“Greenpeace International placed Apple Inc. last in its rankings of major electronics makers for their environmental friendliness, while Chinese manufacturer Lenovo Group Ltd. jumped to the top of the list,” Toby Sterling reports for The Associated Press.
“An Apple spokeswoman said the company rejects Greenpeace’s ranking system and that its products are among the ‘greenest’ on the market, pointing to more technical ratings used by the Green Electronics Council,” Sterling reports. “‘We disagree with Greenpeace’s rating and the criteria they chose,’ Apple spokeswoman Sheryl Seitz said, reading a prepared statement. ‘Apple has a strong environmental track record and has led the industry in restricting and banning toxic substances such as mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium, as well as many BFRs (brominated flame retardants).'”
Sterling reports, “According to standards developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., Apple products are not especially toxic.”
“The Green Electronics Council, funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, runs a web site that allows buyers to judge products on a score comprised of 23 different categories established by the IEE, including the materials used, energy conservation and packaging. Apple scored generally better than Lenovo and Dell,” Sterling reports.
“All of the computer companies in Greenpeace’s study had failed to eliminate BPRs and toxic vinyl plastics, though some of the phone makers did,” Sterling reports. “In addition, Greenpeace’s study didn’t take into account that in terms of quantity, Apple produces less toxic waste than larger competitors.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: We’re all for a cleaner environment, but Apple ought to charge Greenpeace a PR fee. Mostly, Apple is guilty of being a very a popular brand name which these militant “environmentalists” use to generate free publicity.
Apple doesn’t sell dirty CRT monitors, like certain cheapo Windows-centric PC box assemblers. Apple uses rechargeable batteries in iPods, instead of having tens of millions of users constantly tossing AA batteries into landfills. Apple even offers purchasers of Apple Macs and Apple monitors free recycling of their old computer and monitor — regardless of manufacturer. The list goes on.
Information on Apple’s recycling programs and industry-leading environmental policies is available online at http://www.apple.com/environment
Related articles:
EPA does not support Greenpeace’s charges against Apple Computer – January 07, 2007
Apple places last in Greenpeace ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’ report – December 07, 2006
Mac Expo evicts Greenpeace campaigners – October 26, 2006
Is Greenpeace lying about Apple’s ‘toxic laptops?’ – September 25, 2006
What kind of green are ‘environmental extortionists’ really after? – September 06, 2006
Greenpeace ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’ report called ‘misleading and incompetent’ – September 02, 2006
Greenpeace criticizes Apple over toxic waste – August 29, 2006
Apple offers free computer take-back recycling program – April 21, 2006
Defiant Steve Jobs calls environmentalists’ claims ‘B.S.’ – April 22, 2005
Greenpeace should go after M$ with their new Vista software-
– Forced upgrade of hardware – think of all the forced waste
– Vista runs all the time – added global warming and electricity waste
Guess they haven’t looked at that.
Greenpeace Lies About Apple
link:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/E83D58B3-10E0-4A9C-8847-BCE665EE235C.html
One more link for anyone interested in this ongoing Greenpeace & Apple discussion.
Greenpeace ranks last in objectivity in my book.
They have always taken ignorant pot-shots at popular products. This is just their way to get free publicity.
It is a shame that they use an organization with such a noble mission statement just to coherce funds from corporate America.
Please note….they do not fund or educate engineers to be more environmental friendly they just point, blame, and coherce. I have yet to see the campus of the Greenpeace Institute for Alternative Technologies and Environmental Friendly Manufacturing Methods.
Just my $0.02
Greenpeace is not green itself… it is more like a communist community. So who cares what they say.
The original Greenpeace has long been annulled.
Greenpeace can eat Crow.
Don’t forget the nails you hammered into them before you hug a tree.
^ Wil — Let me guess: You’re a uber-lib who thinks businesses are all “EVIL”, right?
You really need to open your eyes. Just take a look at all of the links provided ON THIS FORUM ALONE about Greenpeace’s terrible record. What say you?
And don’t believe everything you see or hear in your “doc’s” either. The “electric car” wasn’t ready for prime time. And anyway, how do you think all of those “electric cars” were going to be charged? With pixie dust? Try “with electricity”, which comes from multiple sources, both quasi non-polluting (nuclear) and polluting (coal fired plants), among others.
And I suppose that the average consumer would be expected to bite the bullet when it came time for your vaunted “electric car” to have its battery replaced after just one-third to one-half the car’s lifespan, eh? You know, a cost of several thousand dollars for one of them there fancy batteries, pal. Until it’s ready for the real world, STICK your electric car.
Oh, and I don’t know WHAT the “state meat industry” is. At least, my socialist state of Massachusetts doesn’t run its own meat industry.
Business drives America, Wil. Study basic Economics 101. And SMALL BUSINESS is the BACKBONE of the country.
And anyway, if you’re so “anti-business”, why the hell are you on an Apple blog? Because Apple is . . . GASP! . . . a BUSINESS!!!!!
I don’t remember where, but in the last couple of months Greenpeace admitted that Apple wasn’t that bad. BUT not that bad wasn’t good enough for them. They admitted targeting Apple and holding them to a much higher standard than the average company cause they ‘thought’ Apple should lead the way.
Does anyone else remember that? Did anyone else see it?
Surely these must have an effect:
• iMacs come only in one box rather than 2 for most PCs (less energy in creation and landfill)
• iPods reduce manufacturing of CDs (less landfill)
• iPods encourage listening through earphones (less noise pollution vs ghetto blasters)
• AppleTV reduces manufacturing of DVDs and tapes (less landfill)
• Macs are useful for longer (less landfill)
typical liberal post by Wil above:
“…Go watch the doc “Who Killed the Electric Car?” and then shoot yourself in the head.”
If you don’t agree with liberals you don’t deserve to live. Where’s the love? What if you’re a conservative whale?
I’ve never held Greenpeace in any regard due to their junk-science scaremongering. There’s a huge difference between conservation/stewardship and the environmentalist/zooalater/man-is-a-cancer crowd. I’m firmly on the side of the former and thus, have no use for Greenpeace and their unhelpful antics. Heck, even U2 has had it with Greenpeace.
MDN word: “Change”. “I’ll never change the world, but I can change the world in me when I rejoice” — U2
This site is so funny. “I hate Greenpeace, I hate Bill Gates, I hate the BBC, I hate Europe, I hate Zune, I hate women, I hate Vista, I hate Steve Balmer…but don’t you just adore my Mac, dude?”
Greenpeace is a movement to raise funds. They do big publicity stunts as fundraisers. Some huge percentage of funds raised go to the organization, or for marketing expenses – only a fraction is used to “do good.”
The Sea Shepherds was created by some of the original, disillusioned greenpeace founders which puts ALL of its efforts into “doing good.”
I hate Grandtheft
DIAF, Greenpiss!
I am in science and I have been involved with transgenic plants (for development in a non-profit way to help third world countries). This was where I got my exposure to Greenpeace. My god…and people like DLMeyer (see post above) call us Mac fanatics. You do not know what a fanatic is until you have dealt with these people. They have an opinion and they wage campaigns of misinformation to support it KNOWING that it is not based in fact.
They need money to travel the world and pay for their cell phones. They do not represent the public nor the puvblic interest. Most environmental scientists have little or no respect for them.
Hopefully you greenpeace supporters here will not find my comment too fanatical!!!!!
It irks me, that Greenpeace use to have a reputation that I believed in. I use to think that this was an honorable organization, even if I didn’t always agree; but this pissing contest with Apple and just blatant efforts to use Apple’s name to generate publicity makes me recognize the current leadership as morally corrupt.
It’s just damn sad, disappointing, and maddening. When they move so far away from scientific evidence to aggressive media manipulation with pseudo surveys; really they just need to pack up and go home.
“Apple’s Board Member Al Gore + Al Gore’s Movie = Saving the Planet”
Ah yes, typical liberalism. As long as you make a loud statement, it doesn’t matter what you actually do.
Could somebody please explain how making a movie (which is full of ‘facts’ that major scientists disagree with) saves the planet? Perhaps if the planet is suffering from insomnia….
MDN word: Nuclear, as in nuclear power does far more than Al Gores movie to keep the Earth clean
I’m not sure if Greenpeace was *ever* relevant but they sure aren’t any more. Their cofounder Patrick Moore has said of them: “”a band of scientific illiterates who use Gestapo tactics” (http://www.activistcash.com/news_detail.cfm?hid=1468). This bunch of crackpots has made themselves into the laughingstock of thinking people everywhere regardless of personal views on ecology.
Another BusinessWeek article, new today, about Greenpeace being off the mark on Apple:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2007/04/there_goes_gree.html
MW = old, as in this Greenpeace BS is getting old
I really liked them when they protected baby seals and whales… they should go back to that.
YOU CAN FERTILIZE YOUR LAWN WITH USED MOTOR OIL
Quad Core,
Check your nuclear power figures. Remember, nuclear reactors are built with materials made with electricity from coal-burning plants. Then there’s the question of depleted uranium storage. Do I need to mention Three Mile Island?
To quote Kraftwerk: Chernobyl. Harrisburg. Sellafield. Hiroshima.
“…Go watch the doc “Who Killed the Electric Car?” and then shoot yourself in the head.”
And electric cars are recharged how? Fossil power plants are about 35% efficient at changing fossil fuel energy into electric energy. Their waste streams contain tons of NOx, CO, CO2, and sulfur as measured hourly. So called “renewable” sources for electric energy like wind and solar CANNOT ever account for more than a small percentage of our demand even with the best technology.
China? China!!!??? Where power plant, automobile, and factory stack emissions are UNREGULATED? Where human workers are treated no better than the factory farmed chickens and veal that the Vegans and Greenpeacers are so vocal about? Where there is no such thing as a water treatment plant? China, land of Lenovo? Give me a break!
Greenpeace had zero credibility to begin with. I’m not sure how you express that level now.
Greenpeace also rank Apple dead last in it’s list of companies who contribute to Greenpeace’s coffers.
mudflapper:
“Check your nuclear power figures. Remember, nuclear reactors are built with materials made with electricity from coal-burning plants.”
Um, coal and wind and solar and other nuclear plants. So what? In it’s 30 year lifespan Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant will have provided electricity to millions of people without spewing billions of tons of pollutants into the air and without burning 26,280,000 tons of coal. DCPP has no smoke stacks.
“Then there’s the question of depleted uranium storage.” Yes, what to do with the approximately 142 cubic yards of contaminated waste over DCPP’s 30 year lifespan? That’s approximately enough contaminated waste to fill an average two car garage.
“Do I need to mention Three Mile Island?”
As a matter of fact I wish you would. TMI is the ONLY major nuclear mishap in the US in the 50 years we’ve been using nuclear power. TMI resulted in no public exposure to radiation, no damage to nearby public or private property, and no appreciable release of any contaminants, unlike Chernobyl, which happened under a totalitarian communist government, like China.