Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Apple Corporate, Bad Apple, Apple
Apple not big on trees? Greenpeace releases "green electronics" report
Over at Download Squad today, we're talking about the report on "green electronics" and "e-waste" that Greenpeace released this morning. It's no secret that environmentalists have been unhappy with Apple--despite their claims to be an eco-friendly company--for a long time. This is the first time, though, that a big environmental group has gone out and ranked some of the major players, and Apple came in 11th out of the 14 companies rated. More disappointing than the ranking--somebody's got to be last, right?--was Apple's overall score: 2.7 out of ten. Companies were scored on a number of factors, from recycling programs, hazardous materials usage, and Apple came up wanting in just about everything.
The good news? Many of the issues are easy to fix. For instance, Apple has a lousy recycling program. They only accept consumer takebacks in five markets, and then only with purchase of a new Apple machine. They could change that policy tomorrow to accept any used Apple product for recycling, free of charge. In the grand scheme of things, it wouldn't cost that much and it might keep some Lithium and Mercury-laden computers and batteries out of the trash. They could also start accepting any machines as trade-ins. Bring in your old ThinkPad and leave it at the Apple Store when you walk out with your new MBP. They already do this for for corporate and education customers. Heck, if you're a school they'll even give you money for a trade-in on your old Dells. Why not at least offer to accept consumer equipment, and make a point of publicizing the fact.
Apple also needs to make a public and transparent commitment to banning hazardous substances. They've said they're committed to stopping the use of toxic PVC parts and Bromine Fire Retardant (BFR) coatings. But when? Just give us a date, Steve. Nokia stopped using PVC in 2005 and will be BFR-free by 2007. The parts that go into a MacBook aren't that different from the parts that go into a Nokia 770. There are more of them in the MB, but they're not that different. The other thing most companies seem to be able to do that Apple can't be bothered with is actually publishing a list of all the materials in their products. On that issue, transparency would itself be a huge step in the right direction.
And finally, they need to stop passing the buck when it comes to their partners. We know that Apple employees are environmentally conscious, and 1 Infinite Loop is a pretty green place. Even Greenpeace acknowledges that. It's time Apple starts holding its suppliers, contractors, and manufacturers to the same high standards.
There's no reason the answer to "Who will be first to go green?" shouldn't be "Apple." And since they've got one of the smallest manufacturing operations of the companies surveyed and they already claim to be eco-friendly, it'll actually be kind of sad if that isn't the answer.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Nabster said 1:47PM on 8-25-2006
good article Jay.
Reply
John said 1:56PM on 8-25-2006
Right on!
Reply
Mart said 1:57PM on 8-25-2006
Nabster, I solidarity with you.
Reply
byron church said 1:59PM on 8-25-2006
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
Paul-Michael Bauer said 2:15PM on 8-25-2006
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
arnvid said 2:16PM on 8-25-2006
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
Erman said 2:25PM on 8-25-2006
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
Sun Chiu said 2:27PM on 8-25-2006
Yum Yum Yum Yum Yum I LOVE GREEN APPLES!
Reply
CRH said 2:28PM on 8-25-2006
I'm with Mr. Bauer, greenpeace is a dubious source for anything, let alone this.
Reply
David Chartier said 2:33PM on 8-25-2006
Great post Jay with some good points.
Reply
arnvid said 2:35PM on 8-25-2006
#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
Carl Trimble said 3:07PM on 8-25-2006
But they reduced the size of their notebook packaging by 75%... WAAAAA!
Reply
ben boonen said 3:59PM on 8-25-2006
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
SubGenius said 3:09PM on 8-25-2006
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
Jon said 3:17PM on 8-25-2006
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
Jon H said 3:37PM on 8-25-2006
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
Neal said 4:32PM on 8-25-2006
Greenpeace can go to hell with all the rest of the hippy-liberal scum.
Reply
Duane said 11:53AM on 8-27-2006
People that like Greenpeace are either:
(A) Members of Greenpeace
-or-
(B) Ignorant of what Greenpeace advocates
I'm a big-time Environmentalist, but there's no way any sane, logical person can look at the Greenpeace agenda and not think they're out of their ever-lovin' mind!
Reply
Lollapallooza said 5:54PM on 8-25-2006
#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
realityking said 5:55PM on 8-25-2006
#16
And what is with the energy used by the iTunes Server? The equation ain't that easy!
Reply