Greenpeace must like you for the publicity. :)
I personally don't see this as news in any way, but that's just my opinion, and my view on Greenpeace. Had it been Al Gore doing this I'd understand.

Reply

I like how they are attempting to target Apple [when even on the site they comment Apple isn't the only one.] This for a environmentalist like myself makes me more mad at Greenpeace then understanding. I hope the flyers were post consumer waste recycled material and the projector had none of the harmful materials they are angry at Apple for. I'll take this one step further and ask that the power be generator used to power the projector was run off waste cooking oil.

Lead by example. :P Gandhi - "Be the change you want to see in the world."

anyways I have to go recycle now

Reply

I don't know about you but that light pattern almost looks to me like greenpeace was trying to make the opposite case... That Apple was a beacon of greeness... A shining light of green goodness... Or something.

Reply

Wasn't Apple just cleared by the EPA regarding this anti-green charge?
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/1/6/6507

That makes this little publicity stunt by them all the worse.

I too am very environmentally conscious and if there is one thing I cannot stand, it is misrepresentation against companies that don't deserve it.

Isn't there a whaling ship somewhere that Greenpeace needs to be following? Give me a break....

Reply

Yeah. Whatever.

In other, equally interesting news: clowns are goofy, fruitcake is nutty, and the Zune is . . . brown.

Reply

My friend who works at that Apple store said usually the last couple hours were slow, but with a giant green light shining on the store it attracted a lot more people and business was better than usual! There were literally TWO greenpeace supporters there, the rest of that crowd was just onlookers laughing at them.

Silly activists. Don't they have better things to do...? I guess piggybacking on Apple's popularity to raise money IS the best thing to do if you don't have a real job...

It's also amusing that just yesterday TUAW linked an article about how the EPA approves of Apple's environmental record... http://www.tuaw.com/2007/01/08/little-green-apples-the-epa-approves/

Reply

I want to know how "green" the projector was that was used to project the green. Most likely (due to its size) it is less "green" than 3-4 iMacs.

Reply

If anything it looks like they're APPROVING Apple. Mistaaaaaaaake!

Reply

Look who cares if Apple's perfect or not.

Does it really hurt anyone if Greenpeace is making consumers aware (by using the highest profile company in the sector) that the products they use contain all kinds of chemicals?

Most people think computers are made of plastic, and that plastic is just plastic and plastic is fine. And large organisations would be happy for people to think that forever - if tobacco companies hadn't had pressure to change do you honestly think they would have?

All Greenpeace is doing is highlighting an issue about the products we all consume. When consumers are aware of issues, companies react. By developing more environmentally friendly plastics for example.

Picking the most obvious target just makes sense. In many ways they're targeting the electronics sector as much as Apple themselves.

A bit of green light does zero damage to a multi-billion dollar organisation such as Apple.

PS: The green light is pretty poor idea though.

Reply

Stop giving them attention! You're only encouraging them!

Reply

In other news, green peace is targeting cobras and toads for the toxic substances they contain.

Does anyone see the stupidity of targeting something just because some of the useful components contain toxic substances? I understand targeting disposable items that contain toxic substances, or products that spew toxic exhaust, but targeting items such as computers is really quite ridiculous.

The toxic substances are not exposed, and are not there for the fun of it; they're in there as part of something useful, and often times, there's no good substitute. Do they really expect everything they use to be edible or inert?

Reply

Just to establish my cred: Writing this from a intel iMac, 2 more Macs in arms reach, another up stairs, another just left for work in my wife's bag.

" I guess piggybacking on Apple's popularity to raise money IS the best thing to do if you don't have a real job..." Greenpeace is run mostly by volunteers, I'd guess that the most motivated of them have "real" jobs. Some of them have "real" jobs with Greenpeace. Some are college students (which would be their job). As for the "silly activists"... ask your female friends how they would have felt if the silly suffragettes hadn't bothered to do something else besides getting "real" jobs.

bryan Webster is right, I'd bet that Apple could do a lot more to reduce their environmental impact.

Next part of my cred: I've been a Greenpeace member off and on for years. In the last 10 or so I've stopped supporting them. I think they do a lot of important work, but the one moment that changed me on them was a conversation that went like this:

Me: But the whales are actually at risk and the seals don't seem to be.
Cute Greenpeace Girl: Yes, but seals are cuter than whales.

Greenpeace is a product of a modern media age. They show boat to make a point, in the meantime they can cause damage to individual bits of their overall focus.

Reply

It is, of course, important to ensure computers are as ecofirendly as possible. But targetting a company that produces a (sadly) small percent of all the computers shipping is utterly pointless. Sure, Apple may be a brand to target for iPods, but Dell and HP would be better targets if Greenpeace were not after headlines, and actually trying to make a difference. Are they at CES?

Reply

Greenpeace should ask Apple to loan some consulting time from Jobs and Ive to the US Automakers, so Jobs and Ive could help them grok how to design and sell better small, efficient cars.

That'd probably be even more beneficial than a marginal impact from improving their own current manufacturing processes.

Reply

Berkana, you missed the point.

Greenpeace are saying that Apple use intoxicating and harmful materials in their computers. Now, this doesn't cause much of a problem now, but when you want to recycle these things, then you'll see the problem.

Most of the recycling that gets done goes to 3rd world children or china, where people take these things apart with their hands, melting the solder over hot stoves, and generally deal with them inappropriately causing fumes and ill effects for them, and the planet. What do you do with the toxic material once removed from the computer? Bury it?

So, that is why they're trying to cut down on the bad stuff.

What greenpeace is doing is right, but they way they're targeting apple is wrong. They should do what everyone else does. Start a lobby group and bribe some politicians to change the law.

Reply

Well said Jon! Targeting Apple because they are not 100% Eco-friendly is dumb when there is much bigger fish to fry. Why not concentrate on Auto manufactures? And how about less eco-concerned nations? How about looking at that EPA list and going after the companies at the bottom?

Oh, and Cameron? My female friends couldn't give two shakes about Greenpeace.

Reply

Or...... here's a craaazzzzy idea: Go after the companies that actually MAKE the toxic material!!!

Apple doesn't MAKE any toxic material, and, in fact, doesn't do a whole lot of manufactureing either. Basically Apple designs, markets, and supports products but 3rd parties make the material and actually manufacture the material.

Reply

As an avid Mac user based in Africa, I'd like to point out that Apple Macs are very very VERY rarely seen doing the computer recycle rounds.

Greenpeace should really be at CES - make them think of how their any products are disposed of.

Reply

they're going after Apple since most mac users are educated, socially conscious and likely to actually think about the effect their products have on the world. Obviously, targeting Hummers would not get the same result due to the reasons mentioned in my first sentence. So it's a good publicity ploy, and Apple people shouldn't be so touchy that they're the focus this time.

Reply

Greenpeace is ONLY targeting Apple because they know it's easy publicity, no matter what they may say.
Apple's the darling of the tech world, rightly or wrongly. Have you seen any weblogs like TUAW for Dell or Compaq or HP or even Sony? Can any of them make headlines before a product announcement, the way Apple is, today? No. So obviously, Greenpeace is exploiting that interest to try to get people interested in them.

Unfortunately, Greenpeace does more harm than good for the cause of environmental conservation, because of their perceived ecoterrorism. All environmentalists get painted with the same brush by outsiders, and the Greenpeace name is toxic lead paint.

Reply