“The environmental track records of Apple Computer and Lenovo Group have been singled out for criticism by environmental group Greenpeace in a report on toxic chemicals used by the technology industry,” Andrew Donoghue reports for ZDNet UK.
“Nokia and Dell came out top in the ranking, with the Finnish handset manufacturer leading the way in 2005 by eliminating use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in its products. Dell also has set ambitious targets for cutting its use of PVC and brominated flame retardants (BFRs), according to Greenpeace,” Donoghue reports. “Lenovo and Apple fared less well, with the Chinese PC manufacturer ranked last. Greenpeace claimed that Lenovo earned some points for its chemicals management and voluntary take-back programs but needs to do better on all criteria.”
“The environmental group also said that Apple could do more to match its environmental record with its hip and trendy image… A representative for Apple disagreed with Greenpeace’s rating and the criteria it had chosen. “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. We have also completely eliminated CRT (cathode ray tube) monitors, which contain lead, from our product line,” the representative said.”
Full article here.
[Attribution: MacRumors. Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “NixoN” for the heads up.]
Greenpeace’s “Guide to Greener Electronics” Apple Ranking (2.7/10) in PDF format here.
Apple’s “Apple and the Environment” webpages and information here: http://www.apple.com/environment/
Apple Recycling Program: “Purchase any qualifying Apple computer or monitor and receive free recycling of your old computer and monitor — regardless of manufacturer.”
Related articles:
Apple offers free computer take-back recycling program – April 21, 2006
Greenpeace has one fundamental parameter to issue its *ranking*: use of materials containing PVC. It is currently approved in a plethora of products, even items for babies like soft toys and bottles. Greenpeace bans it — and it might be right — but it is Greenpeace’s bans, not prohibited toxic material.
“The RoHS rules ban products containing any more than trace amounts of lead, mercury, cadmium and other hazardous substances, including some nasty materials called brominated flame-retardants (BFRs).”
Apple adheres to bans of RoHS.
“To do well in Greenpeace’s rankings, firms must make sure both products and production processes are free of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and some BFRs that are not on the RoHS list.”
The important thing is the RoHS list. Some material that are not on the RoHS list are banned by Greenpeace.
“As for recycling, the 9,500 tonnes of electronics Apple says it has recycled since 1994 is puny given the amount of equipment the firm sells, says Ms Al-Hajj.”
That is, Apple is penalized by Greenpeace because it does not recycle enough. Recycling comes form dismissed products. Shall Apple be penalized because its products last longer than others hence still around and working. What Apple should do? sending mails to customers asking them to get rid of their Apple products — even if working perfectly — so that they could be recycled more and make the *quota* looking good for Greenpeace?
“Comically, Greenpeace is now considering a plan to promote its e-waste campaign via podcasting—a technology that Apple helped to popularise.”
I think the Apple representative said it all and Greenpeace is looking for some publicity. Since Apple is on top and getting a lot of attention there picking on Apple.
Other than that Greenpiece is full of it!
Apple did make a environmentally correct computer, or so they thought.
It consisted of a pencil and a paper note pad. Completely biodegradable. Who could complain?
Greenpeace tree huggers, that’s who. They said that if everyone on earth switched to Apple’s pencil and paper idea all of earth’s forests would disappear in 30 years and we would all die from carbon dioxide poisoning.
You can’t win with those bastards.
Jimbo – Cancer, parkinson’s, alzheimer’s and other maladies most likely have existed throughout human history under more generalized medical terms (palsies, senility, etc.),
More like terms such as…. posession, curses, evil spirits, etc.
Apple is the most ignorant company i’ve ever seen
Just once I would like a company to come out and be honest……
—Press Release—
in response to recent criticism by the environmental (and we stress ‘mental’) group Greenpeace, Apple Computers officially requests that Greenpeace go screw themselves. As a closed corporate entity, we at Apple are fairly certain that Greenpeace has no clue what goes on behind our doors. Furthermore we feel it is nobodies business how we conduct business, unless we are breaking laws. In Apple Computer will be teaming with other companies that these mental patients have slandered, and are planniing suing the living crap out of these jobless busy-bodies. Apple hereby suggests that these filthy, crunchy, hippies take showers, get a job, and get really good lawyers.
Did any of you even bother to download the Greenpeace report on Apple before you started mouthing off about it?
The issues Greenpeace have identified are:
1. Apple has no PVC-free or BFR-free products for sale, except for some peripherals.
2. Apple has no specific timeline for complete phaseout of PVCs from its products.
3. Apple has no specific timeline for complete phaseout of BFRs from its products.
4. Apple has not published the entirety of its Regulated Substances Specification 069-0135, hindering public scrutiny.
5. Apple’s stated definition of the precautionary principle reflects a poor understanding of this principle and its application in chemical policy.
6. Apple’s “individually responsible approach” toward recycling is not explicit enough to meet the Individual Producer Responsibility guidelines.
7. Apple does not have voluntary takeback in every country in which it sells products, nor for every product it sells.
8. Apple does not provide takeback information to consumers in every country in which it sells products, even in countries that have mandatory EPR laws.
9. Apple reports amounts recycled on the basis of weight, and not percentage of sales. On the positive side, Apple acknowledges importance of responsible recycling i.e. no export of collected e-waste and bans recovery of plastics in smelters.
What particularly hurt Apple in its rankings are points (1) and (3) above. Point (1) in particular counted double.
Other points have to do with transparency, geographic coverage, and product coverage.
The point is, that there is a long way to go before Apple can put its hand on its heart and claim good environmental citizenship.
Apple likes to trumpet the progress it’s making, but it doesn’t want to commit to any timeline other than its own internal ones. But “trust me” is not good enough as a public position.
Rather, if Apple is serious about its environmental citizenship, then it would fix these issues, and it would fix them asap.
It’s good. It’s all good.
Which came first, the economy or the environment?… it’s like we are in the days when most people believed that the sun orbits Earth. The economy is secondary to evironmental health. Dead environment,… no life, no economy.
Can we think/plan 7 generations into the future? Or is next quarter profits only as far as we can see?
mw: lost
The real point is that Apple scored 2.7 out of a possible 10, which by any standard is a poor performance.
Dell scored 7 out of 10, which is a much better ranking. Why did Dell score so much better than Apple?
1. Like Apple, Dell does not have any current PVC-free or BFR-free products. This hurts, because it counts double.
2. Dell has a specific timeline for eliminating PVCs from new products by 2009.
3. Dell has a specific timeline for eliminating BFRs from new products by 2009.
4. Dell publishes a list of specific chemicals targeted for substitution and provides a good description
of how it manages its supply chain to achieve its substitution goals.
5. Dell has a clear understanding and support for the precautionary principle.
6. Dell has strong support for Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR) and legislation embracing IPR.
7. Dell’s voluntary takeback program will be global by November 2006, even in countries without EPR laws.
8. Dell provides takeback information to consumers, but not yet on a worldwide basis.
9. Dell provides metrics for product recycling & reuse globally but based on weight – not as percentage of sales, although this is acknowledged as a challenge for future.
The point is that while neither company has PVC-free or BFR-free products, Dell does have specific targets and deadlines, transparency, global coverage, and product coverage. Apple has little of these.
Between the two, it is clear that Dell is exercising far more responsibility and leadership in this area, and that Apple is lagging.
For those interested, the report on Apple is here:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-apple-rank.pdf
The report on Dell is here:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-dell-ranki.pdf
Sounds like we need a Dell check up in 2009—see how all that responsible planning is shaping up. (If they are still in business, that is)
Eff greenpeace! I long for the day when one of their ships is sunk by a ship they were tryint to stop.
– Mark
@ Mark
The French sunk the “Rainbow Warrior”, a Greenpeace ship, a number of years ago. Greenpeace was protesting a nuclear test somewhere in the South Pacific. Greenpeace attempted to blockade a French destroyer and was sunk.
The trouble with “true believers” is that Greenpeace acts as thoush it has correct perceptions of the world and the solutions to problems.
The reality is that Greenpeace arrogantly pushes positions that have, at best, dubious scientific support and at worst can result in remedies that are worse than the perceived problem.
One of the “problems” they have “solved” by lobbying the EU to enact rules affecting the entire word is the use of lead in solder in electronics. The Greenpeace presumption — which is unsupportable by real evidence — is that disposal of electronic parts containing small amounts of lead in solder constitutes an environmental problem.
That presumption is tied to a position that’s usually fundamental to Greenpeace thinking, the Precautionary Principle, which holds that possible adverse consequences of technology should receive much higher weight in decision making than possible favorable consequences.
The Precautionary Principle is one of those fads that attracts adherents in spite of the fact that it is simply stupid. To paraphrase it, one should never cross the street to buy food at a grocery store, because crossing the street is dangerous. But as a consequence one forgoes the ability to obtain nourishment, and will starve to death.
In the context of technology development, the Precautionary Principle demands that one forgo new opportunities and benefits, however desirable, if there could be any possible adverse consequence. At it’s heart, that’s the end of the Western view of science, technology and progress.
In the context of the remedy for the perceived problems with solder, the solution pushed by Greenpeace has been a widespread quality problem with electronic boards, with higher failure rates. Greenpeace’s solution was political, and was pushed without consideration of the lack of acceptable alternatives to solder. I call that arrogant and stupid, because the results can be far more deaths and adverse health effects than the relatively trivial problem of lead in landfills. Do you want your modern medical equipment, or your automobile’s computer, or any of countless other electronic components to be more likely to fail at critical times?
“Rather, if Apple is serious about its environmental citizenship, then it would fix these issues, and it would fix them asap.”
Here’s a better idea. Don’t tell other people how to run their business. If you don’t like it, go start your own business.
Besides, when has listening to these environmental ‘whack jobs’ ever helped anything. These nut cases fought against drilling for oil, which led the way for environmental disasters like the Exxon Valdez, and has led to the gas problems and refining problems we have today.
They fought to ban DDT, which we discovered recently does NOT cause the problems they claimed it did. Not using DDT, however, did lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths from malaria.
Furthermore, the last time these environmentalists began began screaming about materials such as CFCs, we ended up with replacements that it turns out were 10,000 times worse than the CO2 from cars.
These people have a huge record of being wrong, why should we listen to them?
“The real point is that Apple scored 2.7 out of a possible 10, which by any standard is a poor performance.”
From a meaningless bunch of nut cases who have time and time again been on the wrong side of their issues.
“The point is that while neither company has PVC-free or BFR-free products, Dell does have specific targets and deadlines, transparency, global coverage, and product coverage. Apple has little of these.”
And Microsoft had plans of delivering Vista in 2002. Ford had plans to create a flying car back in the fifties. Michael Moore had plans to lose 2800lbs., it never happened. Anyone can say what they want, it’s meaningless without action.
Bill_D writes:
“the Precautionary Principle, which holds that possible adverse consequences of technology should receive much higher weight in decision making than possible favorable consequences.”
Nonsense. That is not what it says.
Rather, the Precautionary Principle says:
“if the potential consequences of an action may be severe or irreversible, in the absence of full scientific certainty the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.”
(Source: Wikipedia)
So if you’re a corporation and proposing to dump chemicals in the environment, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that your chemicals will not cause severe, widespread, or irreversible damage.
Similarly, if you’re the FAA, and you get a report of hairline cracks in a wing strut of a certain model aircraft, you (as the regulator) ground all the planes of that model until they can be individually inspected, even if there is no direct evidence of widespread failure. Reason: The loss of a wing would be severe and irreversible, and therefore the burden is on the airlines to prove their planes do not suffer from the possible defect.
The reason the precautionary principle is so important is that it emphasizes preventing environmental problems before they begin, rather than waiting until after the damage is done.
That’s why it’s been incorporated – starting as far back as 1982 – in numerous United Nations resolutions, international treaties, and the proposed constitution for the European Union.
Ray Lane writes (amongst much ad hominem ranting):
“Don’t tell other people how to run their business. If you don’t like it, go start your own business.”
This is patently absurd. All countries place limits, through laws and regulations, on the behavior of legal persons, whether individuals or corporations. Why should a corporation be off limits for criticism if it pollutes the environment?
” These nut cases fought against drilling for oil, which led the way for environmental disasters like the Exxon Valdez, and has led to the gas problems and refining problems we have today.”
This is equally absurd. The Exxon Valdez struck ground because the captain was not at the helm as it approached shore, and an inexperienced person who didn’t know the layout of Prince William Sound was at the helm. The large oil spill that followed was due to the fact that the oil tanker had a single hull. Since then, the industry has shifted to double hulled ships, which are much more able to contain spills if and when the outer hull is penetrated.
The limited availability of natural gas and oil refinery capacity within the United States has much more to do with the low oil prices in the 1990s (oil was at $13 a barrel in 1998, in case you’ve forgotten), which made investment in pipelines and refineries unprofitable.
Trying to blame these issues on environmentalists is like blaming John F. Kennedy for the astronaut deaths in the Apollo 13 crash.
Theodore Roosevelt, Rachel Carson and Ralph Nader didn’t cause the Exxon Valdez to run around, and it is offensive to suggest otherwise.
Ray Lane writes:
“And Microsoft had plans of delivering Vista in 2002. Ford had plans to create a flying car back in the fifties. Michael Moore had plans to lose 2800lbs., it never happened. Anyone can say what they want, it’s meaningless without action.”
Exactly. Which is why it’s critical for companies to develop a plan for what chemicals they intend to replace, what the substitute chemicals will be, and how the supply chain will be modified to make the transitions.
Which is exactly what Dell has done, and published, whereas Apple has not.
Now enter groups like Greenpeace, which will monitor and hold publicly accountable the corporations on how well they follow these plans. If 2009 approaches and there is no sign of Dell meeting its stated commitments, you better believe that Greenpeace will raise the matter.
So exactly which part of transparency and accountability do you have a problem with?
Real Issues: Apollo 13 crash!!!! ummm what planet did that happen on? On this planet they didn’t crash and survived, altho without actually making the moon landing. Are you thinking of the Apollo 1 launchpad fire? Or maybe the much much later Challenger expolosion?
Jeez! Wjhat kind of history education are people getting these days?
Also, the French blew up the “Rainbow Warrior” in a harbour in New Zealand. There were fatalities and eventually people were charged. I would google for the exact details but can’t be bothered.
My bad… Of course the Apollo 13 astronauts returned safely to earth. Thanks for correcting my error, and keeping me honest.
I stand by the rest of the points I made above.
Real Issues, did you read what you wrote, or rather quoted from Wikipedia?
I stand by what I said: The Precautionary Principle weights possible adverse effects more heavily than possible desirable effects.
You said, as a presumptive advantage of the Precautionary Principle, “So if you’re a corporation and proposing to dump chemicals in the environment, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that your chemicals will not cause severe, widespread, or irreversible damage.”
But that’s a bogus example, as one can reject the Precautionary Principle and still arrive at the conclusion that waste disposal can cause environmental problems and so should be appropriately regulated.
You said “The reason the precautionary principle is so important is that it emphasizes preventing environmental problems before they begin, rather than waiting until after the damage is done.”
And so you made my point. The emphasis becomes one of looking for possible adverse outcomes, and halting anything new, pending elimination of risk. That’s exactly what the Luddites did.
You are correct in that the Precautionary Principle has been adopted and widely used by the European Union. And that’s precisely why a decline in science and technology in the EU is accelerating, and why I think the future quality of life in the EU will decline drastically in the next several decades. In short, the Precautionary Principle is risky in ways that its proponents have not realized, for it results in lost opportunities as well as in deferred risks.
A number of years ago the Club of Rome supported a project at MIT by Dennis Meadows, resulting in publication of Global 2000 – The Limits of Growth. I saw that as a deeply flawed project, because it assumed that developing environmental problems would be irreversible and would continue to get worse, so it predicted a gloomy future indeed, a future that by the year 2000 would see a very poor quality of life for a rapidly growing percentage of the world’s population. It was nonsense, because it assumed that behavior is static rather than dynamic. So every prediction of resource availability was, in fact, wrong when that future arrived.
Had the Precautionary Principle been employed in decision making at the time, penicillin would never have become a medication, because it kills people (although it saves a great many more). In modern pharmacology, how many medications have no adverse side effects? In the pharmaceutical industry it can take billions of dollars and years to get a new medication approved, because there are Precautionary Principle-like forces to demonstrate safety as well as efficacy. That’s not all bad, but a side result is that many people will have died before the drug that might have helped them is released. But that’s not the most significant lost opportunity. The most significant lost opportunity is that more and more medications are produced for the mass market rather than for segments of the population with less “popular” diseases, because of the development costs. And new drugs often resemble previously approved drugs. That’s less risky for the companies. It’s becoming much too risky to undertake development of new concepts.
Even in the field of environmental remediation, cleaning up environmental problems, the Precautionary Principle would be stultifying. I’ve supervised many such investigations and cleanups. I can assure you that there’s never enough scientific information to eliminate risks from whatever decisions might be made. But the real opportunity that must be followed is to mitigate the environmental problems that demonstrably do exist. Studying the site indefinitely postpones that opportunity and extends the period in which environmental problems persist; worse, it uses up the limited available resources. Very properly, society demands action, and so the decision-maker must make decisions that carry with them risks. I’ve been lucky.
Bill_D: We could spend all day debating the point, which would only bore everyone else. (Why do so many net discussions boil down to two people hashing it out…)
You are correct that the opportunity costs may increase with the precautionary principle. But quite frankly, that is a price well worth paying IF in exchange one can avoid risks that are are severe, widespread, long-term or irreversible.
About drug companies: It’s a losing argument to claim the FDA squelches innovation, when the drug industry spends many times over on advertising and marketing as it does on research and development. And the solution to all the “me too” drugs is to compare the safety, effectiveness, and side effects of proposed new drugs with older drugs already on the market. (Expiration of patents has far more to do with “me too” drugs than the precautionary principle.)
About Europe: It’s ludicrous to claim that Europe’s problems stem solely, or even primarily, from its embrace of the Precautionary Principle. Every analysis I’ve ever read about Europe’s structural issues focuses much more issues such as immigration, labor laws, tax rates, disparate languages and cultures, corruption, etc.
Another issue that opponents of the precautionary principle conveniently overlook is that often the benefits of innovation accrue to a particular group or distinct set (e.g. patent holder or solution provider), whereas if something goes wrong the impact of such failure typically fall on the shoulders of a much broader group or larger set (e.g. the rest of the planet).
Quite frankly, we only have one planet to live on (at least in our lifetime), and I for one do not want it to be polluted or damaged in the name of innovation.
You want to experiment and try new things? More power to you — in the laboratory. You want to introduce it into the real world? Prove that it is safe and effective.
Bottom line: As a policy, the precautionary principle is not perfect, but it is vastly superior to the regime that prevailed before – i.e., it is far better to prevent environmental disasters beforehand, rather than trying to clean them up after the fact.
(Hey – we got way off topic. Measured by the same set of standards, Dell is performing much better than Apple in terms of eliminating PVCs and BFRs from their products.)
Hi, Real Issues:
You are correct.
As you don’t understand why I’m right and you are wrong, this thread should end.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
But I hate to see people left believing in the Precautionary Principle, especially when they share my concerns on environmental matters.
For the Precautionary Principle leads to defective decisions about environmental and sustainability issues.
It amounts to “Stop! Stop! Prove the negative!”
And that’s the enemy of rational thought.