Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Apple Computers: Fun for You, Toxic for the Environment

By Jess Hemerly, AlterNet. Posted January 30, 2007.


Apple positions itself as the technological haven for the hip, the progressive and the revolutionary. But when it comes to the environment, Apple is quite out of touch.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Before an audience of tech lovers, developers, and Mac enthusiasts, Steve Jobs unveiled the creation everyone has been speculating about for years: the iPhone. Fans hung on every word as the Apple CEO stood onstage during his keynote address at the Macworld Expo in San Francisco. Dressed in a black mock turtleneck, he told the rapt crowd about patents for polymers, innovative user interfaces and corporate partnerships.

Jobs went on for nearly two hours about how amazing and revolutionary his gadget will be. But he did not mention the company's environmental policy once.

Then again, who talks about environmental policy at an electronics fair? Michael Dell does. At the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas during the second week of January, the head of struggling Dell Computers raised the stakes for the entire PC industry: "I challenge every PC maker to join us in providing free recycling for every customer in every country ... all the time -- no exceptions," he said.

Jobs and the PR wizards at Apple have done a fantastic job of positioning the company as the technological haven for the hip, the progressive and the revolutionary. But when it comes to the environment, Apple is out of touch.

In December of 2006, Greenpeace released a report ranking the overall environmental policy of major technology companies. Dell was at the top but Apple found itself at the bottom. While top companies like Dell and Nokia have made great strides to eliminate the most toxic chemicals from their products and offer strong recycling programs, Apple has not.

"Today you can't recycle most of these products because you're recycling toxic waste," says Rick Hind, legislative director of the Greenpeace Toxic Campaign. "We're looking at it from a complete life cycle approach, from where we make these to where they end up. Twenty to 50 million tons of e-waste a year end up in China; that [e-waste] is endangering to migrant families trying to remove a very small percentage of the materials for recycling."

Following the release of the report, Greenpeace launched "GreenMyApple," a full-force PR campaign complete with an informational website that impressively mimics Apple's website. Activists distributed flyers outside of the Moscone Center during the full week of Macworld Expo. The group also altered the video of the famous Steve Jobs keynote address, creating their fantasy version of the keynote in which Jobs would announce that Apple plans not only to step up their environmental policies but will make environmental responsibility a part of the company's identity.

To date, Apple has done only what is legally required. They are in compliance with RoHS standards ("the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment"), which were put in place in the European Union in July 2006. Pressure from environmental groups like the Computer Take Back Campaign combined with changing legal standards forced Apple to come up with a recycling program that at least looked like it was green -- but that's about it.

Apple refuses to make "green" part of their image. Just finding the environmental section on its website requires either a search of the site or knowing that "apple.com/environment" will get you there. Among all of the tabs in the navigation bar at the top of the pages, "Environment" is nowhere to be found. "As their website shows, green can be turned into greenwash," says Hind. "What we're talking about is measuring them based on toxics and recycling that is a serious physical problem."

Apple spokesperson Kristin Huguet provided the official Apple response to the Greenpeace ranking and campaign: "We disagree with Greenpeace's rating and the criteria they chose. Apple has a strong environmental track record and has led the industry in restricting and banning toxic substances such as mercury, cadmium, hexavelent chromium, as well as many brominated flame retardants. We have also completely eliminated CRT monitors, which contain lead, from our product line. Apple desktops, notebooks, and displays, each score best in class in the new EPA ranking system EPEAT, which uses new international standards set by IEEE."

Apple contends that it is as green as it needs to be and supports that contention with the Silver medal it earned from the EPA's U.S. Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) back in July of 2006. But the sets of criteria used by Greenpeace and the EPA are very different.

For one, the EPA criteria apply to specific products and apply only to stateside programs. Greenpeace's criteria evaluate the company as a whole and are more critical. In a Jan. 12 article on IT Week's Green Business News, Scot Case, marketing director at EPEAT, said, "My initial reaction was that comparing the two systems was like comparing apples and oranges, but on closer inspection it is more like comparing apples and cows."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: environment, environmental policy, apple, mac, computers, dell, nokia, toxics, electronics

Jess Hemerly is an editor at MacTribe and a contributing writer at Chord.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I'm an Apple and This is a pc...
Posted by: edsmith on Jan 30, 2007 5:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and we are both corporate bandits. Great article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why not go after the EPEAT ?
Posted by: dbx26 on Jan 30, 2007 6:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the EPEAT protocol is faulty and inadequate why not go after the EPEAT for fraud ? Until then it's only their word against there's/ (just an honest question)

phil

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Additional info links?
Posted by: TominAms on Jan 30, 2007 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Informative article, especially on the history of Apple's reactive rather than proactive environmental leadership. How about some links to the info cited in the article?

Being from Greenpeace I'll provide some links to our site

GreenmyApple site

Electronics ranking

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Green My Propaganda Site ? Posted by: TominAms
» How about the other side? Posted by: ahmlco
A few states away?
Posted by: elmarco on Jan 30, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since when is Nevada "a few states away" from California? They share a 600+ mile border. Things like this always make me wonder what else the author didn't bother to research.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A few states away? Posted by: Jayzer
PC User
Posted by: mbarndollar on Jan 30, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been a PC user for many years. I am researching the purchase of a new computer and for the first time am considering Apple. Having just read this AlterNet article, I'm far less inclined to make the switch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: PC User Posted by: Scott
» Or, with regard to viruses... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: I have to second this post Posted by: Techubus
» RE: I have to second this post Posted by: techphile
» RE: PC User Posted by: dhstarr
» Then you are being foolish... Posted by: alaskagrrl
Yawn. The only thing more difficult that getting a successful company to self-impose...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 30, 2007 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...a competitive disadvantage upon itself, is getting a Mac user to switch to a Dell. And when did Greenpeace become an authority on technology, other than decrying it as an damnable thing of evil in their religion?

There's nothing in this article regarding the amazing progress of miniaturization--nowadays, folks can plop a pc with more computing power than the DoD had right up until the 1980's beside their Dummy Box for the express purpose of watching reruns of Sanford and Son. Technology with a smaller footprint means fewer materials, which means less consumption, which means less waste.

Of course, miniaturization and technological progress also makes the technology more useful, and more affordable. Now, we'll wait to hear how dreadful egalitarian technology is...take 'er away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I don't buy it. Posted by: ABetterFuture
Very disappointed
Posted by: charlief on Jan 30, 2007 6:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, I'm a macintosh user - and a Greenpeace supporter - have been since 1988 and this news disappoints me.

However, I have to call to task the author about his comment that Apple's website carries no mention of Environmental concerns unless you dig deep or 'know' where to go.

That is flagrantly not true. It took me two clicks to get to Apple's Environmental page. And it's a big slice of the site too, with sections describing their environmental history thus far; Energy efficiency; manufacturing responsibilites; responsible product design; recycling and summary. Try it yourself: from the home page, click Sitemap, then Environment. How hard is that? Clearly way too hard for all the other computer manufacturers!

Dell's site took me five clicks before I found any reference to anything environmental.
Hewlett Packard seemed not to have any environmental policy, certainly there was nothing on their site AT ALL - and not even a site map to search for one!
Lenovo[IBM], again had no reference to an environmental policy, no commmentary on their site and no means of finding any.
Gateway was the best. One click to their environmental page [one better than Apple's], although it was a meagre, bare bones offering, to be kind.

So, in summary... of all the leading computer manufacturers, it seems Apple fares quite well in that regard. Anyone could try out this for themselves - simple journalistic research and follow through with the facts.

How can the author beat Apple over the head about their 'lack' of an environmental presence on their website, without doing the simple comparison check of the other manufacturers? It's nothing more than misleading, sloppy journalism at best and downright slanted reporting at worst.

For me, this lack of coming clean with the facts and slanting the results, ruins an otherwise worthy article highlighting ALL manufacturers attempts at being environmentally responsible.

1/10 at journalism school for you Jess Hemerly. Do your research and present the facts fairly or don't bother at all!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Very disappointed Posted by: dhstarr
» Please, provide links. Posted by: sausage
» RE: Please, provide links. Posted by: gazooks
» RE: Very disappointed Posted by: allthingslucid
The problem is far more general
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 30, 2007 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.computertakeback.com/the_problem/index.cfm

Basically, all electronics parts should be recycled - boards, metal, etc. - except that it's a toxic and nasty process, apparently done largely in the third world and in the US prison system under sweatshop conditions.

Just because Dell allows you to make a $2 donation to a 'plant a tree campaign..." - that makes them a responsible greenwashed company? What's needed is a generalized government-regulated e-waste recycling industry that provides safe working conditions; you could simply place a small tax on all computer and electronics gear sold in the US to help fund such a program.

I mean, go down to your nursery, buy some trees, and plant them yourself - your $2 feel-good donation to Dell is nothing but green marketing (that you get to pay for!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Apple's Recycling Program is Lacking Posted by: Jess Hemerly
Classic Disinformation
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 30, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is Greenpeace is worried about the environment, or it's PR and continued relevance? While I, as a Macintosh user, would hope that Apple takes a more proactive approach regarding recycling, this is a massive distortion of the facts. Simple research shows the claims of GreenPeace to be a complete load of excrement.

According to data from a number of independent sources, including governmental (EPA, among others), Apple's products were rated as well as that of any other manufacturer. In fact, their average was ranked above that of Dell.

While recyclability is one facet of how 'green' a computer is, a more important one has shown Apple far ahead of Dell for many years- that of product power consumption. Until the launch of the Intel powered Core Duo line a year ago, the overwhelming majority of Apple Computers for years were powered by a Motorola/Freescale CPU (the brains of a computer) that used a mere fraction of the power consumed by the Intel/AMD chips used by Dell, H-P, Sony, Gateway, IBM and others. When Intel leapfrogged it's competitors with the Core line of CPUs featuring better performance/ power consumption, Apple switched to their chips.

How big a difference are we talking about? The G4 line, depending upon model, used between 10-40 watts of power while the Pentium 4 models shipped by Dell were commonly using anywhere from 80-150 watts. The CPUs Dell and others were using not only consumed more power, they generated much greater heat and required more power consumptive cooling, larger cases and other design choices that increased the amount of materials in each unit. In the end, the Apple units have a much smaller Carbon footprint over their life, using any where from 1/4 to 1/2 the power of the 'Green Dells' every day for the life cycle of the unit. How many tons of greenhouse gases does that add up to?

Since last January, Apple has switched it's CPUs to designs from Intel that are essentially the same as those used by Dell, but literally millions of the older computers will be in daily use for at least another 5-10 years. Even with similar CPU's Apple's OS is superior to Windows in power management and uses less power than similar designs from others. How big a deal is power consumption? Computers use an estimated 7-8% of all the electricity produced in the US, a significant footprint.

This is nothing but a classic hit piece, full of disinformation. Take a look at the 'hard to find' Apple site describing what it actually does.
HERE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Classic Disinformation Posted by: gazooks
» RE: Classic Disinformation Posted by: NoPCZone
» You got it! Posted by: swissliberal
» You didn't really, really expect... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Classic Disinformation Posted by: LeeAnnG
It's the lead dog...
Posted by: greenman on Jan 30, 2007 7:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... that gets bit in the ass! This is another "there's worms in the Apple" story, in my opinion. As other posters have shown, Apple is certainly no worse than its peers, and is better than some, regarding the environment. Seriously, the idea that any computer is good for the environment is pretty crazy. There's nine times as many PC's as there are Apples in the trash heaps of the world, and there's not a nickel's worth of difference between an Apple carcass and a Dell carcass, I'd wager, in terms of harm to the environment. As other posters have pointed out, what is needed for electronics and computers - especially - and for all products in general, is a pricing system that would include "cradle to grave" provisions for mitigating harm to the environment for the entire life of the product. Everything would quickly become of much higher quality, would last longer, and would be more expensive, too. That's the kind of carrot-and-stick regulation that government could impose, but doesn't for all the grubby reasons we are all too familiar with these days.

Greenman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's the lead dog... Posted by: babs
SensationNet, a Core Issue and Journalistic Toxin
Posted by: gazooks on Jan 30, 2007 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, Apple Inc. is a flawed company, just as is every other tech related company that utilizes natural resources in the manufacture and distribution of product. Apple does recycle, has an expanding awareness of green issues, and as the article accurately states has progress to be made. All high tech manufacturers do, and all of us do as well.

But it's a gross exaggeration to single out Apple and suggest that Apple, which as a computer company is tiny next to goliath Dell, is resistant to or even hostile to environmental responsibility.

http://www.apple.com/environment/resources/faq.html

I don't want to minimize the importance of personal vigilance or corporate responsibility in identifying measures to improve and actions to enhance environmental responsibility, but the title of this article as singling out Apple as being irresponsible and dramatically behind the curve is distorted and false.

Alternet's editorial policies seem to be migrating towards the sensational toxins of Fox. Unhealthy pollutants for a "fair and balanced" landscape, great for revenue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not Tiny Any Longer Posted by: NoPCZone
Thought Different
Posted by: thehousedog on Jan 30, 2007 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I purchased an Apple laser printer in 1998 and it is still in use to this day. During that time, I purchased one toner cartridge, which, now you know, how little I actually use it. In that toner cartridge, which I purchased from Apple, was a recycle this toner coupon which had a label and address where the toner could be recycled. I also own an HP deskjet color printer. When those color cartridges are through, they need to be thrown away, even after I have had them refilled at the local refill place (they can't be refilled forever).

All these computers are neither good nor bad - it's how we perceive them. If you utilize these toxic-made and toxic-remaining machines to do exciting and valueable things in your life, and the lives of others, what is the cost in the bigger picture? If you are just looking for ways to make everybody more aware of how precious life and environment are on this planet, there may be far more prescient topics to focus on then the very objects that we are all using at this moment to read and write with on this blog.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thought Different Posted by: Phenix
ROFLMAO!!!
Posted by: sausage on Jan 30, 2007 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it's rather cute how bent out of shape Apple geeks get if anyone disses their precious machines and Apple-geek Guru Steve Jobs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OFLMAO!!! Posted by: brad
» Get Real Posted by: NoPCZone
» No conflict of interest here Posted by: sausage
» RE: OFLMAO!!! Posted by: babs
» RE: OFLMAO!!! Posted by: chomsky
From the Ground Up
Posted by: LarryGroff on Jan 30, 2007 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am also a long time Mac and PC user who is very concerned about the environmental impact of my computers. I would agree with those who take Jess Hemerly to task for not investigating thoroughly enough about Apple’s environmental record and the superficiality and grandstanding of Greenpeace’s Green my Apple campaign.

However, Apple is a large corporation whose business goals are far ahead of any other concern, to think otherwise is naive. Apple is not a movement regardless of how we might wish it so. But it is good that Apple is getting the green lights blasted on its façade as it may prod them to indeed move ahead and make their environmental decisions even more carefully and boldly if they fear that their reputation and popularity are at risk.

One area, not mentioned thus far, is the tremendous impact on the environment that obtaining the raw materials needed for computer components has. The mining of copper, gold, coltan and many other elements needed for all computers has wrought tremendous ecological devastation in the under developed countries. Elizabeth Grossman’s book High Tech Trash article about the book and interview here is a comprehensive and very readable look at this issue. Computers need to be designed from the ground up to be earth friendly. Mother Boards and other major computer components should be designed to allow greater ease of reuse and recycling. There should be standards and safeguards to insure that electronics are recycled safely and end the practice of using sweat shop labor or worse to recover gold and copper from PC’s.

It is one thing for Dell to proclaim how green it is – but where will those recycled computers eventually end up. From what I know, most computers are sent overseas where there is very little oversight. Even though some computers do get recycled, very little actually goes back into a new PC. Virtually 100% of the gold and copper in a PC should be able to be reused again and again. However almost no recycled gold or copper is used in PC production, using instead the more expensive mined materials.

The best way for change to come about is educating the public and putting pressure on the computer makers to do the right thing

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you for your comment Posted by: Jess Hemerly
» RE: Thank you for your comment Posted by: LarryGroff
Everything is TOXIC
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jan 30, 2007 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our computers,cars, TV, personal electronics, home appliances, cell phones, carpeting, furniture, cosmetics, detergents, food....
EVERYTHING IS TOXIC. This is a big-picture issue. Apple is only a speck in the poisoning of the planet by producers of consumer products.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: verything is TOXIC Posted by: King L Man
» RE: verything is TOXIC Posted by: gazooks
Another Variable To Be Considered . . .
Posted by: MAD on Jan 30, 2007 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In this side by side comparison of Macs and PC's would be medical problems. How many heart attacks, strokes, aneurysms and cases of high blood pressure are the result of using Windows-based PC's? BSD or the blue screen of death has probably contributed to increased mortality among office workers alone. Freezing, missing dll files and a whole host of other issues are enough to incite myriad mental problems as well. Depression, rage and social detachment are just some of the symptoms of using a piece of shit Windows-based machine.

Switch to a Mac - you'll live longer!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's BSoD not BSD Posted by: Mac Geek
Corporate responsibility?
Posted by: MTguy on Jan 30, 2007 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apple is a very forward thinking company and its awareness level is high. Apple should already know that it has a corporate responsibility to provide proper handling of its products from purchase through disposal. It's time it took the lead in recycling its products at the end of their useful cycle of existence. Apple has never been a "me too" kind of outfit. Now is not the time for them to start down that road.

Maybe instead of recycle, they could refurbish and provide them at NO CHARGE to down on their luck school districts nationwide. Just think for a minute what kind of good THAT would do...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vista release
Posted by: duffyb on Jan 30, 2007 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting, an anti-Apple article the same week Vista is released and the Microsoft/Wikipedia scandal. I smell a rat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't worry, if they broke it, they'll fix it
Posted by: xbj on Jan 30, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and Alternet DEFINITELY is the squeaky wheel in America.

Have no fear, if Apple has been polluting under the radar, now that it's on the radar, they'll stop. ASAP.

While the PC world will go on and on and on and on polluting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stop the techno-go-round; I want to get off.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 30, 2007 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When it comes to making products last, don't get too excited about Bill Gates or Microsoft. Their new operating system, Vista (priced to $400!), requires so much memory (no doubt because of Microsoft's sloppy programming) that computers more than a few months old can't run it without upgrades. And we know what serious upgrades or whole new computers mean, don't we? More otherwise still useful but toxic electronics gear being put into the trash, for a few more techno-gee-gaws and "gee whiz!" graphics and a few "new," but mostly unnecessary, capabilities. And the upshot of Microsoft's latest ploy to take your money? Vista has been reported to be a knockoff of – ready? – APPLE'S operating system!

It is time we all call a halt to the constant lust for technology for technology's sake. This rush to nowhere has produced, through video games, iPods, do-everything (except reliable calling) cellphones and other techno-toys, a society of perpetual adolescents, and is uniquely destructive to our environment.

The planet, and our place on it, simply can no longer afford the waste produced by comp-u-geek corporations dragging us by the nose down to the next level of I.T. silliness. We all need to be more hard-nosed and ask "why?" of these mfg.'s products, rather than empty our wallets and pitch perfectly good equipment into land fills every year for the sake of nothing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Late to the party? Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Late to the party? Posted by: monkeywrench
» Not quite so fast... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Plant trees instead... Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Plant trees instead... Posted by: LarryGroff
» RE: Plant trees instead... Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Plant trees instead... Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Plant trees instead... Posted by: LarryGroff
Apple, Dell - it's all the same
Posted by: TheGrunger on Jan 30, 2007 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't matter how a corporation brands itself (hip, revolutionary, etc) because at the core they are all the same - their sole legal purpose is to pursue profit above all else. Dell may be marginally better than Apple - but neither one is going to bend over backwards to do what is right if it cuts too far into their bottom line.

While I think it is valuable to point out things like this, unless they are actually breaking the law I don't see any value in singling out Apple or any other company. We cannot expect corporations to do the right thing (in any situation, environmental or otherwise) if there are not strict regulations in place to punish them harshly for doing the wrong thing.

The problem is the entire corporate system and the weak regulatory laws of our government - that is where we should focus our efforts. That is the only way to force companies like Apple to pay attention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Reason to single out Apple Posted by: Jess Hemerly
» RE: reason to single out Apple Posted by: TheGrunger
» RE: reason to single out Apple Posted by: Jess Hemerly
» Really, to sum it up... Posted by: Jess Hemerly
ArsTechnica: Mary E Tyler Admits Greenpeace a Fraud
Posted by: mactreebeard on Jan 30, 2007 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suggest that readers also look at an article by Daniel Eran explaining the situation about GreenPeace in this regard, it is quite interesting, indeed. ArsTechnica: Mary E Tyler Admits Greenpeace a Fraud

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Greenpeace a Fraud Posted by: NoPCZone
» EPEAT vs. Greenpeace Posted by: Jess Hemerly
» RE: PEAT vs. Greenpeace Posted by: mactreebeard
EXTORTION
Posted by: gellero on Jan 30, 2007 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like Greenpeace is trying to extort a big 'donation' from Mr. Jobs. How did they convince Dell to send the $$$$????
Promise of positive PR on things like this???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: spammer Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: spammer Posted by: gellero
Basic physics - For every action there is an equal & opposite reaction
Posted by: mizipi on Jan 30, 2007 10:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Solar cells- great idea, huh? Research how much toxic waste is created to produce solar cells.
Brazil and ethanol - where does all of the waste from processing the sugar cane go?

Some ideas are better than others and some processes produce less waste, toxic or otherwise, than others.

I hear recycle much more than I hear re-use or do not use at all. We all need to try harder to protect the environment of the earth. Especially in the USA!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tiresias
Posted by: acerbas on Jan 30, 2007 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there a place in this country, at least where people use computers, that does not have a hazardous wasted recycling center? Is it Apple's fault that irresponsible consumers do not use them?

But on balance, which is more environment friendly, my video chatting with my kid in Hawaii on my Mac, or flying in the big silver tube to visit him?

Or my wife checking out her grandkids 400 miles away with iChat AV rather than driving up to see them? In a system of tradeoffs I think using a Mac with its great video chat program for virtual visits is a far lesser evil than burning up the fuel to make the physical trip.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tiresias Posted by: Mrs_scrupulosity
» Evil Posted by: gellero
Three types of responses
Posted by: bwunderlick on Jan 30, 2007 12:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Apple is no worse than all companies, why are you picking on them?!
2. Apple is environmental (they say so on their site) and Greenpeace are liars/Microsoft clones, why do you lie author?!
3. Everything pollutes and planting trees does nothing, why don't you write about that author?!

In contrast to what some of the comments that were written in a few minutes, I think this article is pretty thoroughly researched. It isn't slamming Apple as the worse environmental company, its saying its hipper-than-thou image is standing in place for actual policy to be environmental friendly (that the "evil" company Dell is actually doing). These comments show people are still caught in to the "i'm X (socially, politically, environmentally responsible, cool, with it, anti-bush), i use macs like everyone else who is X, so jobs and macs must also be X!"

I love Apple products, but they are like any other company on the planet. They won't care about the environment till they get their customers care about it. And why should they care when you got all these people willing to attack an article that suggests Dell might be doing a better job at it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hi, I'm a Mac
Posted by: Ghoulman on Jan 30, 2007 12:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and I liked this article. I think all the right points are put out in this article. Computers, and electronics in general, are a dirty little landfill secret. As a new Mac user myself (G5, I'll never go back to Winblows!), as so many people are, I'm glad someone is upping the environmental anti.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big business owns the world
Posted by: Reader11722 on Jan 30, 2007 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet another example of corporate greed. Corporations and gov't are merely quid-pro-quo whorehouses sold to the highest bidder. When the gov't needs illegal wire-taps, Verizon and Sprint allow them secret rooms to listen in on calls. When Haliburton (and KBR) need more revenue, the gov't hands out no-bid contracts. When the gov't dislikes literature, Amazon and Wikipedia ban the book "America Deceived". America Deceived (book) We The People had our gov't (and environment) sold out from beneath us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Go green: buy a used computer!
Posted by: jimbee on Jan 30, 2007 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the thrift stores have used computers now. They are very cheap and they work just fine, thank you. Used PCs go for as little as $20 (although Microsoft makes them charge a license fee if they have Windows installed). Monitors go for $20+, iMacs go for $20-$70, G3s and G4s for less than a hundred bucks--though there are fewer Macs floating around than PCs.

If you are trading up, donate your old PC to Goodwill or the Salvation Army. They will resell it, keeping it our of the landfill and helping to close the digital divide. It may well be that Dell is just as interested in keeping used machines from cannibalizing their market as being green.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Go green on your own, to hell with Dell, and Apple!
Posted by: acemoab@citlink.net on Jan 30, 2007 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personally, I would not do business with either Dell or Apple, nor for that matter, any of the major so-called computer "manufacturers" who really don't usually make anything anyway. If I could not build my own computer, I would find a good LOCAL geek to do the job with readily available, cheap, standard parts. Instead of dealing with an "appliance" like a refrigerator, which one really never upgrades or modifies, a computer made with standard parts has a longer lifetime, and is therefore much greener, than one deliberately made to be not very upgradable. Dell (and the others) use non-standard cases, motherboards, power supplies, and anything else they can, to twist or butcher into greater profit for themselves. Apple is much worse, deliberately putting a chip (The "Trusted Platform Architecture" chip) on otherwise banal Intel hardware, so that its operating system can run. They used to claim they were both different and better. Now they are NOT different, they are identical, except for the TPA chip which actually slows the machine down. It is perfectly legal, and cheaper, to purchase OS X and cheap Intel hardware, use a software patch to defeat Apple's TPA, and build a Mac, if that is what you want. You will be able to more easily run Linux, Windows, test and diagnostic software, or anything else on the same platform, and when you need a new part, like, say, a power supply, you can find hundreds of perfectly usable, cheap alternatives. This approach keeps more money in your local economy, and gives you a machine you can upgrade completely. Resource intensive parts, like the case, can be used over and over. If you want to be green and generate your own power, you have to pony up huge wads of cash. Being green with a computer can be cheaper. What brand of computer is best?? NO BRAND!! I used to be the regional service rep for Dell, HP/Compaq, IBM, and eMachines, and resigned because most of the customers I serviced were HOPPING MAD before I got there because of the way they were abused, and because I was ASHAMED to work for such useless bozos. Your local geek will charge you less, speak the local dialect, remember your name, and actually answer the phone. Even if he/she charged more than Dell, et. al., it would still be worth it, just for the reduced blood pressure. The last time I built a computer (for an affluent ex-mayor), when he returned his stillborn Dell (under their 30 day return policy) he saved a cool grand, and got not only a much faster, feature rich custom designed machine, in a premium miniature enclosure, but TWO large LCD monitors, and had change to give me a tip AND go to dinner with his wife at the country club. Sweet. Even at the bottom end of the scale, a locally made machine is cheaper. The only excuse for buying from the big guys is not knowing better. Now if your mechanic could only twist you together a cheap plug-in hybrid car.........!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

trademan
Posted by: trademan on Jan 30, 2007 2:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
gee bad apple, bad, bad apple. this article while seemingly true for the most part is quite slanted. i also, after reading this went to microsoft's website to view their environmental policies, and what a surprise there was NONE. while mr. gates is running around the globe manipulating and doing whatever he needs to do to get people to use his software and touting a program for AIDS in africa i couldn't find much to that would make me rush out and dump my apple for windows. at least apple has responded to the problem, perhaps not in a fashion that is as quick or beneficial as many, myself included would like, but let's not forget that EVERY computer is filled with toxic waste, and to throw blame all over apple for not being so green comparatively to their counterpart, of all people DELL. give me a break!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lifespan
Posted by: robvgr on Jan 30, 2007 4:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay ... so I'm a Mac user and I like the innovations Apple has pioneered in the tech sector; however, their environmental record, as with most computer hardware companies, is hardly progressive.

But here's something that doesn't seem to have been mentioned in this debate: lifespan. I've been using the same Apple laptop for over three years and am planning to use it for at least three more. It is still functioning as well as it did when I purchased it and is still meeting my demands as a graphic designer. When I'm finished with it, I will have no problem selling it given its continued usefulness.

Having previously owned four PCs over a four year period--all of which slowed down considerably over time and were highly susceptible to software degradation due to viruses--I have been very pleased by the long-term usability of my Mac.

Now ... if you need to use a computer and all manufacturers are roughly equal by environmental standards, why not get one that will last as long as possible?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lifespan Posted by: karyse
Points to Consider
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 30, 2007 4:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A couple things to consider in fairness to Mac:

1. The Mac machines last a lot longer. The machines hold up forever. Mac laptops for instance are of much higher quailty then Dells and HP's (pure garbage). You will find a lot of people still using old Macs. They last longer so they are less of a disposal problem. And, even when disposed of, some people continue to use them for things like backup hard drives, distribution points, and even for nostalgic/sentimental reasons.

2. Only about 5-6% of the computer population use Mac's and the Mac (OSX) operating system. Again, fewer comupters equals much less waste.

3. PC's via XP and now VISTA are havens for every piece of malware, spam, adware, trojan horses, spyware, you name it, they will harbor it, harvest it and turn your computer into a zombie. Macs are vastly less vulnerable if running the Mac operating system. So, what about this non-contribution of Macs to the garbage pile. Sure, for PC's, it is a different kind of waste then plastics and circuit boards, but waste is waste. Also, the harm done to humans via raided bank accounts, identity theft and the like on PC's should count for something.

4. Finally, I am a Mac fan as you can tell, but truthfully Jobs could do a little bit better. I think he has been a bit obsessed with playing "catch up" with Bill Gates, at least up until the last few years when the IPod's really took off. It is probably time for him to look at the company doing something. They could run a turn in/recycling program or something like that. It would not hurt profitability and would be good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just the Facts, please
Posted by: zanseattle on Jan 30, 2007 5:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Just finding the environmental section on its website requires either a search of the site or knowing that 'apple.com/environment" will get you there. Among all of the tabs in the navigation bar at the top of the pages, 'Environment' is nowhere to be found."

It would be a good thing if environmental cost was front-and-center, especially in the tech industry where it can be so damaging, but from this statement, a reader might assume that other industry players (like Dell, IBM, Gateway, HP, Microsoft, or Sony) have such links… except they don't. You have to search for it on Dell.com, just like you do on Apple.

But we are to assume that Apple is the worst; the article asserts that Dell found itself at the "top" in last fall's rankings, while Apple was "at the bottom". Apart from mention of the baby steps from Dell and these rankings, mention of how Apple compares to other computer and consumer products makers is absent.

Actually Apple did poorly in Greenpeace's "Guide to Greener Electronics", but it was not "at the bottom" in that guide, which was actually light on specifics and aimed at consumers as a general buying guide.

No mention is made of the follow-up study released several weeks later, "Toxic Chemicals in Your Laptop Exposed", in which Apple compares very favorably to HP, Dell, and the other manfucturers included, and seemsed to totally contradict the earlier scorecard.

"Apple has done only what is legally required."
"Apple refuses to make 'green' part of their image."
"Even though Apple did well by EPEAT standards, it still didn't earn a Gold medal".

This article seems driven by a desperate yearning for Apple, a visionary company in so many other ways, to step up to the plate and lead as an environmental champion as well. Like other recent articles, it demonizes a company that's doing a fair job because they aren't leading the way.

By all means, point out the dangerous practices of the industry, and Apple in particular, but if, above and beyond that, you want Apple to just do what you want, I'd suggest buying voting shares or getting a seat on the board.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just the Facts, please Posted by: Jess Hemerly
They have to take back the old Dells to sell new ones.
Posted by: Jersey Devil on Jan 30, 2007 6:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK so the article admits that Apple is in compliance with the laws. Dell is sinking like a stone compared to HP and is to be commended taking back PCs when you buy a NEW Dell. If being green is an important issue relating to technology companies - great, change the law.
Besides Mac's have much longer lifespans and MTF ratings. Heck they simply work better longer and actually need less recycling than PCs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't be Corporate....choose Linux!
Posted by: Dboy on Jan 30, 2007 7:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"the hip, the progressive, and the revolutionary"... George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and Carl Rove all use Apples. A similar article was on Kos yesterday and it was equally wacky to this one.

*All* computer hardware is toxic, requires gobs of water and materials to produce. And of course don't forget the power requirements. Difficult to avoid the environmental impact on the hardware side w/o just ditching computers alltogether (no thanks). On the SOFTWARE side though, you can choose from big corporations (Apple and Microsoft) OR you can choose Linux. the politics behind Linux most closely matches the Progessive point of view. The propaganda about "Linux isn't ready for normal people", is just that..propaganda. Linux will make your life simpler and let you just do what you need to do with the machine w/o worrying about stuff like viruses, worms, porno popups etc. Just think, no more Microsoft bug fixes to deal with every time you turn on your computer. Linux can be setup to update itself smoothly and without bothering you. And there's plenty of free software that does more than the stuff you're currently paying gobs of cash for. Are you into voluntary simplicity, permaculture, etc? Linux is for you.

Now that Apple has switched to Intel hardware, and Unix software, it is very easy to compare the cost of ownership. You can directly compare the price of a "core 2 duo" MacbookPro with exactly the same specs on a Toshiba or Sony (the 2 better brands of laptops in my opinion) and you can easily see that the Apple is overpriced by at least $1000 (or more).

If you do buy a Mac, do it with the knowledge that you are paying for form over substance. You're paying for pretty rather than paying for functionality.

Dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» In the Ozone Posted by: gellero
All I know is that Apple organized a huge...
Posted by: kboggs on Jan 30, 2007 7:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
recycling event here in Hawaii for older technology equipment in schools. They took thousands of tons of equipment. As far as I know they were not mandated to do so. They were trying to help out the local public and private schools as well as local universities. The event was also open to the public. This speaks much louder to me than any GreenPeace report. Where was Dell, HP or Gateway?

I would suggest that the author do a little more homework before he starts painting with such a broad brush. I've long since lost faith in Greenpeace as far as their objectivity goes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Can't find this info... link? Posted by: Jess Hemerly
» RE: Can't find this info... link? Posted by: Jess Hemerly
Apple and "slave labor"?
Posted by: Phenix on Jan 30, 2007 10:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5262110.stm

http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20060623_1.htm

Apple is no better than MS in terms of corporate responsibility. Ultimately the bottom line is to make money and that means that the environment will come second to profits. Steve Jobs could literally lose his job if shareholders revolted because Apple began to take environmentalism seriously.

I think that a lot of people go out and buy an Apple because they think they are being anti-Microsoft and that Apple is the new yippie symbol. The fact is that you can buy a barebones system and install linux onto the comp then download the various free programs. If you do this then you can truly say that you are doing your best to avoid corporations otherwise Apple is not much different than Dell, Gateway or the various other computer makers.

O and I have not had BSD since I got past 98 and ME. The only time my comp screws up is when I have to deal w/ my shitty Dell videocard. I'll have all that fixed when I build my next computer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Michael Dell gave money to Bush
Posted by: PT Alden on Jan 30, 2007 10:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and other Republicans, so let's not paint Mr. Dell as some great champion of the environment.

I agree with the other comment about CA and NV. The author should do a little research, and have an editor.

It does make me wonder how factual his/her research is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Greenpeace Sensationalism At It's Best (Worst)
Posted by: ahmlco on Jan 30, 2007 10:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For some facts about how Greenpeace is simply playing upon Apple's popularity, try reading some other viewpoints.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Saddens me to see Alternet print discredited lies
Posted by: markdemma on Jan 31, 2007 1:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is saddening to see AlterNet stoop to the level of Fox News in printing pure rubbish that has been discredited by several trusted sources. We all scream to high heaven when Fox News starts saying things like "Obama went to an Islamic School" without checking facts, but all follow like sheep if Greenpeace said it. The supposed "facts" are actually contradicting "studies" that aren't studies at all, but merely regurgitation of other company press releases and false information about fire safety material.

The irony of course is that they have chosen to attack a company that has certainly done more than most in the computing industry: tangible actual things like vastly reducing packaging materials, the first to phase out CRT monitors, longer lasting computers, hell they even have Al Gore on their board for goddess' sake people!

This whole campain amounts to little more than cheap stunts to fleece more money from ignorant people that will believe anything Greenpeace tells them. The simple fact is when Greenpeace couldn't extort a big fat check from Steve Jobs they got pissy and started this ridiculus campaign. Maybe they should spend more time learning how to read ocean charts so they don't destroy any more reefs.

Repeating disinformation like this only serves to cheapen Alternet's image and the image of progressives everywhere. It is a shame when WE start acting like the mindless sheep that we accuse the Right of being when we swallow garbage like this without checking the facts first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what you don’t agree with are lies?
Posted by: TominAms on Jan 31, 2007 3:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.....and it saddens me when people call what they don’t agree with lies

Seems to me the author did check his facts - he spoke to Greenpeace and Apple and looked at the differences between the Greenpeace and EPEAT ranking.

You claim that our facts have been discredited by several "trusted sources" Well lets take a look a some of the criticisms.

There’s roughly drafted (linked here in the comments) A blogger who never writes a bad word on Apple and who’s blog seems only to exist to promote Apple. He’s already know to distort facts in favour of Apple. Notice how no objective journalists takes him seriously? Doesn’t stop Apple press spokesperson trying to send journalist to his site though as Jess found out.

There are several dedicated Apple sites who have run negative stories on the campaign. While they might not like the campaign it doesn’t change the fact that Apple hasn’t removed the worst toxic chemicals from their products and doesn’t have a global take back policy.

In January there were lots of internet stories on how suddenly the EPA had proved Greenpeace wrong. In fact the EPEAT ranking has been around since July last year and uses different less stringent criteria than the Greenpeace ranking. This article already pointed out that even EPEAT have said that using their ranking to "prove" Greenpeace is wrong is rubbish:

"However, Scot Case, marketing director at EPEAT, insisted there was no contradiction between the two ranking systems' findings and that neither could be used to prove the inaccuracy of the other. "My initial reaction was that comparing the two systems was like comparing apples and oranges, but on closer inspection it is more like comparing apples and cows," he said. "EPEAT focuses on ranking the products, Greenpeace is looking at the whole company."
From Green Business News

We say Apple’s policies on toxics and e-waste are lacking, EPEAT says specific Apple products get a silver ranking along with most other major manufactures. Both ranking show Apple is not a green leader ahead of the competition where they should be.

Full response to all main criticisms of the our campaign can be found here.

Oh and to repeat myself - no, Greenpeace does not take money from any company or government. And having Al Gore on your board doesn’t seem to have changed anything because its Steve who calls the shots. Maybe he thinks Mac fans don’t want Apple to be green?

Tom @ Greenpeace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

green ipod
Posted by: seamus on Jan 31, 2007 7:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's true that apple located it's European base in Ireland which had the most lax enviromental standards at that time.
On the other hand, the ipod is, whether intentionally or not, one of the most environmentally friendly products of recent years, as it's estimated that downloading music only uses up half as much energy as buying CDs.
It's always worth giving credit where it's due.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: green ipod Posted by: Phenix
» RE: green ipod Posted by: seamus
More bullshit from Greenpeace
Posted by: charlief on Jan 31, 2007 10:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My god.... tom@Greenpeace needs to rethink his attitude. And quick. A large number of people who use Macs are the very people who are most likely to support Greenpeace's philosophy.

"Maybe he thinks Mac fans don’t want Apple to be green?" This is a despicable and incredibly dumb comment to make about the users of a computer. What's wrong with him?? Does he think that attacking the very people that are most likely to support him is a 'progressive' thing to do? Or does he normally shoot off at the mouth without first engaging his brain? I don't know anymore... the left is so framented and - in parts - so self-destructive it hardly seems worth it anymore.

Here's the bottom line:

Apple is absolutely no worse and probably no better that any other computer manufacturer out there. They ALL use cheap labour, dubious chemicals and less than ecologically sound manufacturing techniques to provide Tom@Greenpeace [and me] with our computers of choice.

So Greenpeace singled out Apple for an attack because.... uhm, a major publicity hit perhaps? Or an axe to grind against Jobs [that'd be Steve Jobs, the contributor to the Democrats - as opposed to Michael Dell, a major contributor to the Bush regime]? Or maybe it was just their cynical PR company knew the furore it would cause - regardless of being accurate, or dare I say it, even-handed?

Is Greenpeace actually saying that the new Chinese owners of IBM - now named Lenovo - are 'greener' than Apple? Really? Are they f**king serious? China has the worst human rights records, the worst environmental controls, probably the worst working conditions and the poorest paid workforce. To my knowledge, ALL of Lenovo's machines are manufactured and assembled in the glorious People's Republic of China! Do you feel proud now???

The same isn't true for Apple, where a huge number of machines for the European market are manufactured in Ireland. And by the way, Ireland has one of the fastest growing, and progressive economies in the EU - and is continually named the best place to live in Europe in survey after survey, with one of the best standards of living.

Holy f**king christ greenpeace... get a sense of proportion here!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real point.
Posted by: wwittman on Jan 31, 2007 12:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real point is that this is a hatchet job.
I don't need to worry about WHY.

The bottom line is that most of this HAS been debunked widely elsewhere, so Alternet, I think, needs to retract it.

but:
"To date, Apple has done only what is legally required. They are in compliance with RoHS standards ("the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment"), which were put in place in the European Union in July 2006."

Following the law IS their reponsisbility.
If the law doesn't require ENOUGH, then the law is what is at fault.
It's not fair to ask a company to give itslef an unfair competitive DISadvantage.
It's totally appropriate for the government to make laws that DO effectively police the environmental ipact, WIHTOUT reagrd to corporate profits.

But this aticle has the idea turned around, as though the government has every right to protect corporate profits by passing weak laws or ignoring enforcement; yet companies, like Apple, should EXCEED the demands of law due to their own conscience.

Wrong.
Government exists to serve the public, not industry.
Industry exists to serve itself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And I was about to buy a Mac...
Posted by: South Dakota Liberal on Feb 26, 2007 6:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd been delaying the purchase of a new computer until Windows Vista was released. Most of what I read about Vista following the release was negative, so I was leaning toward an iMac. But after reading this, along with another negative story about Apple in the March/April 2007 issue of Mother Jones, I'm gaining a new appreciation for my eight-year-old PC with Windows 98. It's old and slow compared with the new machines, but it's never given me any trouble and it does everything I really need to do on a computer. And it's still on my desk rather than in a landfill. And it's already paid for. And...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]