Is Greenpeace lying about Apple’s ‘toxic laptops?’

“In Greenpeace Apologizes For Apple Stink, I reported on Toxic Chemicals in Your Laptop Exposed, a new report which labored to find any trace of chemicals, toxic or not,” Daniel Eran writes for RoughlyDrafted. “The report not only wholly contradicted the group’s earlier Guide to Greener Electronics, but its sensationalist press release also contradicted the data in the report itself! Why is Greenpeace shooting in such random directions?”

Eran writes, “The basic problems in the Guide, which I originally critiqued in Top Secret: Greenpeace Report Misleading and Incompetent, were sidestepped in a rebuttal from Tom Dowdall of Greenpeace International, but the followup laptop lab test report seemed to indicate a new direction for Greenpeace: an interest in accuracy.”

Eran writes, “Unfortunately, Greenpeace ignored their own very expensive lab reports to instead retreat back into sensationalism, fear mongering, and deception. The top story on Greenpeace International’s press release blog is an entry titled “HP and Apple’s toxic laptops exposed” which states: ‘Some of the best-known laptops are contaminated with some of the worst toxic chemicals. Of the five top brands we tested Hewlett-Packard and Apple laptops showed the worst contamination levels.’

Eran writes, “Was Greenpeace lying in its press release? Yes, Greenpeace lied to sensationalize a report it spent a lot of money on, but which didn’t provide data the group wanted to hear. While the group’s earlier press releases and information was mostly just incompetent and sloppy, the latest ‘poison Apple’ campaign was simply a malicious attack based upon lies.”

Full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “LinuxGuy and Mac Prodigal Son” for the heads up.]

Related MacDailyNews articles:
Greenpeace ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’ report called ‘misleading and incompetent’ – September 02, 2006
Greenpeace criticizes Apple over toxic waste – August 29, 2006

32 Comments

  1. Several members of Greenpeace’s board of directors are on the record as saying that lying about certain facts to promote an environmental cause is a good strategy.

    The end justifies the means.

    As a result, nothing that Greenpeace’s PR department releases can be believed as the truth. They have lost all creditability. They are just trolling for donation dollars.

  2. Greenpeace has very little credibility and Daniel Eran is right to have exposed them for their crass behaviour.

    He gets my vote for shining light on a number of technical subjects even though my politics and his may be very different and of course I don’t have to believe everything he says.

    @Get Real,

    the article you refer to was the one where he said Windows was 5 times more expensive than OSX. AND HE WAS RIGHT. The fact that a load of little Windows sh*ts, probably including yourself, laid into the Digg article and accused it of being incorrect doesn’t change the facts. Everyone knows that OSX administration is zero compared to that for Windows.

    THAT is the Bottom Line, not your garbage…

  3. Yes I too stopped my financial support of Greenpeace when they started to take positions which I felt were morally insupportable. I am glad they are there but like those other supposedly liberal but infact increasingly bigoted mouthpieces the Guardian and Observer newspapers I no longer have much faith in their overall integrity.

  4. “the attempted extortion by Greenpeace against companies, including Apple, is outrageous. Greenpeace needs to be taken to task for this behavior. So Eran is right on this issue.”

    This is false.

    You’re buying into Eran’s smear campaign. Greenpeace categorically stated that it does not accept donations, either from corporations or governments. It screens individual donations to ensure that they are not a proxy for corporate donations.

    So what “attempted extortion by Greenpeace” is Eran talking about? Note the keywords: “by Greenpeace”. There’s no evidence of this. This was just FUD being spread by Eran, without any evidence to back it up.

  5. LinuxGuy and Mac Prodigal Son writes:

    “These articles should not descend into cheap shot politics. So Eran’s love for Apple seems to trump his loyalty to the tin foil hat conspiracy crowd – see how easy it is to slip into politics.”

    I agree with you about “not descend[ing] into cheap shot politics”. I was not joining any “tin foil hat conspiracy crowd” — my purpose was to point out that Eran is not a neutral observer because he makes his living with Apple’s technology.

    This fact by itself doesn’t make Eran part of any conspiracy, but the irony is that Eran is accusing Greenpeace of an “anti-Apple bias”, when Eran is himself equally biased, if not more so, in favor of Apple.

  6. Macaday writes:

    “Greenpeace has very little credibility and Daniel Eran is right to have exposed them for their crass behaviour.”

    Ok. You have your point of view about Greenpeace, and Eran’s writings come across as credible to you. Fair enough.

    From my point of view, Eran’s writings about chemical policy in the context of Apple of Greenpeace are not credible. In my view, Eran made loud assertions and allegations, with poor arguments and little or no facts to back them up. When Greenpeace responded to him point by point, Eran was unable to make any coherent response. Eran also fails to follow the most basic rules of journalism, and he has no qualifications or expertise whatsoever in chemical policy or environmental issues.

    Each of these points impeaches Eran’s credibility in my view.

    You are certainly welcome to have a different view, and that’s fine with me.

    “the article you refer to was the one where he said Windows was 5 times more expensive than OSX. AND HE WAS RIGHT.”

    No, that’s not the one I’m referring to – nothing to do with OSX or Windows. Eran’s article that was labeled at Digg.com as potentially containing inaccurate information is titled “Greenpeace Lies About Apple”.

    See http://digg.com/apple/Greenpeace_Lies_About_Apple

  7. “Several members of Greenpeace’s board of directors are on the record as saying that lying about certain facts to promote an environmental cause is a good strategy.

    The end justifies the means.

    As a result, nothing that Greenpeace’s PR department releases can be believed as the truth. They have lost all creditability. They are just trolling for donation dollars.”

    Please back this up with names and direct quotes including the context that they were made in please. As a supporter of Greenpeace this is something that I would confront them on, as I have confronted them on previous issues that concerned me in the past.
    Just because you support an organization, political party or government doesn’t mean you can’t call them to task when you feel that they are wrong.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.