Filed under: Apple
Apple versus Greenpeace
Is Apple environmentally friendly? They certainly seem to think so. Their Apple and the Environment webpage says that Apple recognizes "its responsibility as a global citizen and is continually striving to reduce the environmental impact of the work we do and the products we create."
They've set up a free recycling program for purchasers of their products. They strive for energy efficiency and are continuing to reduce idle power consumption. Their products use recyclable materials and conform to a set of environmental specifications. Most of all, they claim their goal is to reduce or eliminate environmentally harmful substances from the manufacturing process.
So is Greenpeace completely off the mark when it claims that the production of Macs, iPods and iBooks is exposing children in India and China to dangerous chemicals? Greenpeace is lobbying for a greener Apple and has set up a lobbying group at .mAct to make this happen.
So what do you think, TUAWers? Is Apple doing enough? Does Greanpeace have a point? Does Apple deserve the low e-Waste score assigned to it today by Greenpeace? Let us know in the comments.
Thanks Gyve
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
narco said 5:19PM on 12-06-2006
I think greenpeace picks on Apple because they're a hot company. Every time one of these stories hits, it's all over the place. I know a lot of people who have tossed old PCs in the past, but with Apple products having a high re-sale value, I haven't disposed of one. I don't really know about the insides, but being that Steve is a big hippy, I'm sure he's trying his best to make Apple as green as possible.
I love the environment, but hate Greenpeace.
Fishes,
narco.
Reply
Ben said 5:25PM on 12-06-2006
Screw Greenpeace.
Reply
Alex Wallace said 5:32PM on 12-06-2006
Greenpeace is a horrible company. Their general philosophy is filled with so many blatant lies and skewed statistics that it makes me sick to my stomach.
Forget Greenpeace. Their lies aren't worth our time.
Reply
Alex Wallace said 4:47PM on 12-06-2006
Greenpeace is a horrible organization. Their general philosophy is filled with so many blatant lies and skewed statistics that it makes me sick to my stomach.
Forget Greenpeace. Their lies aren't worth our time.
Reply
Drew said 4:52PM on 12-06-2006
As the most design savvy consumer electronics corporation in the world apple should be taking the unquestionable lead in sustainability and green practices. I don't think they do enough in this regard. I would like to see Cradle to Cradle practices implemented to show that it is possible in the consumer electronics industry. If any company can, apple can.
Reply
Robert Bickers said 6:10PM on 12-06-2006
Even Greenpeace's founder thinks the organization has gone off the deep end. Greenpeace won't be happy until only they inhabit the planet, free to bash each other with rocks in front of an enormous black object.
Green is good. Greenpeace is not.
Reply
Ryan Ford said 6:37PM on 12-06-2006
While Greenpeace, much like PETA, has an honorable goal, their tactics have rarely been anything but outlandish and blatant.
This is not to say Apple couldn't improve upon their manufacturing process, but frankly Greenpeace doesn't conduct themselves well enough for me to consider their thoughts or actions to be worth my attention. One has to consider who the messenger is, in this instance.
Drew is very correct, though, when he says Apple should be leading sustainability efforts. Apple is a smart company that makes smart products. They should show their intelligence in all things related to their processes, including eco-friendly production.
Reply
Norman Brooks said 7:15PM on 12-06-2006
Greenpeace is a bunch of obnoxious publicity seekers whose every move is intended to get public contributions and nothing else! They have been that way for years. I gave to them in their early years, but stopped after they sank that French ship in the south Pacific. Their motivations are monetary, not idealistic! Nothing they have to say is worth considering.
Reply
Mikek said 5:11PM on 12-06-2006
Lets face a couple of facts. 1) Companies move manufacturing to countries where they can save money. 2) The reason these countries are cheaper is because they don't care about workers rights or the environment. Bonus fact) This country (pick your western industrialized power) actively promotes the movement of these jobs and couldn't give a rip about the environment. Let's face it if your government cared it wouldn't happen. Don't blame Apple. Blame your government, and do something about it.
Reply
John Laur said 10:08AM on 12-11-2006
It's evident that Greenpeace is making a big stink about Apple because Apple is 'on the radar'. They are Wall Street's darling computer company these days and they are very relevant to the demographic that is likely to waste their money giving to an organization like Greenpeace. You could probably find more than a thousand companies who create a larger negative environmental impact than Apple, but you couldn't get any better press than you can get attacking Apple.
Reply
Thomas said 5:14PM on 12-06-2006
I have to agree with Alex.
Didn't one of the original leaders of Greenpeace bail because he was so disgusted with the way they were behaving? One thing people need to remember is that Greenpeace is a business. They'll do anything to get a rise out of people. In my book, these environmentalists/extremists are practically maniacal.
Reply
jsg said 5:23PM on 12-06-2006
I doubt that apple's manufacturing is any less ethical than any other major player in the industry. Furthermore, I can't think of a single apple product that isn't manufactured by subcontractors. Given that these companies are the same ones that manufacture products for other companies in the industry, I think it's ridiculous to single-out apple.
The only reason I can think of for picking apple as a target for your campaign is this: Apple has a better public image than most other manufacturers, and is more sensitive to criticism. Apple is also an easier target because criticism of it gets more play in the media. Would anyone care if these charges were laid against Dell, even though they make a lot more computers? I'd guess not.
But even then, what can this accomplish? I'm not sure that even apple has enough sway to change practices in an extremely competitive industry like this.
Reply
Jason said 12:40PM on 12-07-2006
The question is are Apple users environmentally friendly? The fashion for not switching apple computers off and putting them to sleep is not exctacly good practice. For every computer that is on standby all night and every night of the week, imagine the wasted electricty and needless carbon emissions....
Reply
Doug said 8:51PM on 12-06-2006
Greenpeace is a worldwide activist organization, and as such, they bear the responsibility of a lot of members with a lot of different protest philosophies. Honestly, their bad name seems undeserved, as they are one of the more mild environmental advocacy groups (google "earth liberation front) and the issues they pick are almost always related to human rights and quality of life for the impoverished.
I think what makes a lot of westerners (myself included) scoff at their protesting is our lack of immediate exposure. Not being affected by the toxins produced from computer waste makes protest seem too bold or irelevant, thus unnecessary of our concern. The fact is, just because it isn't a reality to us does not mean it is not an everyday reality to others, in this case women and children in poverty in south Asia. The point is, when it seems like an activist organization is stretching the truth, they usually aren't. We just aren't accustomed to hearing the full truth.
I'm a Mac user, I'm typing this on a 2.5 year old Mac right now, and I for one won't buy a new one until Apple cleans up its act a little and puts itself in line with its claimed ethics. The integrity of natural resources is (whether politicians think so or not) the most crucial factor towards the continuation of our civilization, and ultimately, our species.
Reply
Matt said 5:56PM on 12-06-2006
whether or not Apple harms the environment more than any other OEM, I don't know. I'd like to think they are, and I don't know of any specific things that other companies do that seem 'greener'. Apple's low power consumption and small packaging in these days of 1000W PSUs and multiple giant cow-colored boxes for consumer PCs sure seems green to me. When my powerbook and macbook pro die I'm glad that the aluminum and plastic in them will be recycled, though I wonder what happens to all those explosive batteries Sony put in them...
what I do know for sure is that Greenpeace is full of crap in every statement and press release they make. my aunt, an EPA worker in Atlanta, is adamant about never trusting Greenpeace. they're a bunch of lie-spewing, annoying, invasive retards. ask anyone who knows real environmental sciences and they'll tell you that the EPA is doing a hell of a better job than Greenpeace could ever conceive - they're actually working rather than spewing out false facts and getting the general public to pester 'non-green' companies with their blatant lies.
Reply
Paul-Michael Bauer said 5:54PM on 12-06-2006
Clearly, TUAW believes Greenpeace's accusations hold some validity.
Why else provide a voice in this forum for that tawdry little organization?
Reply
Josh said 6:00PM on 12-06-2006
As Alex stated Greenpeace does not always speak the truth which sadly makes them hard to believe.
If you visit the Greener Apple web site and take a look at the "terrible" photos of "poisoned" children all because of Apple you will notice, although there are some, most of the junk in the backgrounds is not Apple made but mostly generic PC junk. Of course they probably threw a few iMac keyboards in there to make the photos look good but if you really look closely most of it is not Apple.
That alone completely discredits any and all claims they make as far as I am concerned.
Boo on on you Greenpeace!!! Make your point truthfully and intelligent people will more likely listen to you.
Reply
moo083 said 6:05PM on 12-06-2006
For every bad mark that Greenpeace gave to Apple about the environment, it is perfectly possible that they are doing something better than everyone else environmentally that Greenpeace doesn't even take into consideration. Its really hard to take these studies seriously when there really isn't any cooperation between Greenpeace and Apple. Since they don't really know the inside guts of everything, how can they grade these companies?
That said, the things they were criticized on should be fixed. If these things are really true, then Apple should fix them to the best of their abilities. Comparing Apple to other companies on EVERYTHING (which is very difficult and I doubt this has been done), Apple should be on top, but beyond that, they should just be trying AS HARD AS POSSIBLE to reduce negative environmental effects. Its not a competition against other companies. Its for the survival of our species.
Reply
Andrew Wickliffe said 9:28PM on 12-06-2006
Exploiting Chinese children--with those conveniently small fingers--is what being an American is all about.
Reply
Chewbaca said 7:58PM on 12-06-2006
i know this sounds weird, but i hate the environment and i still find myself loving greenpeace. i uaed to date this girl from there. their nightlife is awesome. gets damn cold there but the hot springs make up for it.
G5 3GB RAM 20" Dell monitor
Reply