EPA does not support Greenpeace’s charges against Apple Computer

“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

35 Comments

  1. No Grok.
    The EPA. like any agency, has appointees who generally reflect the political leanings of the President who appoints them.

    Don’t be absurd. This administration has gutted Clinton’s policies.
    The rest of the world shuns us (environmentally speaking).
    Same go-it-alone-attidude that got us into the American Invasion of Iraq Quagmire, instead of catching Bin Laden

  2. We all had little doubt that Apple is a more environmentally aware company than Dell or HP – or Microsoft for that matter on OS sleep designs.

    Greenpeace are jumped up little shits looking for publicity by offering scandalous misinformation.

    AMEN Greenpeace. Go hug trees and newts nad keep out of my life.

  3. The UN World Health Organization (WHO) recently announced that it was beginning a massive campaign of spraying DDT inside the homes of malaria plagued regions of Africa. It did so, despite enormous pressure from some environmentalists, because the scientific evidence is incontrovertible that DDT is incredibly beneficial and basically harmless to people. This evidence has been known for years, but enviro-groups have made it too “controversial” to use, leading to the deaths of MILLIONS in Africa. Finally, a third world medical professional with ba**s is now running this UN program and he decided that the lives of third world people are more important than the nonsense spouted by anti-DDT enviro groups. The fact that banning DDT was the cause celebre of the modern environmental movement (Rachel Carson, Silent Spring) illustrates perfectly that lying and extremism are at the heart of the modern environmental movement. Unfortunately, this is the true on issue after issue.
    Sure, there are corporate polluters, and there are plenty of municipalities that pollute. The fact that the enviro “movement” focuses on corporations simply reveals its silly biases. All that is why, though I consider myself environmentally conscious, there’s no way I could call myself an environmentalist in today’s context. The solution is simple: use real science and un-biased judgment to make policies that protect public health and conserve the environment while allowing the economy to grow. BTW, the air, water, etc., have gotten CLEANER under this administration, as they have under EVERY administration in the last half-century. The stats are there for anyone to check out, developed and published by non-political appointees at the EPA.

  4. Dave M, yes, the world has many problems. But, if we believe the science (and I believe we should since the data is overwhelming) climate change and environmental issues are likely the most important (or just below one other item). If climate change ends up being as severe as predicted, and I believe the scientists may be surprised to find it will be more rapid than they expect, life on much of the planet may become increasingly at risk. Trying to avoid near extinction of a species (us) would seem to me to be more important than whichever other issues one may rank as “more important.” I know some still don’t get it. I can only assume they have just not paid close attention to the science and the facts. Their eyes may be closed to events currently going on especially in the arctic regions. (And no, such changes are not merely cyclic repetitions of events that have happened in the past.) “Tree hugging” is no longer simply a liberal issue. All sides of the aisle are increasingly aware of the importance of keeping the planet itself alive, not just because “trees are beautiful,” but to preserve the planet’s currently dominant species for the future. I don’t know all that Apple is really doing, but almost all companies, governments, and others should be doing more. Time to do something to try to effect change is already determined to be extremely short.

  5. It’s funny that there are many more Dell and HP computers being treated as disposable landfilling products but Apple is targeted by Greenpeace.

    Hey folks Apple only has 5% of the damn computer market.
    How can they be worse polluters that the combined 60-70% Dell/HP crap filling landfills?

    I bet more Apples are resold and kept out of landfills than your Dells.

    I thought it was cool with the green light shinning on the store. It seems like a natural thing (granny smith and all)

    ehhh!

  6. always(?) right –

    I say again, EPA employess – the ones who regulate and enforce the US’ environmental policies at the ground level – are many of the same long-time employees that were there during Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, and Carter. The insinuation that Bush has destroyed our environment by hamstringing the EPA is ludicrous. And as for Clinton – when he wasn’t diddling the little fat office girl – he gave little more than lip service to the environment. People at the EPA do their jobs regardless of who is in the White House.

  7. @HG,

    Your concern for the environment is shared by people across the political spectrum, and that is all the more reason why Greenpeace’s silly and ill-informed campaign against Apple should be denounced. It is Greenpeace, PETA, and their ilk who do the lion’s share of marginalizing serious environmental efforts by performing their silly little stunts.

    I don’t agree with you about climate change, but I can certainly agree that we should constantly seek ways to reduce our environmental footprint across all industries. It’s just that lying about Apple and others to make money is not a very good way to go about it.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

Reader Feedback

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