Apple Store“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