Eran writes. “By shamelessly acting as another Apple parasite, Greenpeace not only distracts attention away from the smoke and mirrors deception of cheap, disposable PC makers’ supposedly green efforts to profit on environmentalism, but also besmirches Apple’s reputation and ignores their real actions taken to prevent toxic trash from ever needing any recycling.”
Full article here.
Related article:
Greenpeace criticizes Apple over toxic waste – August 29, 2006
Greenpiece of s—.
Go ride your bikes and don’t wear any non biodegradeable clothes. Either that, or hammer some spikes into trees, so that people get injured.
What? A radical left-wing environmental group has lied, has misconstrued and misrepresented the “facts”. What’s their excuse, “Al Gore made me do it?” I guess that if this is true this ruins the credibility of Greenpeace. Now, will left-wingers castigate and criticize Greenpeace for willful misconduct or will we see a tearful group hug with chanting to restore Greenpeace’s self esteem.
What? A radical any-wing group has lied, has misconstrued and misrepresented the “facts”?
Yeah of course if this is true Greenpeace should have to face some liability I think. I’ve never been a fan of Greenpeace, and HOLY SHIT I’m A LIBERAL! Any radical group on ANY side of any fence will always misrepresent because of their emotional involvement. And they will always do more harm to the cause than good, but they’ll never realize it. It’s not a “left wing” thing, it happens with any group on almost any issue. You don’t have to look any further than the Fundy Christians to understand that.
An activist group releasing a sloppy biased report? Where’s the news in that? If Greenpeace released a well researched unbiased report, that would be real news. Any activist group, whether left or right, will bias reports to fit their agenda. The conclusion is pre-determined and the only methodology is how to make the facts fit the conclusion. That is why they are called “activists”.
C’mon, G-Spank, say it. Say that if Greenpeace is found guilty of falsifying or misrepresenting data that Greenpeace is discredited, has deceived the public, and has conspired to propagandize. Say that everyone needs to objectively examine the facts before believing everything told them or acting irrationally. Be bold, don’t let bewilderment and confusion restrain your inner emotions and righteous indignation. Tell us, without equivocation or vacillation, what you would say if Greenpeace has deliberately lied. C’mon, G-Spank, say it.
Or will you prudently repress your inclination to make any assumptions or say anything untoward? Will you demurely give Greenpeace the benefit of the doubt and argue against a misguided rush to judgment? That’s OK, I understand. I’m not asking you to pass sentence. Hypothetically, just say now what you would say later if Greenpeace were found guilty of deception. You can do that, right? But will you, G-Spank, will you?
If Greenpeace is found guilty of falsifying or misrepresenting data that Greenpeace is discredited, has deceived the public, and has conspired to propagandize.
Everyone needs to objectively examine the facts (to the best of their ability) before believing everything told them or acting irrationally.
Hey wow, that was easy, because I believe that anyway. Now Maczealot, would you ever consider putting aside your emotions and acknowledging that I may be right about some things sometimes? Just curious.
If you’re talking zealots and misleading, incorrect information look at the source of the criticism…RoughlyDrafted boy is so biased it hurts. The guy will defend Apple no matter what the evidence may suggest.
G-Spank, maybe we are witnessing a change in public discourse where rational debate, sensible science, objective analysis, and impartiality can defeat the extremism that too often permeates national politics.
I smell chum.
Maczealot…
Yeah, left-wingers will do that around the same time that right-wingers do the same re: faulty intelligence in Iraq that has cost the lives of over 30,000 Iraqis (using even the President’s shaky “jar of beans” guesstimate, but probably closer to 100,000) and over 2,500 US service personnel and rising.
What’s more harmful? A report that might cost Apple some brownie points in the eyes of the public (like the public care about the environment) or a catalogue of lies and falsehoods that is likely to land up costing the country around ONE TRILLION DOLLARS ($3,000 for every man, woman and child in the US) by the time US troops are completely withdrawn, not including the ongoing care of veterans.
Of course, you’ll say that it was the responsibility of the world community to remove an evil and odious dictator. Too true. So we’ll be invading Myanmar any day now. Or Zimbabwe.
And just as a reminder, the “campaign for Middle East freedom” was about the third justification for invading Iraq after…
1) WMD – none
2) Links to 9/11 – none, as admitted by the President ‘accidentally’ during a recent White House press conference.
If that’s all too difficult for you, maybe right-wingers can at least all get around a table and agree about whether the Earth and all the life on it was created by a large explosion, accretion and evolution or whether it was all done as per a fairy-story in a book and then apologize for damaging the teaching of science in schools.
maczealot, in reguards to your last statement, i highly doubt it. case in point: the world trade centers fell at nearly free fall speed (according to some crazy newtonian physics ie F=MA) and yet people still believe that two commercial jets and the subsiquent fire brought the buildings down. I’m sorry but something stinks in the USA and it isn’t just greenpeas.
and y’all took it!
Maczealot sez:
“Say that if Greenpeace is found guilty of falsifying or misrepresenting data that Greenpeace is discredited, has deceived the public, and has conspired to propagandize. Say that everyone needs to objectively examine the facts before believing everything told them or acting irrationally. Be bold, don’t let bewilderment and confusion restrain your inner emotions and righteous indignation. Tell us, without equivocation or vacillation, what you would say if Greenpeace has deliberately lied. C’mon, G-Spank, say it.”
Nice wording Maczealot. Now remove the word “Greenpeace” and insert “President Bush”. It works. Only problem here is that Greenpeace is a private organization, while President Dipshit is supposed to be in charge of our fscking country. That’s what sucks.
Can’t wait to catch the BBC show about President Dumbass getting assassinated. Yeah, I know that it’s a dramatization, but it will still make me feel good inside.
@ajg, hit the nail on the head. If Dell were at the bottom of the scale and Apple close to the top, RoughlyDrafted would have an article about “Green” companies lambasting Dell and praising Apple. pointing to the (hypothetical) Greenpeace report as “evidence” and “fact”.
So how can we get Apple and other manufacturers to be more green?
re:”Can’t wait to catch the BBC show about President Dumbass getting assassinated. Yeah, I know that it’s a dramatization, but it will still make me feel good inside.”
Get counseling of some kind right away!
It’s a shame Maczealot, that you couldn’t say that I might be right about a few things. I guess it’s a one way street with you. If so, that makes you an extremist. You know what they say about negotiating with extremists.
Greenpeace’s motto should be “misleading and incompetent” because that’s precisely what that organization is.
OK, that went well.
‘misleading and incompetent’
Greenpeace(of crap) misleading and incompetent? No way! I can’t believe that!
“2) Links to 9/11 – none, as admitted by the President ‘accidentally’ during a recent White House press conference.”
Thats right, those planes were were accidentally flown into buildings due to sun spots, not people…..
Cum ba ya my lord, cum ba ya…..
1) WMD – none
Except for the Sarin Gas, and Mustard Gas….but that doesn’t count I guess.
Of course, the question everyone ignores. Where are the weapons? Even the UN has reported that these weapons existed at one point. So where are they now? I think that is more important that calling everyone liars, etc.
“and yet people still believe that two commercial jets and the subsiquent fire brought the buildings down. I’m sorry but something stinks in the USA and it isn’t just greenpeas.”
I don’t believe it. We here at the NWO actually blew the buildings up, which is why the falling towers were so controlled. We then used our magical “Busherizing” technology (that we licensed from the Skull and Bones society) to make all the materials used to demolish the building vanish into thin air. We then worked with our partners at Fox News to create computer generated images of airlines flying into the buildings and distributed it to all the news outlets.
We also crashed an empty plane into that field, which is why there were no boddies….ah ha ha ha ha ha…..long live the New World Order!
The fact is that the US invading Iraq was just about the best thing we could have done for Osama bin Laden. We validated their stance against us to the world. We damaged our good standing in the world community, thereby damaging our communication and ability to put pressure on other governments (read Iran). We got involved in a war that is depleting our resources, which is exactly how they toppled the USSR in Afghanistan. Bush supporters have in fact been supporting the Terrorists by supporting this incredibly stupid decision. It’s just…so…..ironic.