“Greenpeace campaigners have been booted out of MacExpo in London after other exhibitors complained about their activities at the show,” Chris Williams reports for Infoshop News.
Williams reports, “MacExpo marketing director Matt Denton said Greenpeace were warned not to take photographs at other stands, and to stick to handing out leaflets on their own pitch. He said: ‘It was a valid stand with a valid message… they breached their contract.'”
“The Green My Apple stand will remain shuttered for the rest of the Expo, which runs until Saturday. Denton said the organisers would not be returning any of Greenpeace’s exhibitor fee,” Williams reports.
Williams reports, “Greenpeace volunteers have vowed to flout the ban tomorrow and return to MacExpo to continue the campaign without a stall.”
Full article here.
These Greenpeaceniks might have a point if Apple was some massive polluter instead of just a very a popular brand name which these militant “environmentalists” are using to generate free publicity. We’re all for a cleaner environment, but Apple ought to charge Greenpeace a PR fee. Apple doesn’t sell dirty CRT monitors, like certain cheapo Windows-centric PC box assemblers. Apple uses rechargeable batteries in iPods, instead of having 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. Really, come on, Greenpeace, you’re as transparent as a lying three-year-old: quit trying to ride Apple’s coattails and get a life.
Information on Apple’s recycling programs and industry-leading environmental policies is available online at http://www.apple.com/environment
Related articles:
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
OK. since there is a rather large proportion of liberal in the mac community – I think you better keep those facist tree huggers in line before you start bashing conservatives.
not to say that conservatives are much better at times, but when I sit here reading the vitriol here, it is like watching the kettle calling the pot black. never have I seen more of a bunch of hypocrits.
of course, some of the language and grammar I see posted here reminds me of a bunch of 1st graders calling each other names. pathetic.
email me if you wish, I would love to see the excuses that some the most flagrant abusers come up with – and you know who you are. at least try to be creative ande cerebral for a change.
webbyswim@mac.com
flame away!
Apple did get rid of the toxic waste, by getting rid of Greenpeace.
Why doesn’t Greenpeace show some real balls, and take on the massive, government-ran industrial cesspool known as China?
Never mind, I get it. Apple doesn’t run over their protesters with tanks.
I am an Environmentalist, but Greenpeace is barking up the wrong tree, here.
Of all the possible candidates, how could they pick Apple?
Too much weed. (or peyote!).
Mike the Synatax Machine-
go fsck yourself.
Perhaps what Greenpeace is looking for is a very large monetary donation to their “cause”. Apple probably didn’t cough it up!
Greenpeace Apple web pages:
<http://www.greenpeace.org/apple>
I wrote and asked them to explain why they chose to pick on “little” Apple instead of “big” Dell and HP. Still no response from them.
Just for that, I’m going to burn some old PC’s in my yard, releasing all sorts of toxic chemicals for the school kids next door to breathe.
Take that Greenpeace, now take your fight to Dell and HP where it belongs.
Greenpeace founder (Patrick Moore who has left the organization) described the group in Oregon Wheat magazine as “Anti-human”; “antitechnology and anti-science”; “Anti-organization” and “pro-anarchy”; “anti-trade”; “anti-free-enterprise”; “anti-democratic”; and “basically anti-civilization.”
They fit right in with the Al Gore anti-science crowd.
see http://www.activistcash.com/ for all the fraud
AlanAudio wrote “Given that Greenpeace’s recent campaign against Apple was so well publicised, it’s hard to imagine what was going through the mind of the person who allowed them to rent space at the Expo.”
Read the article properly. There was NO problem with Greenpeace attending the show, their message was valid and acceptable. What was NOT acceptable was leaving their rented space to harrass other exhibitors and attendees on their spaces. THis is not allowed and if anyone, even APPLE, tried this then they too would be booted out. You are obliged to restrict your sell to your own space – not the aisle, the halls, the restaurants or other exhibition spaces.
Typical Greenpeace – so used to overstepping the mark for added publicity that they look like a bunch of schoolkids on the rampage. Very hard to take seriously.
How many people will Greenpeace kill with their campaign against flame retardants?
Apple uses them and it’s a good thing they do given the state of Sony’s battery expertise.
They have brought about the banning, in Canada, of the retardants that were used on the plane that crashed and burned in Toronto a year or so ago. The retardants saved the lives of everyone on board.
People will die because of Greenpeace’s campaign. All because Greenpeace thinks that these retardants might be found to be detrimental to your health 20 or 30 years from not.
What a bunch of eccoterrorists.
I’m with Penn and Teller on this one….. Bull_hit!
Check out their show for a different view on recycling and the stupid things people will do to “Feel Good”.
Ain’t too many people going to accuse them of being Right Wing Hacks…
MDN’s take, bluntly speaking, bears no relationship with reality. Here’s why:
(1) Apple doesn’t have any major product that is PVC-free, aside from some peripherals.
(2) MDN cannot possibly know how good or bad Apple’s environmental policies and practices are, because
Apple refuses to publish any hard data on recycling percentages that would allow real third-party audits to verify how well Apple is doing (or not).
(3) Apple refuses to publish a full list of dangerous chemicals in its products that it intends to replace, nor does Apple publish what replacement chemicals will be substituted, nor does Apple publish a timetable for replacement of these chemicals. By comparison, Dell does all of these things, including a description of how their supply chain will be modified.
(4) Apple does not offer its recyling programs in every country in which it has a presence. Dell does.
(5) Apple does not accept for recyling every product that it sells. Dell does.
(6) Apple isn’t carbon-neutral in terms of CO2 emissions. Many companies are working toward that goal.
Etc etc etc.
Does all this make Apple a “massive polluter”, as MDN puts it, on the scale of the Exxon Valdez? Probably not. But spilling thousands of gallons of oil from a single-hulled ship is not, and should not, be the standard for deciding how environmentally responsible a company is being.
Apple is a market and technology leader can, and Apple should be an environmental leader too. But the above issues do show that there is a long way to go before Apple as a company can claim an A grade on environmental issues and chemical policy.
As for Greenpeace, it isn’t anti-Apple, it is anti-polluters — any and all polluters. A few years back Greenpeace campaigned after HP, which promptly addressed many of the issues that Greenpeace raised.
Oh, and Greenpeace does not solicit, nor does it accept, donations from corporations or governments, and Greenpeace screens large donations from individuals to ensure they are not a proxy for corporate donations.
So, is Greenpeace perfect? Not at all. Were their representatives violating their contractual agreement at the MacExpo in London? Possibly, but we have no hard evidence from an independent source to confirm or deny this.
Standardmess,
Yes, you’re probably correct there, but is spelling literally “Literraly” really the best way to use an education?
@Always Right, it’s go FUCK yourself, not fsck yourself, but hey, since you learned how to spell while typing one handed just last week who could blame you for getting it wrong?
Greenpeace is neither.
And Ampar, come back bro, it’s boring here without you.
Apple-
1- Is still fighting for it’s existence
2- Apple was one of the first companies to phase out CRTs (and those toxic PVC floppies)
3- Yawn- and some other stuff
4- Oh yeah- Apple’s products had longer life spans then the competitors
5- oh damn I ran out of points
Basically, when the founder of an organization comes out and against their own organization then I’d have to question the credibility of that organization. (or the founder, but I’ve √’d out his website and he’s making some sense there).
And I think what we are seeing (lately) is a lot of Eco scaring going on to scare up funding.
So yeah I liked GP when they were saving whales and fuzzy white baby seals, but now I agree and view them as anti-tech and anti-corp. And I need my income.
So they really don’t appeal to me like they used to.
mike k., are you stupid?
In the interest of decorum, most people omit the “u” in the word FUCK.
I could use various symbols (i.e., “*”, “&”, or “!”, etc.).
Oh excuse me, please check your “Little Dickhead’s Guide” to see if that is correct.
BTW, are you a Dell user?
(You should move out of your Mom’s basement, too).
So Always Right – you didn’t want to be offensive when you told mike k to ‘go fuck himself’?
oh goody — i guess i’ve reached the highest of highs in internet fame: someone has stolen my screen name.
damnit MDN, get a log-in system.
my days as “the syntax machine” (thanks Jim) are over, i’ll be back to being mike k. in the future.
It’s nice to see the anti-idiotarians running a thread for once. Whatever GP has become or used to be or should be is secondary. The main point is that they violated their contract, according to all the data we have available. Now that may be typical for them (I think there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that it is), but the point remains — contractural violation, not ideological dislike, was the reason they were booted out. It could happen to anyone who did the same thing, and it should.
Grow up, Greenpeace.
“The unprecedented 3″ of snow I got last night makes me wish for some global warming.”
Wrong Again, you’re wrong again. Be careful what you wish for. If three inches of snow is unprecedented, just wait.
London, for instance, is on the same latitude as Churchill, Manitoba, where it’s a million below zero and polar bears wander the streets. Global warming is screwing up the gulf stream, and the gulf stream keeps polar bears from wandering the streets of London. Unprecedented snowfalls are because of global warming, not despite global warming.
All that aside, computer parts have nothing to do with global warming, other than confusing the issue for the dim-bulb crowd.
“London, for instance, is on the same latitude as Churchill, Manitoba, where it’s a million below zero and polar bears wander the streets. Global warming is screwing up the gulf stream, and the gulf stream keeps polar bears from wandering the streets of London. Unprecedented snowfalls are because of global warming, not despite global warming.”
Sort of right. As the North Atlantic ice sheet retreats and therefore the water gets diluted and less salty, the Gulf Stream will no longer span the Atlantic and hit the coast of Western Europe. However, as the polar bears need the ice shelf to get to the UK, and it’s the ice shelf retreating causing the problem, I don’t think we’ll ever see them stopping the shoppers getting into Harrods.
You’re right about the snowfalls though. The more the ice melts, the more moisture that gets into the rain cycle. Chuck in dropping temperatures and you can say Hello to colder, damper Canadian style winters across Britain, Ireland and France.
BustingTheSkullsOfIdiots,
I too question Greenpeace’s alleged tactics at MacExpo London – i.e. renting exhibitor space, distributing leaflets inside the exhibition hall – because it’s expensive to rent such space, especially for an activist group.
There are more effective and cheaper alternatives, such as hanging a banner across the street from the exhibition hall, or distributing leaflets on public property just outside the exhibition hall, etc.
I would also question the competence of any exhibition organizer that attempted to eject an exhibitor for mere contractual violations, such as distributing leaflets outside the designated exhibition space. Sure, these rules are there for good reason, but there’s a big difference between obscuring a competitor’s booth or banner, and handing out leaflets in the corridors.
Anyway, I reserve judgement, simply because the information is preliminary and the allegations remain unconfirmed. For all we know, the expo organizers may have let Greenpeace back into the exhibition hall today. (No, I have no data on that, I’m just suggesting how rapidly these situations can change.)
@ Red Green
“Really? It’s 100 years now?
For the last 40-some years we’ve been “within” 10-20 years of environmental disaster and extinction. Hasn’t happened.”
I hope for everyone’s sake you’re right, but from what I can see there are mass extinctions going on, coral reefs bleaching, polar caps melting, decreased male sperm counts, and the hole in the ozone layer is at a record size. And thanks to the latest technology being applied to the fishing industry, the oceans are getting seriously depleted.
The planet will survive I don’t doubt. But humans aren’t going to be a part of it. Good riddance to us I say.
Don’t think I’m bemoaning it. When our time’s up, it’s up.