Slashdot Mirror

Source:"all of Apple’s Mac line had top EPEAT ratings, with the exception of the company’s new MacBook Pro with Retina Display."

Had is the word you should have emphasized. http://ww2.epeat.net/ProductDisplay.aspx?return=pm&action=view&search=true&productid=8661&ProductType=3&epeatcountryid=1 Apple 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display (MC975), Gold Rating, 21 Points (same as all other Mac notebooks).

Here's a more authoritative source: http://ww2.epeat.net/ProductDisplay.aspx?return=pm&action=view&search=true&productid=8667&ProductType=3&epeatcountryid=1

We look forward to Apple’s strong and creative thoughts on ongoing standards development.

"...all qualifying products." I didn't hear that future products (like additional retina screen lap tops) will be EPEAT.

http://www.epeat.net/: I am very happy to announce that all of Apple’s previously registered products, and a number of new products, are back on the EPEAT registry.

So unless you want to nitpick and claim that you actually meant "future" products aren't on the list yet - well then DUH!

It's a broad alliance that includes many manufacturers - I don't see it as a racket myself. And of course the customer still has to take his/her old computer to a recycling center if they want it recycled - there's no magic involved. The point is that adhering to the standards makes recycling easier, and Apple's recent moves, starting with the battery and now having the non-detachable Retina display on the 15" MBP, are regressive in terms of recycleability.

I'd've voted with my cash also once the OptiPlex 740 Energy Smart MT was made available with Ubuntu (or just, crazy idea: an OS free PC), except for the fact that Dell is now part of the Novell/Microsoft deal according to Techworld. No cash for Dell.

I think there is a definite need for the Greenpeace campaign. I think what we really need to address the environmental issues concerning chemical waste and recycling policies, is informed choices. That means that the information comes from a trusted an unbiased source. Greenpeace undermines it position as such by running an uninformed campaign. That's sad, cause Greenpeace are one of the only entities which can pull a campaign with some impact of. I think greenpeace should take Job's advice: Hire experts and get the facts right. This way their campaign will have a lot more impact. Even though the Apple affair was a bit of a FUD-filled the need for the campaign is still there. They have got peoples attention, I hope they will use that attention constructively. Besides pressuring PC manufacturers I think that Greenpeace should push for legislation.

Do you even understand the issue?
- Greenpeace gave Apple a bad mark because their website does not tell any plan on toxic waste removal. It's the case of you get a high mark of what you say what you are going to do and a low mark if you already did it without screaming about it. If you are a credible organization, you do a little research of your own instead of relying on company websites.

- If Greenpeace cares about the truth, a click to EPEAT site could have told them how well Apple does on environment-friendly products. It should tell them to do a little more investigation before screaming murder.

- Think what will this accomplish? Not much really, other than now Apple makes its plan public. They have removed a lot of toxic substance from their manufacturing even before Greenpeace made a peep. They've done recycling before Greenpeace accused them of not doing it. Apple simply follows its own plan without Greenpeace prompting them to and Greenpeace's current shenanigans didn't make them alter that plan.

Greenpeace wasted a lot of money for nothing and made companies care more about PR than deeds. That's what Greenpeace accomplish.

Do you even understand the issue?
- Greenpeace gave Apple a bad mark because their website does not tell any plan on toxic waste removal. It's the case of you get a high mark of what you say what you are going to do and a low mark if you already did it without screaming about it. If you are a credible organization, you do a little research of your own instead of relying on company websites.

- If Greenpeace cares about the truth, a click to EPEAT site could have told them how well Apple does on environment-friendly products. It should tell them to do a little more investigation before screaming murder.

- Think what will this accomplish? Not much really, other than now Apple makes its plan public. They have removed a lot of toxic substance from their manufacturing even before Greenpeace made a peep. They've done recycling before Greenpeace accused them of not doing it. Apple simply follows its own plan without Greenpeace prompting them to and Greenpeace's current shenanigans didn't make them alter that plan.

Greenpeace wasted a lot of money for nothing and made companies care more about PR than deeds. That's what Greenpeace accomplish.

Nice logic.
GP: Greenpeace has no credibility.
You: Wrong, read the report (which was issued by Greenpeace).

It's the report itself that highlight Greenpeace's lack of credibility. You need to prove that the report actually is unbiased. Otherwise, it's a circular logic: Greenpeace is credible because the report is true because Greenpeace is credible because the report is true...

Go to this site. Apple scored at/near the top in many categories. They still can do better and attempt for the gold (as of now, no company scores gold), but they are one of the top performers.

EPEAT Results
I see "Silver" ratings on almost all of them, but the numbers put Apple highest.

Go to here: EPEAT
And check out the silver awards in all the categories. Notice that no manufacture has been awarded a gold yet.

In all of the categories Apple is represented by a few models which score at or near the top of the pack.