“Greenpeace International placed Apple Inc. last in its rankings of major electronics makers for their environmental friendliness, while Chinese manufacturer Lenovo Group Ltd. jumped to the top of the list,” Toby Sterling reports for The Associated Press.
“An Apple spokeswoman said the company rejects Greenpeace’s ranking system and that its products are among the ‘greenest’ on the market, pointing to more technical ratings used by the Green Electronics Council,” Sterling reports. “‘We disagree with Greenpeace’s rating and the criteria they chose,’ Apple spokeswoman Sheryl Seitz said, reading a prepared statement. ‘Apple has a strong environmental track record and has led the industry in restricting and banning toxic substances such as mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium, as well as many BFRs (brominated flame retardants).'”
Sterling reports, “According to standards developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., Apple products are not especially toxic.”
“The Green Electronics Council, funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, runs a web site that allows buyers to judge products on a score comprised of 23 different categories established by the IEE, including the materials used, energy conservation and packaging. Apple scored generally better than Lenovo and Dell,” Sterling reports.
“All of the computer companies in Greenpeace’s study had failed to eliminate BPRs and toxic vinyl plastics, though some of the phone makers did,” Sterling reports. “In addition, Greenpeace’s study didn’t take into account that in terms of quantity, Apple produces less toxic waste than larger competitors.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: 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:
EPA does not support Greenpeace’s charges against Apple Computer – January 07, 2007
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
I’ve never once seen an Apple computer sitting in the trash or on the street corner waiting to be discarded. Never. People just don’t throw Macs away.
How sad 🙁
“She said Apple failed to stop using several types of harmful chemicals in its manufacturing, and — unlike many other companies — has not set any timetable for phasing them out”
If other companies have set a timetable for phasing them out there’s no reason Apple couldn’t either. Somebody had to be last, it just happened to be Apple.
Greenpeace certainly isn’t anti-Apple, because Lenovo was towards the bottom of the last list and is now #1. Why shouldn’t Apple be making the same changes.
It’s not about concepts like iPods or LCD monitors, because EVERY OTHER MONITOR AND DAP maker is helping in that way too.
Maybe you should actually use your heads and read their criteria. My guess is none of you have. There mock Apple website is actually very good.
MDN: wish- I wish people, besides Greenpeace, would actually raise these concerns to Apple
As a vegetarian, and a green – greenpeace and PETA are both attention and money making propaganda whores.
I even stopped calling myself Vegan and use Strict Vegetarian because I dislike the connections to the radical whoremongers that the groups above have become…
Like all the rich “posers” they use recycled paper for toilet paper and hemp towels and think that they are saving the environment all the while driving their new hummer to $tarbucks from their all electric 2200 sq ft house lit up with incandescent bulbs… Cause the led and low draw fluorescent lights make their “bunny safe” makeup look “just too ghastly” against thier hand dyed south american native tribe hemp pull over top.
Go rot you posers!
Ok, it’s obvious that none of you have actually bothered to read the Greenpeace report. If you want to rant and rave like lunatics about something, at least have the decency to read it first.
The Greenpeace report uses criteria that Greenpeace has chosen that go BEYOND the requirements of the law.
Based on this set of criteria, Apple gets the lowest score because:
– Apple fails to embrace the precautionary principle, and its publications reflect a poor definition of the precautionary principle.
– Apple does not make public its full list of regulated substances. Other companies, such as Dell and Lenovo, do publish it.
– Apple provides no timelines for eliminating toxic polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Other companies have made public commitments with dates.
– Apple makes no commitment to phasing out all uses of brominated flame retardants (BFRs). Other companies have so committed.
– Apple performs poorly on product take back and recycling. For example, Apple does not take back ALL of its own products in ALL of the countries in which it does business. Other companies, notably Dell, already do this on a worldwide basis.
+ In its favor, Apple does report on the amounts of its electronic waste recycled.
In particular, the Greenpeace report says that Apple has made ZERO progress on the above issues since August 2006. That’s zilch, nada, nothing.
Apple has not disputed the factual accuracy of any of the above points.
Companies that care to do so can easily take steps to increase their rankings, e.g. publish a full list of regulated chemicals, commit to public timelines for eliminating PVCs and BFRs, and initiate recycling programs for all their products on a worldwide basis.
None of these steps is difficult or impossible to achieve. Proof positive is that the likes of Dell, Lenovo, and Nokia are doing these steps already.
The point is: Why can’t Apple take these steps, when its competitors have?
AlanAudio wrote: “Greenpeace also rank Apple dead last in it’s list of companies who contribute to Greenpeace’s coffers.”
Wrong. Not just a little bit wrong. But absolutely flat out, 100% wrong.
Greenpeace doesn’t accept corporate donations or government grants. AT ALL.
It is funded entirely by individual donations.
And Greenpeace screens individual donations to ensure they are not proxies for corporations.
@Qka; Thanks for the link, very insightful.
@AlanAudio; And there you go. Behind every rhyme there’s a reason.
Zeke,
Yes, that’s only enough waste to fill a 2-card garage. But that 2-car garage better be made to last because that deadly nuclear waste will sit inside it for millions of years.
I would love to endorse nuclear power. Really. But, at least at this point in the development of the human race, nuclear power is bigger than us. We just can’t contain it with our current technology. We may be safe for the time being, but what about our grandkids and their children, etc?
Every American home should have panels on its roof and a windmill in its backyard. We need to tax the sh!t out of Hummers and redneck trucks that get 10mpg.
And our president should probably learn how to pronounce NUCLEAR.
Macs (and iPod) also get “recycled” in the best possible way. When the first owner is done with it, it gets re-sold to live another day. You should see the price of used iPods on eBay, even when they are broken. I’m sure some Macs end up in the landfill, but a lot less by percentage than your typical PC. (Let’s now count the Lisa landfill project.)
2-card garage? Argh. Sorry about that typo in my last post.
Artist, you have a point there. I can’t remember the last time I saw a Mac in the garbage. At least since the beige G3 days.
Greenpeace is right. Period. Get over it.
I just tried to keep a striaght face while saying those words…I FAILED!
They are the kind of wacko ‘activists’ that give people truly concerned about the environment a bad name. They are tree huggers- crazy tree huggers.
It’s quite telling that not one post critical of Greenpeace has made any substantive argument on the merits of the issues that Greenpeace has raised.
Instead, all we get are insults, rantings, and ad hominem attacks.
Not one of you seem to understand that Greenpeace is evaluating companies by criteria that are ABOVE AND BEYOND the legal requirements.
Not one of you seem to understand that Apple has made ZERO PROGRESS on the issues identified by Greenpeace.
Not one of you seem to understand that Apple has not disputed the factual accuracy of Greenpeace’s points.
So are all of you just Apple fanboys, or is there a grownup among you?
If so, what is your response to Greenpeace’s central point: If Dell, Nokia, Lenovo et al can make substantive changes, why can’t Apple?
Yaris, I hate to say it but…you ignorant slut.
Did you not read my post?. Like I wrote above, Greenpeace tactics have undermined their message. But the message is good and it is the work of enviromental groups like WWF, Sierra Club, and yes, even Greenpeace before they went kooky, that FORCED business to make changes. The changes they made was through education and lobbying both business and government. Believe me, I know alot about GP since they started my city, Vancouver.
As for being lib, there is no way in hell I would ever vote Left, not including the fact they (the NDP) torpedoed our province economy throughout the 80’s and 90’s. And thanks for the mini-lecture about small business driving the economy, but I knew all that since I work for a local Mac reseller. But in case you haven’t figured out yet, small business is greatly influenced by the decisions of Big Business (looked at the gas prices lately, Sparky?)
If you think big business is going to spend money and time educating the public about how shoddy their practices are, how they could be improved, and how they are going to regulate themselves you’re a bigger fool than I originally thought (check out the recent Rolling Stone issue on the pork industry). But hey maybe GP’s extreme tactics are need for people like you, who have their late capitalists’ heads so far up their asses, they can’t see the harm of capitalism does without some form of regulation from the government.
magic word = “high”, as in, you must have been high when you read my original post.
Greenpeas has lost my support! ; )
They act like Apple does nothing. There are so many blatant horrible polluting companies that DO NOTHING for real. I feel like GP must have hidden ulterior motives. Is Gates funding them?
This:
http://www.apple.com/environment/
is more than most companies do you F-TARDS!
RTFA – you’re supporting Greenpeace and telling us to behave like grown ups ? Ever looked at the sorts of publicity stunts they arrange ?
Yeah – really grown up !
Okay, who here has actually read the thing besides RTFA?
AND….the Sierra Club doesn’t agree with Greenpeas:
QUOTE: California—April 21, 2006
“Earlier this week, Apple has been named a “Forward Green Leader,” one of the top ten environmentally progressive companies recognized by the Sierra Club and its investment advisor, Forward Management.”
So who’s right?
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/apr/21takeback.html
The high profile consumer organizations always get infiltrated and eventually overcome by the business lobbies. Always consult many sources and make your own mind up, especially pay attention to ordinary people who make the effort to get the word out even when it costs them time and money rather than the corporate shills who benefit financially.
See this video about something rather more important,
The Future of Food:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=849146694200968214
Oh and the electric car, well there are cars that run on water, use your favorite search engine for something like water powered car. There are other ways to make electricity without fossils, nuclear etc, here’s another interesting video:
Phenomenon Archives: Heavy Watergate, The War Against Cold Fusion:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2229511748333360205
You shouldn’t automatically agree with these but you should be informed about alternatives.
We Mac users do use the alternative, because it’s better and cheaper, and we know that the mass populations have been fooled. We know business executives constantly rank Microsoft in the top ten which is most likely just down to their profit margins and how much money their executives have made. We know mediocrity of product and abandonment of consumer benefit is prevalent in computing, should it come as a surprise that it is also the case in other fields.
One more link for a site full of good info about stuff everyone should be concerned about:
http://www.newstarget.com/
Greenpeace: the Zune SHIT is more environmentally friendly than the metal and plastic iPods. Makes sense for this bunch of idiots.
AlanAudio:
I asked for a substantive answer on the specific points that Greenpeace is raising about Apple, especially compared with its competitors.
Do you have any real response? Or do you just reply with more attempts to smear the organization?
@RTFA
Instead of preaching to people, perhaps you should do a critical analysis of the “article’ itself as you seemed to have sopped it all up. If I recall, the brominated flame retardants (BFR) issue was dealt with awhile back and that it was shown that Apple uses little or none at all. Greenpeace was caught in a deliberate lie about it which killed their credibility.
Perhaps the extremely heavy bias here against Greenpeace should tell you something or perhaps you have your hands over your ears as well. I have found most Greenpeace supporter’s critical analysis skills leave something to be desired.
RTFA – “Or do you just reply with more attempts to smear the organization?”
That’s Greenpeace’s sole tactic when it comes to Apple. Inconvenient facts are disregarded. Why do you insist that Greenpeace should be treated differently to how they treat Apple ?
If the grievances were genuine ones, I would most certainly be having a go at Apple, but I really can’t see the problem and while I can see that Apple is a tempting high profile target, there are plenty of other companies that have a considerably worse record when judged on any meaningful criteria. If Greenpeace genuinely think that Apple are the worst of the worst then that speaks volumes about Greenpeace’s credibility.
You can make any case you want by being ultra selective with the facts you choose to consider. That’s all that Greenpeace are doing. They discredit themselves much more than they discredit Apple.
I do pay attention to environmental issues and used to actively support Greenpeace in the distant past, but they have changed into something else. That change happened long before they got Apple in their sights.
Buster,
I’m not preaching — I’m asking for substantive responses to the question raised by Greenpeace: Why shouldn’t Apple be accountable if it fails or refuses to take steps that their competitors are well doing?
Yours is the first response that even attempts to be substantive. Congratulations.
Ok, on to the substance: Greenpeace’s beef about Apple and BFR is not whether Apple uses BFRs, or uses a lot or uses a little.
Rather, the issue Greenpeace raises is that Apple refuses to publicly commit itself to a timeline for eliminating all BFRs from its products. Again, Apple’s competitors have already made such commitments, but Apple consistently has declined.
Summary: It’s one thing to assert that Apple uses little BFRs. It’s quite another to say that Apple refuses to take steps to eliminate them entirely, which its competitors are already doing. The former is not a defense against the latter.
AlanAudio:
I still don’t see any meaningful response to the specific points being raised.
Which is: Why should Apple not be held accountable if it consistently refuses to take environmental measures that its competitors are already doing?
I don’t know about you, but I think it’s a Good Thing ™ for corporations to publicly commit themselves to a timeline for eliminating PVCs and BFRs from their products.
Are you opposed to asking corporations to make such public commitments? If so, why?
http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/ – this just makes me mad because they stole the apple page… sort of.