“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
I have a lovely bunch of coconuts.
It seems like “liberals” are the ones who are interested in conserving things these days – like our jobs, our middle-class, the lives of our troops, our tax dollars, our international alliances, the environment, our educational system, women’s rights, our civil liberties, and so on.
What are the “conservatives” trying to conserve?
TowerTone…
So, without any argument on the substance of my post, you decide to pick on my nom de plume.
It’s nice keeping Mondale’s name: after all, doesn’t it give you a warm feeling to remember a vice-president who was a committed public servant and who was never mired in controversies like having a conflict of interest between his corporate life and his public life and who never used his office to besmirch his opponents or (illegally) uncover the identity of a CIA operative.
On a less serious note, he’s also never managed to shoot someone while hunting for quail.
Jimbo:
“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.”
Jimbo, you are sick.
Maczealot…
So just to be clear, you’re accusing liberals of being irrational and inflexible.
I would point out that we’re the ones arguing for more research to confirm or deny any number of theories, from climate change to stem-cell research. It’s the Religious RIght that wants to cling to fairy-stories to explain the existence of the Universe and wants to trust to hope and a fair wind regarding climate change.
Even the story you posted from the Australian newspaper wasn’t the beacon of hope that you wanted it to be: it said that the climate change anomaly may be held to +3ºC by the end of this century assuming the emissions of greenhouse gases could be held at current levels.
Well, pardon me for pissing on your firework, but +3ºC is still enough to put the Maldives under water and its still enough to do severe damage to the Great Barrier Reef.
And just to extinguish that hope further, let’s remember that the report requires greenhouse gas generation to stay static and the article mentions that Australia and the US (the two largest industrialised generators of CO2 on the planet when analysed from a tonnes per capita basis won’t sign up to climate change treaties and want China and India to do more to clean up their act.
Quite frankly, this is naive nonsense: why would the developing nations give up cheap power to build their economies when the USA and Australia have shown no commitment to environmental leadership in any way and – in the case of Australia – are generating dramatically more CO2 per head now than they did in 1980.
Quite frankly, both of these governments should know better: Australia is more than aware of what happens under unusual weather conditions and should put more of a value on its tourism industry. And I would have thought the the USA wouldn’t really want to lose Florida to rising sea levels, not to mention the fact that much of Manhattan (a lot of which is reclaimed land anyway) and Long Island will be at risk as well.
And what we still have to discover is whether the start of the climate change phenomenon is in sync with our activities or if its offset by 30 to 50 years. You’d better hope it’s the former.
I would have an easier time explaining the internal combustion engine to my 3 year old grandson. As you make claims about Cheney, you indicate you have no tolerance for reality. Why waste my time? Any of us could write a book of facts for you that would simply be called “false”. You have your view of the world where America is the problem. My view is that it COULD be the solution, if it could apply itself more to solving problems rather than fighting petty PR wars within its own borders.
Now you can insert your claims that I am unimformed, kool-aid drinking, Fascist, right wing neocon who favors death over cures. That will be because you have no clue how I view the world, what I view as right or wrong. Good luck with that pessimism.
hey Mondale
didn’t you hear that whole “uncovering the identity of a CIA operative” was a bunch of bull shit that was falsified and lied about, or do you not keep up with the news?
Get some education idiot!
OK, just to clarify, that last post was TO Mondale, not FROM him.
Mondale:
Since neither you nor I will be alive in 100 years, it is unlikely that we will observe the average global air temperature in 2106. However, I will gladly accept that your models have global validity if your current models can accurately and consistently predict the monthly average air temperature for the next 10 years in 1,000 cities, 5,000 towns, 4,000 villages, and 2,000 hamlets; 300 forests, 200 swamps, 3 ice fields, 150 prairies, 120 estuaries, 300 mountain tops, 4 oceans, and every layer of the atmosphere. Each major revision of the current model starts the monthly 10-year predictive process all over again, because we recognize that using incomplete and inaccurate models is both fraudulent and unscientific. Can we agree that any observed monthly air temperature that deviates more than +/- 15% from the predicted average monthly air temperature for more than 50% of sampled sites is evidence that the model is inherently inaccurate and imprecise?
I think that if evolution and intelligent design were contrasted and compared rigorously and objectively that the faults, fallacies, and futilities of the specious argument will be made evident, thus discrediting the other. To prevent the resurgence of false beliefs and pseudo-scientific ideas from permeating our schools and universities, we will need to remain committed to the task of continuously teaching students how to think by carefully examining the strengths and weaknesses of both evolution and intelligent design. Anyone who proposes that objective and open-minded interpretation of factual data isn’t the basis of modern science, is the best method of studying scientific processes, encourages correct thinking, and enhances the development of scientific understanding is fooling himself or herself.
What are the “conservatives” trying to conserve?
I don’t know….maybe the lives of those who would be……….
MURDERED BY TERRORISTS!!!
And by the way, do not think that just because they oppose the war (this week, most of them voted for it), don’t think they want to conserve tax money. Although the (supposed) conservatives are spending like drunken sailors, the dems are just as bad. And more than that, they want to RAISE taxes.
As for the middle class and jobs nonsense. Please explain why home buying and building is higher than ever? Please explain why unemployment is lower than ever. Please explain why average wages in this country are rising? Why is consumer spending up? Simple because of the wealth of the middle class. All of this is happening while we are paying for a war, and lowering taxes….go figure.
Also, the number of people moving from middle class to wealthy is also growing. Why can’t anyone ever look back and say “wow, we’re doing pretty good?
Think Straight
In order for things to be going “good” for libs, things must go “bad” for conservatives, even if it means bad for the country. And they wonder where we get the nerve to call them unpatriotic. But, my, the weather is nice here today!
“What are the “conservatives” trying to conserve?
I don’t know….maybe the lives of those who would be……….
MURDERED BY TERRORISTS!!!”
Wow, so you are a member of the “vote Republican or we’ll all be murdered by terrorists” platform.
Let’s see… one terrorist attack, five years ago, and we haven’t even gotten the guy who instigated that attack because we’ve been too busy fighting an utterly unrelated war in Iraq. If conservatives were truly trying to protect us from terrorists, we surely would have gotten the guy who caused 9/11 to happen by now, right?
Let’s see… one terrorist attack, five years ago, and we haven’t even gotten the guy who instigated that attack because we’ve been too busy fighting an utterly unrelated war in Iraq. If conservatives were truly trying to protect us from terrorists, we surely would have gotten the guy who caused 9/11 to happen by now, right?
Last I checked he is hiding out in caves somewhere, and hasn’t been able to do too much. We decimated his home base, killed most of his lead henchmen, and locked up many of his money sources.
Saddam Hussein was stopped due to the fact that he repeatedly ignored treaties we signed with him to end the last war. He ignored UN sanctions, and he supported terrorism. Even if you don’t want to believe that he had connections with Al Qaeda, he did repeatedly work with Hamas, providing money to the families of those who blew themselves up for ‘the cause’.
Perhaps you are more comfortable with him in power, and with him murdering his own people, and with him using professional rapists. I am not.
I don’t understand how people can attack our president for fighting true evil. Would you have been disturbed back in WWII that we fought against Hitler? After all what did Hitler do to America?
All right, Nick, I’ll play your game. It was not one terroist attack, it was many, dating back to Lebanon when the Marines were killed, who were not there for our gain, but to help in civil war torn Beirut.
It was not one man who attacked us on 911-it is an enrire organization headed by Osama that has been all but destroyed. Yes, they still have power, and they continue to be attacked.
Had the nation been focused on Islamofacist five years sooner rather than on a blue dress, this message could have been sent then.
I’ll tell you what I have told my friends and kids for years-
The Democrats will help you if you’re in a soup line
The Republicans will help you if you’re in the unemployment line
When we’re attacked-we all better get in line.
Firstly, Towertone…
Yep, America can and should be a beacon for scientific and social progress in the world. But – for reasons which I find unfathomable – it appears to have deserted reason for some neo-McCarthyite madness where we all need to look over our shoulder and be frightened of our neighbours and friends, whilst simultaneously taking an ultra-hostile view to anybody who questions the actions of the State as if silence and acquiescence are virtues of patriotism.
This was a hallmark of the neo-con influence in the Ford administration (Cheney quite blatently falsifying the threat of Soviet Russia by using the logic that “if we don’t know what they’re doing, they must be doing something of which we should be frightened, therefore we must increase military spending” – hmmm, sound familiar in any way?) and the Reagan administration (Casey [CIA Director] knowingly promulgated a myth that the Soviet Union was at the root of all world terrorism based on something he read in a book [!] despite being told by his CIA staff that the book itself was the result of CIA-planted disinformation/propaganda [!!]).
The result of the former were programmes like the Rockwell B1-B, which cost $28 billion to deliver around 100 airframes (remember this is 1984 money when $28 billion was real money). I personally love the B1-B from an aesthetic point of view [it really is a beautiful aircraft], but to say that it was an answer in search of a question is a mild understatement – a truth rendered more obvious by the fact that it has been converted (presumably at even more cost) to a conventional weapons role. $28 billion+ on Lancer is one thing, but SDI [another $40 billion+], MX [Peacekeeper, another $20 billion+] means that you could probably easily discover $80-$100 billion in defense projects that were predicated on logic that my mother would have used when she was alive.
Still, that’s just taxpayers money which has always been wasted and nobody (cynics that we are) expects any better.
However, the result of the latter were Iran/Contra (the latter being involved in cocaine production and smuggling), covert support for the Mujahaddin (who were also not above being involved in drugs running) and the the Executive branch providing cover for Contra-linked drugs dealers: if that’s your idea of a “high water” mark for standards and ethics for any country, let alone the country that should be a paragon for international behaviour, it really isn’t mine.
It’s the polarization created by this administration’s high-handed arrogance and unwillingness to concede errors by continually post-rationalizing its actions that have caused the PR divisions in the country.
Come back to the relative intelligence, sanity and pragmatism of GHW Bush’s administration (where Dick C and his motley crew didn’t have nearly as much power and influence) and an enormous amount of emotion would immediately leave the debate and you’d probably have a more united country; nobody says the USA shouldn’t defend itself or try to shape world opinion, but it should do so using logic, reason and proportionate response as opposed to myths, paranoia and a “you’re either with us or against us” attitude to foreign policy and alliances.
And let me be even more magnanimous: I don’t actually believe that GW Bush is an embodiment of evil and I’m willing to concede that his love for the country is sincere and heartfelt. However, the problem with the guy is that he’s hands-off to the point of absurdity with only the most abstract grip on policy details.
As a a result, people – most of whom have never had to win a public mandate and who have minimal empathy with the real concerns of the American people – have been allowed to influence public policy in a way that has fractured the country in the most extreme way for a generation.
You cannot be a real leader to over 290 million people and delegate the development and execution of practically every major element of domestic and foreign policy to people who are more committed to political or religious ideologies than they are to sound management of public finances or the maintenance of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the rule of both national or international law. In short, there’s a difference between being a visionary administration and an administration driven by signs and wonders.
Mondale:
I would appreciate an equally in-depth analysis of liberal spending on “social programs” that have done nothing statistically significant to improve the lives of the poor, has encouraged laziness and dependency, has raised numerous generations of dysfunctional citizens, and has reduced the long-term financial strength of middle-income citizens though excessive taxation.
Also – just to prove I’m not a terrorist-loving liberal (not that I have to, but what the heck) – let me suggest another way in which terrorism could be defeated…
Given the strictures now placed on the banking (nearly typed baking there, which would have been surreal) community to monitor the funds being deposited into accounts, it should be increasingly difficult for Al Qua’ida to fund the various “projects” that local affiliates or franchises seek to inflict on America or its allies.
However, such strictures do not impact on the Hawala network of informal funds transfer agents which operates outside the conventions of the financial community.
Herein lies a flaw in the assymetric war on terror; if you want to deprive the cancer of Islamic terrorism of the life-blood of funding, your first step should be to identify those members of the Muslim community who are components in the Hawala network and either convince them that their actions run counter to the public good or warn them that – if they continue – they will be subject to continual examination by the tax authorities and security agencies in a way that will make their lives impossible.
I know that it has been argued that such an ‘attack’ on the Hawala system may cause a backlash within the Islamic community, especially as the devout cannot use ‘traditional’ banks because of the strictures on usury in the Qu’ran. However, it would take a minimal amount of imagination to get major banks to set up ‘Sharia’-friendly banking mechanisms as arms-length operations thus negating the need for the Hawala system.
This kind of intelligence-led operation would have been cheaper than the phony war in Iraq by at least an order of magnitude and would have yielded greater domestic security. It would also be more effective than the opportunities for financial intelligence afforded by the Patriot Act, which – as is the way with legislation – merely caters for the conventional rather than mechanisms which operate outside of such limits.
Damn, Towertone, now YOU got pulled in. I thought you recognized the bait?
It is funny, though, to start at the top of the comments section and see the argument progress to something completely unrelated.
This argument is futile and will not change the mind of anyone responding.
MW= Stage as in “the stage was set for a ridiculous comment and we were not disappointed”
There are 3 sides to every story! Yours, mine, and the facts!
What a fun time we’ve had under President Bush so far… Iraq war started over known false information (google for Downing street memo) with no exit strategy… Record national debt… Warrantless wiretapping (remember Nixon?)… USA torturing prisoners of war, Bush fights for our right to torture until his own stacked supreme court smacks him down… Bin Laden still not captured… Hurricane Katrina scandal… Libby indicted, resigns… President and Cheny knowingly compromised CIA agent’s identity… President pushes for constitutional amendment to ban gays from marrying, gets smacked down by predominately-Republican congress… Good times.
If we had a truly conservative President, so we wouldn’t be flushing our money, civil rights, and international relations down the toilet. We wouldn’t be pushing homophobic agendas into the constitution, we wouldn’t be trying to keep everyone afraid all of the time with our bullcrap national terror alert which has never been lower than “elevated – significant risk of terrorist attacks”.
It’s not that I’m against Republicans (I’m independent), but President Bush sure makes it hard to be proud of my country. I don’t give a crap which political party our leaders are affiliated with, I just wish they would demonstrate that they respected and loved our country, and I wish they would keep our long-term interests in mind. I’m hoping that, after 8 years of such a hideously embarrassing President, the Republican party will become more moderate again.
I know, Buckeye, but it is my birthday, and what the hell, MDN is on a deseved break, gotta read something after the local dead-tree edition of the news is finished.
And Mondale, I don’t dispute there are many fronts to fighting terrorist or communist. You can forever take small shots , like swatting at swarming bees, and you will have some success. But what many in the world have thought of the US and the West in general is that we can be attacked with only a small response, because we have lost our will, through laziness, to fight when attacked.
And as far as Iran-Contra, had the Democrats in the haouse and senate not cut the funding for these fighters, there would have never been that debacle. I say kudos to Ollie for pulling it off.
As for the McCarthey Myth, yes there was a witch hunt. It was blown out of proportion because the witches being hunted were in the media. Had they been poor southern white men, no one would have cared.
I agree the B1 is beautiful, they fly close to my house sometimes. The real beauty is the reason we DON’T need them for nukes. They did their job without ever dropping a single one on the USSR, which was pretty damn stealthy in of itself.
Enjoyed it, but gotta take the kids to see “Little Miss Sunshine”. After all, it is my b’day.
Maczealot…
I’ll tell you what, you argue the points on which you are passionate and I’ll do the same on my side. Otherwise, I’m doing all the work and you’re standing at the sidelines in a supervisory capacity throwing spitballs.
I agree that many social programs are incredible wastes of public money, however pork-barrel military programs can and have been nothing more than subsidies for industries and communities that could/indeed should learn to live within their means. Indeed, my landlord – a serving military officer – argues that one of the weaknesses of the US military is that it acts as a surrogate social welfare program that can have the effect of substituting quantity for quality.
Quite frankly, governments of every persuasion should – as far as possible – stay out of the day-to-day lives of their citizens. Equally, citizens should learn a greater sense of self-reliance and recognize that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
For both sides of this equation to be true would require a multi-generational commitment by both parents and the education system to inculcate personal and social responsibility.
Unfortunately, this massively exceeds the capacity of the lowest-common denominator value system that is a by-product of treating education as a political football for decades on end. Sadly parents – from all walks of life and all political persuasions – are equally to blame for failing to provide a strong moral/ethical framework by a variety of factors including (but not limited to)…
The breakdown of the ‘nuclear’ family: It is a sad fact that far too many families implode at the first sign of trouble and – as a result – simply fail to provide a stable and continuous guide to their children.
The inexorable rise of families in which both parents are forced to lead professional lives leading to a inter-generational disconnect.
The rise of “trendy” parenting where mothers and fathers try to (over)-compensate for not being sufficiently involved by either trying to be their children’s “best friend” or by over-indulging their children which leads to a false sense of how the world really works.
That said, I come from a background where you got a smack across the back of your legs if you behaved disrespectfully or acted outside of socially acceptable behavior and – whilst I’m not advocating un-restrained child abuse – I can’t help feel that parents are now forced to work with one hand tied behind their back if you’ll pardon the pun.
Towertone…
So your defense to the Iran/Contra thing is that Congress should have encouraged people who were involved in a massive operation to flood the USA with even more Bolivian marching powder and then dear old Ollie would not have had to act in such an underhand way.
Do you know anyone who’s had their lives or the life of someone they loved ruined by cocaine, or narcotics of any sort? Or do you just not care about the ethical considerations?
I’m not certain I can see the logic in that position…any more than I could see the logic in North’s original actions, the only plus side of which was to introduce Fawn Hall to the world.
Greenpeace is an enviro-terrorist-crackpot organization and should be treated as such.
Ignore them when they troll (like this), turn them over to law enforcement when they pull shit.
I’m surprised they haven’t dispatched their protest mobs to Apple HQ already.
Mondale, I like your approach and must say that I’d prefer a clear thinking individual such as yourself who’s willing to strike at the root of the problem. At least in so far as you’ve demonstrated with that Hawala example.
Problem is, the people who oppose Bush politically don’t speak with such specificity. Instead I’ve got Howard Dean running around spouting “We need a new direction.” That’s the same bullshit rhetoric behind John Kerry’s loss, “I have a plan!” What is the plan? WTF is this new direction? Bush can get away with slogans because he’s not the underdog.
As much as I personally dislike George W. Bush, Americans kept him in power and will continue to do so after the November elections because of the alternative. What’s to say the Democrats won’t return to that pre-9/11 way of thinking? We’re supposed to put our country in the hands of Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi? America recognizes Bush is an incompetent moron but it’s the thought of Bill Clinton’s two terms of ignorance that make people select that Republican candidate in the end.
Y’all can keep on hating Bush, keep on underestimating them Republowkins and the people who vote for them (reminds me of GM and the way they regard Camry buyers). It’s not them you should be angry with, it’s the Democrats who don’t have the balls to rise up and take control. Until an individual such as Mondale up there can sit down in front of Tim Russert and clearly explain such ideas with a capital D next to his name, Rove will prevail. Only person I hear anything specific from is Joe Biden but you’ve got such a hardon for that bitch Hillary Clinton you’ll probably nominate her instead. Her or Al Bore.
Look at the islamo fascism rhetoric. Democrats can’t even speak up loud enough to refute this half assed theory. The two party system right now reminds me of the Faux News show Hannity & Colmes. The Republicans are big bad ass cowboy boot wearin’ block headed Hannity, spitting slogans that only look good so long as his lowly, tinny-voiced liberal sidekick permits instead of putting some lip balm on Hannity’s chapped lips.
If you ever ran for president though, Mondale, you might have my vote. Instead I’ll likely be casting my next presidential ballot in favor of Mitt Romney.