“GreenPeace has reason to be red-faced—at least if you believe the EPA,” Mary E. Tyler reports for Ars Technica.
Tyler reports, “A recent New York Times article on buying refurnished and environmentally friendly computers (free registration required) led to a nifty list called EPEAT (Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool) made up by the EPA. Computers that meet 23 required environmental criteria get a bronze medal. If a computer meets 50% of an addition 28 criteria, it gets a silver medal. If it meets all 23 required and all 28 option criteria, it gets a gold. None of the 300 pieces of computer equipment rated got gold medals.”
Tyler reports, “According to the EPA, Apple has the most eco-friendly notebooks, the 4th most eco-friendly desktop, and monitors that aren’t too shabby… Turns out that assuming that GreenPeace has their facts straight is a very bad assumption indeed…”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “ds” for the heads up.]
We’re all for a cleaner environment, but Apple ought to charge Greenpeace a PR fee. Mostly, Apple is guilty of being a very a popular brand name which these militant “environmentalists” use to generate free publicity.
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:
Apple places last in Greenpeace ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’ report – December 07, 2006
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
Some environmental design facts for those who want quick data dump of the truth behind this story
Out of the 10 other IT companies rated by Greenpeace in the Greener Electronics Scorecard Apple is the only manufacturer who:
1. is currently shipping RoHS compliant (European lead, cadmium ban) products across all models and all regions.
2. has banned hexavalent chromium (a bioaccumulative metal used as a coating) from all product applications
3. has banned brominated flame retardants from all external plastic enclosures (due to Apple’s insistence on using high quality, naturally flame resistant polymers)
4. does not use deca-brome (another brominated nasty used by all other IT manufacturers)
5. who passed with flying colors, Greenpeace’s RoHS compliance test in September. The expensive report tested 5 leading laptop brands for RoHS compliance, analyzing up to 200 points on each product. HP failed (HP is Greenpeace’s top ranked company right now) , Apple passed……so Greenpeace buried the report.
6. has had voluntary take-back programs in place since 1994 (starting in Europe) and now covering 75% of the sell-in regions.
7. is the only company that provides explicit details on how and where to recycle products, packaging and batteries country by country.
Don’t know about you but this seems like a solid performance of environmental proactivity. Apple may be a little more humble than its competitors when it comes to these achievements, but what would you expect from one of the most enviable brands in the world.
Keep up the good work Apple and don’t be tempted to engage in this media circus trap that Greenpeace has set.
Since when have groups like Greenpeace EVER gotten their facts right? They will use whatever slanted information they can to sway things in their favor. It’s sad too; a lot of these organizations used to be very respectable, and now they are their own worst enemy. When I think about the good that could be done if groups like this didn’t have their heads so far up the asses of their own crappy agendas. Sigh.
Greenpeace has written a brief FAQ about their campaign toward Apple.
The questions include:
Do you want me to ditch my Apple?
Is Apple really the worst company?
Apple only has a small market share, why not target bigger companies?
But don’t Apple products last longer?
Isn’t Al Gore is on the Apple board? Surely that makes Apple green?
Isn’t this a front campaign by ScanDisk or Microsoft to damage Apple’s image?
When Apple meets the campaign demands what difference will it make?
Will this campaign fix the e-waste problem?
To see Greenpeace’s answers to the above questions, click here.
This FAQ is part of Greenpeace’s campaign to lobby Apple to produce a a greener Apple.
The earth has survived eons of volcanic eruptions, ice ages, meteorites, tsunamis, blah blah blah….and all these arrogant environmentalists think humans can destroy the planet with a few styrofoam cups, batteries and aerosol cans. wow.
More Information, read ENVIRONMENTAL FACTS.
We all know Apple was # 1 on your list. They wouldn’t pay your exorbitant ‘Fee’, read bribe, to be seen in your promotions as ‘the greenest’ computer manufacturer so you decided to use Apple’s cache anyway by putting them at the bottom of the list.
Getting Dell and then HP to pay to be at the top of the list, when they are the 2 biggest environmental offenders among computer manufacturers, only proves that this list is just a money chase for ‘Fees’ and annual membership dues and it has nothing to do with protecting the environment.
Big Al, did you even bother to read the FAQ or check any sources yourself?
If you had, then you would know that Greenpeace does not accept corporate donations or government funding. It simply does not.
Greenpeace is entirely funded by individual contributions. And it screens private contributions to ensure that they are not proxies for corporate donations.
There is no “fee” or “bribe” or any other corrupting influence of money at play in this story. Any claim to the contrary is simply false, without any evidence to back it up.
As for Environmental Facts, s/he failed to cite any sources, so it’s hard to judge the claims for accuracy and completeness.
(Btw, I am not a member of Greenpeace and do not speak for them or anybody else.)
Maybe the new macs can be made of seeds, organic vegetables, free range chicken shit, and the stitched-together tie dye t-shirts of stinky 60’s rejects.
What gorsh said.
@Hg Wells
What if climate change is powered by changes in the output of the sun? This has much better foundation in the geological record than the theory than the theory that manmade greenhouse gasses are changing the climate. Furthurmore climate change is the norm.12000 years ago there was mile thick ice covering much of the northern part of North America. Why should the 1900’s be the peak tempeture? The geological record teaches that climate changes and on many scales.
I have little trust in the atmospheric models. They are too easly manipulated to generate the “correct” conclusions. We most emphaticaly do not understand the atmosphere and it deserves much study.
Apple got a “silver star” from the pathetic EPA? Big deal. The EPA also says C02 pollution, melting the icecaps right now, isn’t pollution.
The mountain of our electronic garbage is growing and growing. Greenpeace wants industry leading Apple to lead the industry towards more ecologically sound policies. Its demands? Reasonable: Phase out the toxics and support takeback recycling.
I guess if people were unfortunate enough to be stuck working a scrapyard in China inhaling PVC fumes off a melting toxic component they might be a bit more sensitive to the problem.
Cheers!
PS: Joe S, read what the National Academies of Science have to say about climate change:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf#search=
"national academies climate statement"