good article Jay.

Reply

Right on!

Reply

Nabster, I solidarity with you.

Reply

what a world . gone are the days when If you had long hair you we're cool.Time for all of us to" walk the walk"

Reply

Why do the rantings of a political action group have any credence here?

Greenpeace's agenda is to bend everyone to their view. Of course they are going to flunk nearly all of these companies based on an arbitrary set of criteria defined by (who else?) their own extreme selves.

Are these companies all that bad for the environment? Maybe. But considering the source, I question the validity of their charge.

Reply

One can already see a good evolution in the packaging department. Smaller boxes, less styrofoam means less waste. Apple almost certainly did it just to save on transportation and stockage costs, but that also means lesser fuel being used and toxic gasses being ommited. Anyway, overpackaging is a problem in any line of trade these days.
About the recycling programs, here in Belgium you can take any electronic device to almost any electronics store (including Apple Resellers) and just leave it there for further recycling. It's a government program, hasn't got anything to do with an Apple initiative. They are obliged to give this kind of service.

Reply

Well, comparing the numbers of units produced, I can't imagine Dell being greener than Apple. The Dells in my company are replaced every 2/3 years - the limited number of Apple's live much longer.

The best way to reduce waste, is to produce less of it. Could be a suggestion for Dell?

Reply

Yum Yum Yum Yum Yum I LOVE GREEN APPLES!

Reply

I'm with Mr. Bauer, greenpeace is a dubious source for anything, let alone this.

Reply

Great post Jay with some good points.

Reply

#5
Just on the side (hasn't got a lot to do with Apple specifically):

We trust Apple to make great computers because they are a computer company. They are experts in their field and so we listen when they have something to say about their line of business.

Why shouldn't it be the same with Greenpeace. As long as it comes to environmental issues, i'd rather trust an organisation that has the environment as one of it's main intrests than an electronics manufacturer.

Reply

But they reduced the size of their notebook packaging by 75%... WAAAAA!

Reply

I am appalled by Greenpeace's use of brushed metal.
That GUI is so 2001.

This sounds like a great opportunity for Apple and Greenpeace to mutually help each other.

Reply

This would be fine if Greenpeace were a politically neutral organization, however that is not the case.
Lets see what they're up to.

"It’s time to wipe away Kimberly Clark’s profits, before our ancient forests – and the creatures that call them home – have disappeared completely.
That’s why we’ve launched our Kleercut campaign. Our demands are simple:
Kimberly Clark should stop using fiber from endangered forests;
Use fiber that has been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council;
Dramatically increase the percentage of post-consumer recycled fiber in all of their tissue paper products."

"Most people know that the Amazon is under threat. But few know that today, the principal cause of the Amazon’s destruction is soy."

"The waters between Alaska and Russia are a rich marine environment home to a diversity of wildlife. Polar bears, seals, sea lions, walruses, whales and millions of seabirds make their home here.
It is one of the most productive fishing spots in the world. In fact, more than half the fish we eat in the United States comes from this productive marine ecosystem. It is also a fragile ecosystem being massively affected by a range of impacts."

"Have you ever seen a real estate ad that lists, "Right next door to a nuclear reactor!" as one of its selling points? Few of us want a nuclear plant in our community - we've heard about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and know that accidents can happen anywhere. So it's completely unacceptable that the U.S. government is pushing for more nukes when most of the rest of the world is saying "so long." We're not standing for it - and you don't have to either."

"Ever eat major brands of bread, crackers or cereal? Canned soups or frozen dinners? If so, there's a good chance you're ingesting genetically engineered soy, courtesy of chemical companies such as Monsanto."

So, no Nuclear power, soy, paper, tissues, fish, etc... and now they're going after electronics companies. It would appear to me, they're more anti-capitalism than anything else and even state it... "It’s time to wipe away Kimberly Clark’s profits".

Greenpeace... no way.

Reply

arvind writes: "We trust Apple to make great computers because they are a computer company. They are experts in their field and so we listen when they have something to say about their line of business.

Why shouldn't it be the same with Greenpeace. As long as it comes to environmental issues, i'd rather trust an organisation that has the environment as one of it's main intrests than an electronics manufacturer."

The difference is that Apple needs to be excellent to stay in business.

Greenpeace isn't going to be paying for the changes they are calling for. They can call for action regardless of whether those actions are feasible, because it isn't Greenpeace's money at stake. I'm surprised they aren't condemning electronics manufacturers for not building computers out of cornstarch that dissolves in water.

If Greenpeace makes a stupid, infeasible suggestion, Greenpeace aren't the ones who will pay the price. So there is no reason for them to improve on that score.

Arguably, Greenpeace gets more PR benefit from calling on companies to do unreasonable things, and tilting the scale to make the companies look as bad as possible. By making things look bad, the public is incented to donate money to Greenpeace.

Look, I'm concerned about the environment, but these PR stunts are not particularly meaningful. It's like the woman at Harvard who puts out alarmist press releases about video game violence, but she is such an outlier from social norms that she thinks Pac-Man is a very violent game.

Reply

I have yet to hear anyone compliment Apple on saving the world from a few hundred million CD cases, CD sleeves, along with the associated celophane wraps and other packaging -- not to mention truckloads of storage cabinets etc for the said CDs.
Personally, I believe the move to downloaded music, videos and the like is a step in the right direction that ought be acknowledged, Indeed, it is changing the world.

Reply

Greenpeace can go to hell with all the rest of the hippy-liberal scum.

Reply

#14 (Jon):

To state that Greenpeace is pro anti-capitalism is incorrect. It would be more accurate to state that they are pro responsible-capitalism. Big difference.

While we're here, let's see what *you* promote:

Greenpeace says: "stop using fiber from endangered forests"

This is a reasonable goal, but you object to this statement, therefore clear-cutting trees in an endangered eco-system is a *good* thing according to you.

Greenpeace says: "The waters between Alaska and Russia...is also a fragile ecosystem being massively affected by a range of impacts."
I see no anti-capitalism threat here. In fact, it is a simple factual statement. It doesn't say "no fish" like you contend.

Greenpeace says: "few of us want a nuclear reactor in our community"
Apparently you wouldn't mind a nuclear reactor in your backyard. Tell ya what, take a survey and see how many people would want it in their backyards. Yeah, thought so.

Greenpeace says many canned products contain genetically engineered soy, from Monsanto.
This is a fact Jon, not propaganda (see here: http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/products/seeds_genomics/seedbrands.asp ). You really should check into what you eat. Monsanto spends HUGE amounts of money specifically modifying the genetic code of their seed to be unaffected by THEIR pesticide products. You really should check into what you eat. btw, they are not saying "No soy" like you contend.

And to wrap it all up, they are not saying no electronics companies. They are saying that electronics companies should be more responsible.

You really need to learn how to read better Jon.

Reply

#16

And what is with the energy used by the iTunes Server? The equation ain't that easy!

Reply

this is in reply to Jon H. #15

If someone like greenpeace doesn't point these things out, who would? The corporations? Hardly. The way I see it, the companies have one agenda, greenpeace another agenda. The two are usually opposing viewpoints, and they balance each other out.

Reply