“There are encouraging signs that electronic goods such as PCs and mobile phones could become ‘greener’, according to the latest review of electronics manufacturers’ policies published by Greenpeace today. The latest version of the Greenpeace ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’ (1) which ranks 14 top manufacturers of PC’s and mobile phones, shows that most companies have demonstrated commitments to greener manufacturing processes, such as eliminating the use of the most hazardous chemicals, and recycling policies such as financing take-back, reuse or recycling of end-of-life products. Apple, however, lags far behind the competition, presently occupying the last place in the ranking guide,” Greenpeace International writes.
Greenpeace writes, “Nokia continues to hold the top spot in the ranking, with progressive policies on both, its chemicals policy as well as disposal of electronic waste. However, the company is yet to outline clear timelines for phasing out PVC in all its products. ‘In sharp contrast, Apple is awarded the last position because the company has made absolutely no improvements to its policies or practices since the ranking was first released three months ago, although most of its competitors have improved environmental policies,’ said Iza Kruszewska, Greenpeace International toxics campaigner, in the press release, ‘Despite being the world leader in innovation and design, Apple is losing the race by failing to keep up with the other companies.'”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “obvious” for the heads up.]
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 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:
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 is irrelevant.
Green Peace. Go home. and shut up. all you do is whine. instead of complain, why not develop ways to HELP people.
Greenpeace isn’t interested in the environment so much as they are interested in the publicity they get, which tranlates to donations.
Greenpeace has been corrupted the same way every other institution gets corrupted. After the first generation of volunteers/founders exits management, the second generation thinks of nothing except perpetuating the instituttion, and that takes money.
Today’s environmentalists are whores in pursuit of the dollar they contend is the root of all evil.
Maybe Greenpeace is right…Apple was compared to other electronics manufacturers, not other polluters in general, and still fared poorly in their study.
The bottom line is, in a country where the administration has effectively gutted environmental protections, we need watchdog groups like Greenpeace to call companies on their behavior.
Give me Peace and some Green. Have a great Christ Mass.
As valued as it is, traditional hunting in Greenland is under tremendous stress. Pressure from environmental and conservation groups has led Greenland’s Home Rule Government to set hunting limits for most species. In January 2006, a 150 animal limit was set for the most prized of all Greenlandic animals, the polar bear. Hunters in the region say it is hard to survive on the quotas that have been established.
Excerpt about the Culture of Greenland from Wikipedia
“This is especially true due to the dramatic drop in seal skin prices in the late 1980s. That drop occurred after environmental pressure led to a collapse of the seal skin market in the United States. Today, the price of the skins remains so low that most Thule hunters tan only enough skins for personal use; they no longer process them for sale. Moreover, when asked what the single greatest threat to the traditional culture is, Qaanaaq hunter Lars Jeremiassen quickly replied, “Greenpeace”. That response, (documented in 2006 by the Arctic I.CC.E. Project: Indigenous Climate Change Ethnographies,[1]) reflects the devastating effect that environmentalist-led protests against sealing and seal products have had on the Inuit way of life, not just in Greenland, but throughout the Arctic.”
I believe in enviromental conservation, but I think Greenpeace’s tactics are assinine. Start with education and finding sustainable solutions. If you want enviromentalism to make a huge impact you have to make uncumbersome to the way people live, survive and conduct business. Unfortunately to succeed long term you have make a more gradual shift.
Greenpeace sucks dead bears. All they are interested in is getting enough cash into their pockets to funds their cell phones and junkets around the world. They lost focus years and years ago.
Wow!!! I made a massive typo.
1rst 3 posters (and Buster) are full of shit.
My, aren’t you grand with your lofty pronouncements?
But, I must say.
Greenpeace- I am disappointed in you. Someone’s got their head up their ass.
go to http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM/FFD3F08B-6D43-46BA-BCC2-D075A506A016.html
and read about what’s really going on with greenpeace and apple
“In sharp contrast, Apple is awarded the last position because the company has made absolutely no improvements to its policies or practices since the ranking was first released three months ago, although most of its competitors have improved environmental policies”
In other words, if you were a bad polluter, but you change your practices in 3 months to be a slightly less bad polluter; or you change your policies but take no real action, you are considered to have made “improvements”, and you go to the top op the list.
If you were a good corporate citizen on the environment, and 3 months later you are still a good corporate citizen on the environment, you’ve shown no improvement, and you go to the bottom of the list.
By similar logic, I’d like to commend Kim Jong-il for his outstanding improvement in human rights, by imprisoning, torturing and killing slightly fewer people this year than last year.
Whatever Greenplease is now-a-days, they and all the others have become irrelavant for two primary reasons:
1. Lashing out at popular companies to make a name and gain donations for themselves.
2. Having militants high in their ranks, with the desire that we all live in caves, eat berries and commune/worship nature.
Sorry guys, I love this God-made planet dearly, as we all do, but I’m not going to neglect the inteligence we have so me and my family can be caveman’s again, so you can worship this creation – not a chance.
Green Peace should be charged for dumping this load of toxic waste.
WM = moral
their actions are neither moral nor eithical.
MDN, you don’t have to defend everything apple does or doesn’t do to preserve your peace of mind.
Does Apple’s reduced amount of packaging on iPods count for nothing? Think of the rainforests that will get saved this holiday season as iPods fly off the shelf unlike Microsoft’s iPood (yes, I meant to put two “O’s) which might save a single tree by reducing packaging this season, maybe.
Used to belong until I got hacked off with media-bite campaigns based on lots of poor science.
I agree with amyhre. Apple’s committment to reducing it’s packaging has a direct effect on how much material ends up in landfills and/or recycling plants. I thought I heard Steve Jobs talking about Apple’s committment to the environment in one of his keynotes. No?
Thanks, macaholic.
F*ck Greenpeace. This is just another stupid political stunt to try to attract attention to themselves. Anyone with any sense whatsoever has been ignoring these tree huggers for years anyway.
Greenpeace squirts — just like the Zune.
You know, I am not suprised that someone is waving this flag. A couple years ago, a friend with chemical engineering background took a job there with the group responsible for overseeing the environmental friendliness of their manufacturing. He didn’t stay long.
I love Apple just as much as the next Mac-hugger. But Apple had this coming. Apple has such a cute, fuzzy brand image, who could ever think that they would be a laggard when it comes to keeping the tree-huggers happy?
Not gonna get into the Green Peace has passed into irrelevance debate. The most I can say about that is I quit donating to them many years ago.
I’ve had 3 macs so far ( 2 iMacs ), one was a Mac clone
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />. My clone is in the garage and works fine.
My oldest iMac is now an aquarium, fishs are happy.
And i’m writing to you on my new one.
Apple is actually environment friendly… so there.
This is BS. Unfortunately, I no longer trust most environmental groups, after seeing too many of their scares turn out to be driven by fundraising campaigns. I still value sensible environmental policies–just no longer going to jump every time some group cries “wolf.”
Always Right,
I speak from experience because I am a scientist in the environmental field. As from the diarrhetic prose emanating from you, what right have you to pronounce your hypocritical i.e. ‘lofty’ stance on others? What do you base this on?
Greenpeace has used my name WITHOUT PERMISSION and used it to their own purposes. That is unethical! Moreover, let me tell you a little story before you make more of a fool of yourself.
Vitamin A deficiency causes 300,000 cases of blindness in African children EVERY YEAR. A non-profit organization has made a transgenic rice (which has the precursor for Vitamin A in it). to prevent this. Greenpeace is blocking it. The reason? We feel sorry for the blind children but we are against GMOs. Thats it. Period.
They, and you, can go to hell.
Last? Boo f’ing hoo….
Nice post, Buster. Good to hear someone with facts commenting on Greenpiece. Thanks.
Buster? or Bluster?
Last on Greenpeace’s list is first on mine! Unfortunately there are more than enough college age skulls-full-of-mush to man the protest lines for them. These press releases are meant to garner free press to help line their pockets.
I want people to listen to me, so I’m going to terrorize them. Greenpeace, meet Al Qaida; Al Quaida, Greenpeace.
Wow, did somebody say something vaguely bad about Apple and hurt everyone’s feelings? Boohoo.
Why can nobody think of the possibility that Greenpeace might be right? Compared to Nokia, which doesn’t sell CRT monitors or use non-rechargeable batteries, Apple is lacking too. Perhaps their environmental policies AREN’T friendly. Just because they say “We recycle computers” doesn’t mean they recycle them well.
Stop calling it “Industry-leading” environmental policies if they clearly aren’t.
When you read the fine print, clearly they’re gunning for Apple. Makes good press and I’m sure Apple’s user base cares more than Dell’s corporate types. But honestly “other companies have promised”… c’mon guys, that’s Apple’s silence to the others’ vaporware.
SJ & Co are in the business of NOT making promises and then delighting us.
And GP has some loony ideas about “upgrading” ipods… so you replace the battery and the hard drive somehow, but you don’t throw away the ipod? Except the hard drive and the battery are 90% of the ipod… so what’s the point. You’ve eliminated waste of what… the equivalent of a few sandwich bags of plastic?
(Or let’s not throw away a single hard drive. Let’s keep using the old ones… having four old drives sucking down power instead of one new one. Ooops. Doesn’t work either. Guess we should just halt technological progress altogether!)
And Apple gets no credit for being first to eliminate old dirty technologies like CRTs. And no credit for hardware with a longer life span on average than competitors (3:1 in my experience… my PCs die, my Apple’s all become hand-me-down.)
If you really think Greenpeace has a point, read carefully and THINK about what they’re saying.
What upsets me is the number of people who think Greenpeace is really onto something nefarious about Apple. If you don’t think this is about Apple being a consumer brand and therefore a better target for fundraising and more vulnerable to this sort of campaign, you are as naive as those who trust the government.
How many tons of lead did Dell sell in CRTs last year?
I tend to agree with MDN’s take on this, but, its good to keep on a company like Apple at this point in it’s history, because it is poised to go from big to humungous over the next decade, and if it will keep itself “clean” along the way, all the better for Apple as well as our environment when it gets there.
Russell,
You should probably check your facts before posting. It gives you a bit of credibility.
I wonder if Greenpiss has some vested interest a rival(s) of Apple. Perhaps Dell supplies them computers at discount in exchange for them giving Apple shit about their environmental this-n-that..
Every MAc I’ve ever owned I’ve resold to buy a new one (check Powermax and Ifixit.com). I sold my 2G Ipod to a friend who regifted it to another for Christimas last year. Most Apple owners do not cast their computers on a land fill. The typical Mac Hardware enjoys twice to three times as much useful life as their competitors. Also because Mac were not a favorite of enterprise(the most likely sector to throw out a machine after fully depreciated) you just dont find a lot of Macs or Apple products in the garbage. Of course I cant’t say the same for most school systems and I’m afraide NYC school systems when some schools converted to Dell thay put a lot of their old jelly bean Macs in the basement in storage. I dare Greenpeace to give had numbers rather than speculating on manufaacturing techniques. They have absolutely no leg to stand on. They done even have a belly to slither on. TO Greenpeace I say go to your quonset hut and consume massive quantities of your algae soup while staring into a dark corner and think about what you have done.
So according to this article all you have to do is commit to greener manufacturing.
Oh hell,
what computers are the beardies going to use if not ‘nasty’ mac’s…..M$ PC’s ?
Steve really should have paid that bribe that Greenpeace wanted. They promised lots of bad publicity if he didn’t. It looks like Dell paid up. I thought it was illegal for American companies to pay bribes.
It does not take very long to research the two companies product lines and see that Dell is the biggest polluter by a long shot.
Greenpeace = Commie, Lib, Democrat, Terrorist Lovers
FUCK Greenpeace.
If they really wanted to make a difference, they’d go tangle directly with the authorities in China, where all this stuff is made.
Never mind, protesting online is the easy way – the Greenpace way.
Not to mention Apple doesn’t “silence” their protesters, or run them over with tanks…
No changes at Apple?
How about the reduction in the size of the packaging and fillers for iPods in the last three months.
The packaging on hte new iPod is about 1/3 of what it had been last year.
This reduction has reduced the weight and also lowered the cost of shipping and fuel consumption for getting the product to clients hands.
Apple knows and understands that reduction of waste, “greening” the packaging and following other intelligent and environmentally friendly processes is NOT a cost centre it is a PROFIT centre. What is saved in these costs results in increased profits.
Can Apple do more? Yes they can. Can Dell do better? Yes they can.
Can I reduce the number of miles I drive my MINI and thereby reduce greenhouse gases? Well probably yes I can… but driving my MINI is just so much bloody fun… it’s hard to stop!
y’all seem to be experts in environmental issues – including the side effects of producing all Apple’s products. Well, I’m not. I just find it utterly disturbing how a report on a certain issue gets ridiculed by zealots who claim to know what truly is going on. What if some other group of scientists would release an equal report? Would you call them biased, mental tree-huggers as well? I very much doubt that this report is based on lies for many reasons. One is obvious though: I have a hard time believing that Greenpeace would put a company on the bottom of a chart just to get some free publicity. What kind of logic is that? The sad thing, IMHO, is that no matter what the truth might be; as soon as it looks like Apple isn’t “perfect” (pick any issue), people here will throw shit on the messenger, observer, source etc. screaming foul. Okay, it’s not a secret that MDN is utterly biased – but at times it gets rather ridiculous to say the least. But then again…this is a board where some people compare Greenpeace with AlQaida. I guess I shouldn’t take this place too serious after all.
In response to Thomas.
Please don’t call Greenpeace scientists. Greenpeace is an activist group whose positions are generally weak in scientific substance.
Meat is murder. Shame on all of you.
Greenpeace is nothing more than a group of Eco-Religious Extremists. Same with the Sierra Club.
To Thomas,
You don’t have to be an expert or scientist to read that what Greenpeace is admonishing Apple for are their written policies, not their actual actions. Read the report.
I’m not a scientist and I don’t know how chemical X or Y really is. But I do know that Apple is not accused of using more toxins than anyone else. And that GP has taken a blind eye to areas where Apple has shown leadership.
Apple has simply failed to suck up to GP. Seriously. Read their own report (and you might read Apple’s as well.) And I’m not accusing GP of lying. It’s that difference in the ratings have nothing to do with actual toxins put into the actual environment.
It would be fine if GP were merely shining the light on actual toxins and their actual effect. But GP is differentiating Apple based on their failure to pledge fealty on essentially religious issues.
Apple speaks with actions, not words. And they’re doing at least as well as the other guys.
And I for one, judge actions, not words.
GreenGirl:
Look at your shoes: Leather?
Look at your belt: Leather?
Taken any painkillers recently? They are coated with a lubricant that comes from cows.
I could go on, (and people like you often do), but please – meat isn’t murder, meat is food.
If everyone stopped eating meat tomorrow, then we’d have to increase our vegetable production a million-fold, which would increase vermin (rats, rabbits etc).
What do you want to do with all that vermin? Humanely trap them and release them into the wild? Impossible – we’d have to kill them to control their numbers.
We’d end up killing animals for no other reason that they’re inconvenient, instead of the present system where we kill animals for food.
We’re all part of a global economy where we have to feed 6.4 billion people, not a few groups of hippies living in communues.
It’s time to think, eat the food your parents have worked hard for and grow up.
Oh yeah, and for the Greenpeace/Apple issue, I was concerned, until I read the article that macaholic mentioned:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM/FFD3F08B-6D43-46BA-BCC2-D075A506A016.html
Everyone please read this, as it really puts across the truth.
What has Greenpeace actually done to make the world a better place, other than spew self-righeous criticisms to humanity and burn fossile fuels in pursuit of public notoriety?