Filed under: Apple Corporate, Other Events, Apple Professional
Apple shareholders to vote on green
Apple shareholders will vote on removing hazardous chemicals from the Apple product line at the upcoming May 10th annual meeting according to Macworld. Apple's board thinks Apple already has sufficient environmental standards and opposes the resolution, which was introduced by Trillium Asset Management of Boston. Trillium, an investment firm, specializes in "socially responsible investments". The chemicals in question include brominated flame retardents and polyvinyl chloride plastics.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
northfork said 6:28PM on 4-24-2007
hi, this is my first comment. i'v been reading this blog for a long time but never wrote any comments..
on topic, i hope they will vote to remove the bad chemicals.
i would like to see apple more environment friendly.
Reply
sega prophet said 6:32PM on 4-24-2007
As a stock holder myself, I'll gladly vote for the resolution, but I honestly doubt it will pass, Apple shareholders have almost always votes with the boards' recommendations.
Reply
Jon said 6:36PM on 4-24-2007
Al Gore's on the board. If the current standards are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.
Reply
Jason said 6:37PM on 4-24-2007
I'd be interested to know Apple Board Member Al Gore's opinions on the topic. Any way to find out individual Board Members votes/comments?
Reply
Darran said 5:08PM on 4-27-2007
Even though I know Greenpeace are just being pests with their whole agenda, this would really be a great move on Apple's part and they should do it asap. The earth is not something you can just abuse to make money and not pay in the future.
Reply
hackaroxp said 8:20PM on 4-24-2007
I just hope they don't approve, seriously, who cares about the environment. Will they win more money with it? NO. Will Macs become cheaper? NO. So, who cares.
Reply
abc123 said 9:13PM on 4-24-2007
i hope they vote to get rid of the BFRs. yes apple is a small company and any of the larger companies have far more impact on the environment, but that shouldnt rid apple of a social conscience and responsibility to its consumers.
oh and Al Gore's utility bills for 2006 were $30,000... not too green there mister environment.
Reply
ninja9578 said 9:35PM on 4-24-2007
With a name like Apple they should pass it. They will make more money if they meet worldwide standards, look at the auto companies.
Reply
Matt said 11:59PM on 4-24-2007
al gore's bill was that high because he paid extra for greener power. read the whole story before you condemn.
Reply
artifex said 11:58PM on 4-24-2007
Macworld's one-line summary was wrong, and sadly, you didn't catch it.
The shareholder resolution asks Apple to produce a report, within six months of the shareholder meeting, on the feasibility of “eliminating persistent and bioaccumulative toxic chemicals, and all types of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics” from its products.
That's doing a study, not actually changing any processes or formulations. I am against the idea of just changing, without real proof, but I see no problem in doing a study.
Reply
artifex said 12:00AM on 4-25-2007
Sorry, Macworld, I put that excerpt in blockquotes, but TUAW has no preview on comments so I had to submit it blindly.
Reply
Lloyd said 10:23AM on 4-25-2007
I think a Mac mini is a green machine as far as power and materials it takes to make.
But
The one thing I want to know is can the Apple TV be green when that thing is such a HEAT box? how many WATTS it takes to play some true 720P.
Reply
Michael Adix said 1:44PM on 4-25-2007
A couple comments:
To Jon - Don't forget that Apple is a business. Changing their manufacturing processes requires money. Al Gore's job is not to 'greenify' the company, but rather to support what he determines to be in the best interest of the company.
To artifex - Regardless what the proposal actually states, the important thing is that it would force Apple to analyze the extraordinarily harmful practice of adding brominated flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride plastics to their products. A simple search of PubMed would show that these substances have proven links to many cancers, among other diseases. They are unsafe, and any steps we as shareholders can take to end Apple's practice of using them should be wholeheartedly supported.
Reply
Greg G said 12:15PM on 4-25-2007
Seriously though. It's not like other firms are not green. And Apple is still certified by the EPA.
It's Greenpeace that's causing a stir, and they've been focusing on Apple.
If it doesn't make Macs cost a whole lot more, sure, go with it. But if it's going to hurt them economically too much to make the change, and keep Macs affordable, then forget it.
Reply
bg said 12:02AM on 4-30-2007
The largest use of BFRs in computers today... by far... are the Deca BDEs used in the plastic housings (same as in TVs), followed by the TBBPA used in the internal circuit boards and chip cases (same as in TVs).
Those substances have no known effects on human health or the environment, but are under study in the US and EU.
Not only does Greenpeace seek the elimination of TBBPA and all BFRs, but they have their long range sights set on elimination of all flame retardants.
It's important to study and plan, which most CE manufacturers have been doing for some time. But whipsaw reactions to groups such as Greenpeace can have detrimental impacts not just on economies, but also upon the very health of individuals and environment which they seek to protect.
Consumers might also lose, in the short run. Major manufacturers have already converted to Pb-free solder processes for example, but the reliability impact resulting from the correspondingly higher processing temperatures has yet to be evaluated by the industry. We could well be in for some surprises over the next few years as product quality fluctuates as a result of the industry's learning curve with a new Pb-free world.
Reply