How Steve Jobs Got Green Overnight

Francois writes "At Apple's last special event, Steve Jobs insisted on how environment friendly Apple's new iPod packagings are supposed to be. I don't think he's ever gone that route before. 'We've got some new packagings for the new Nano as well. And it's 52% less volume. This turns out to be an environmentally great thing. Because it dramatically reduces the amount of fossil fuels we have to spend to move these things around the planet.' Not only is it obvious they shrank the packaging to reduce the cost of shipping around the planet and sell lower than the Zune, but furthermore: there's a reason why he insisted that much, and it's not so very nice."

Comments

Mirror?

[binaryspiral]

fplanque.net seems to be fqued...

Probably fud anyway, but hey - I like to read rumor mongering too.

Re:Mirror?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/7f91513b068da1341 2b8a019e07b1b51/index.html

Re:Mirror?

[LotsOfPhil]

mirrordot

Re:Mirror?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://duggmirror.com/apple/What_Uncle_Steve_didn_ t_tell_us_when_he_suddenly_went_green_2_weeks_ago

Re:Mirror?

[Aurostion]

Yeah, Greenpeace apologized for using bad data and revised the report. They were jumping on apple for the publicity. http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/ABC6DFDA-9DE 9-4EA8-A269-65EAAB628676.html FUD.

Re:Mirror?

[Anonymous Coward]

Crapple is a shitty company.

Bogus

[BWJones]

First, while I have been an occasional supporter of Greenpeace, this study is of dubious quality. Specifically, they base their analysis primarily on what they term "the Precautionary Principle" which they define on their website as "In the context of chemicals management, it means that when (on the basis of available evidence) the use of a chemical or groups of chemicals may harm human health or the environment, action to eliminate the use of the chemical(s) should be taken - even if the full extent of harm has not yet been fully established scientifically. It recognises that such proof of harm may never be possible, at least until it is too late to avoid or reverse the damage done. " emphasis mine.

Additionally, they make no evidence or justification on how they establish their weightings of their criteria to determine ranking.

Re:Bogus

[vadim_t]

Why bogus?

Let's say you release mercury into a river. By the time the effects become painfully obvious it'll be already too late: you'll have poisoned fish, and lots of poisoned people who ate that fish, it'll have had a great effect on the ecology of the area...

So I understand Greenpeace's idea as "Even if we're not sure right now, let's be careful with unknown chemicals now, lest we have to figure it out the hard way".

There are actual examples of why being paranoid is a good thing. For instance, Thalidomide

Re:Bogus

[grev]

Additionally, they make no evidence or justification on how they establish their weightings of their criteria to determine ranking.

*Additionally, it's bullshit.

Re:Bogus

[simpl3x]

That is very true, and I am not going to dismiss Greenpeace's report... But, is it even possbile to make this much electronic crap in a green way? Sorry, electronics are not green. Cars are not green. Most agriculture is not green in any form. What is required is a sense of purpose in buying things that leads to less stuff, and less "consumption."

Are my 2500 CDs and the next 2500 digital versions more or less poluting than an iPod? I don't own one, but have the music on my laptop. How much comparative electricity is used? Were talking about vast seas of product and the subsequent polution, not a box.

See Bruce Sterlings speech on Stve's illness... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Sterling)

Re:Bogus

[Hercules Peanut]

Conversely..

Let's say you release Gatorade into a river. By the time the effects become painfully obvious it'll be already too late: you'll have put innocent workers through hell, bankrupt business and damaged the economy. it'll have had a great effect on the economy of the area...
So I understand the idea of let's know what we are talking about before we jump to conclusions either way.

Seems to me we should have some analysis done before dumping anything into a river. After that, we can make an intelligent decision.

Re:Bogus

[vadim_t]

Ah, but see, that's exactly the problem.

Kelsey (the FDA scientist that evaluated thalidomide) had an amazing luck: She was given something that was actually very harmful. She was pressured by both the company and her superiors to just approve it, but she didn't give in. She became a hero when the truth was known.

However, if it turned out to have been actually harmless, she'd have very possibly been demoted instead. Very few people would have seen it as a job well done in that case.

That's the problem really, being careful is a very, very good thing as the case of thalidomide shows. But people only understand that when they see an example in action. Had it been harmless, she'd have been seen as annoying and stubborn instead, if she remained with the FDA chances are further objections from her would be ignored, and perhaps something even worse would have been approved without oversight.

The gatorade example is bad, anyway. Gatorade, AFAIK, doesn't contain anything very strange, and an isotonic solution is made of completely normal things (water, salt, sugar, orange juice or banana IIRC). Now if you've got some new ingredient that was made in a lab, I'd rather wait than risk being poisoned.

Re:Bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me we should have some analysis done before dumping anything into a river. After that, we can make an intelligent decision.

Who the hell is going to pay for that? Cheaper to just dump your shit, hope you don't get caught, and when you do scream and cry and wave your hands and do everything you can to discredit the "greenies" and claim it wasn't your fault and it's not really a problem, then go out of business and leave taxpayers holding the bag while you retire on your golden parachute, leaving just $100 in the corporate coffers to split between cleanup and your ex-employees last paycheck. How many superfund sites are out there that went exactly like this?

It's funny though, companies are starting to discover that for certain things (like the amount of overpackaging we end up using in America), going "the green way" is cheaper than the way they were doing it, but they'll dress it up as "oh wow we're like totally environmentally conscious, dude!" instead of "hey look, we're saving money".

Re:Bogus

[vadim_t]

I doubt you can be 100% green, but you can be *greener*

Say, batteries can be made with mercury (very poisonous), nickel-cadmium (also harmful) or nickel-metal hydride (less bad than NiCD). While I imagine that NiMH isn't something you'd want to have in your water either, AFAIK, it's a lot better. Besides, the capacity it has is much better than NiCD, which would mean a further decrease in pollution (you need less NiMH batteries than NiCD for the same capacity).

Re:Bogus

[dawnzer]

I don't think the Gatorade example is that bad. Even "completely normal things" can be pretty harmful dumped into a river. I remember in my college wastewater class, we used milk as an example of a seemingly harmless substance causing pollution. If a milk tanker had an accident and all the milk leaked into a nearby stream, it could totally screw up the ecosystem and kill a lot of fish.

It would basically cause the number of bacteria in the water to spike which would lower the oxegen level in the water. I would think the sugar in Gatorade would do the same.

Re:Bogus

[vadim_t]

Ahh, I get it now. But still there's a vast difference in scale.

Given any chemical, chances are there are organisms that need it to live, and others find it poisonous. Plenty examples around: Some organisms can't stand oxygen, some bacteria live in acidic environments and volcanic vents, dogs find chocolate poisonous...

But IMO, there's a bit difference between say, milk and DDT. While I bet fish don't like milk to much, there's a big difference between that and DDT which can affect whole ecosystems by accumulating, and getting increasingly concentrated up the food chain.

Re:Bogus

[alienw]

Here's a lesson, dude: the ONLY reason for a company to do something is either:
- bottom line
or
- regulatory compliance
Organic food companies make organic food not because they believe in environmental responsibility, but because it's a great way to carve a niche in an otherwise saturated market. Similarly, companies phase out toxic chemicals not because they are trying to protect the environment, but because it either saves money, reduces potential liability, or ensures compliance with the law. Apple recycles electronics not because they want to save the planet, but because this is a way to avoid costly mandatory recycling requirements and a cheap way to get some good publicity. Instead of having to recycle every machine for free (which is probably what the government would require), they can make it sufficiently cumbersome and costly that very few people would take advantage of that program. A company that makes unsound financial decisions would be instantly sued by its shareholders for breach of fiduciary duty.

If you want to have an effective recycling program, simply pass laws to make any place that sells PCs and electronics accept said items from consumers for recycling. Kind of like Wal-mart has to accept my used motor oil even if I didn't buy it there. Trying to voluntarily get manufacturers to do things that don't make financial sense is stupid and counterproductive.

Re:Bogus

[d0n quix0te]

Remember, the stakeholders in the environmental issues are not just citizens and corporations. Stakeholders include our children and children's children, and other living beings on the planet. Hence the need to err on the side of caution. Using simple minded economics to lump all of these into externality costs are quite dangerous.

Re:Bogus

[Zoop]

Conversely, you'll never know the benefits you've forsaken on the off chance that all the standard tests for safety are wrong. The Precautionary Principle is the environmental equivalent of the legal principle that advises a company who sells baseballs to never come out with a baseball that will harm fewer people because they might get sued for their previous, less-safe balls. In other words, to prevent one type of possible and unlikely harm, you're forgoing probable benefits.

The Precautionary Principle is also logically fallacious, because it is impossible to prove a negative. Prove you aren't an alien life form. Go on, prove it. I can create objections to each and every argument you give based on untested (and untestable) possibilities.

Furthermore, it is a blind alley for environmental activism. There are many known hazardous substances with less-harmful alternatives in wide use today. Preemptively banning new AIDS drugs to prevent another Thalidomide will only distract from real health and ecological improvements.

Re:Bogus

[DDLKermit007]

A better example is flouride. Something that we KNOW to be damaging to the environment (why we make people pay money if they want dispose of it). Yet we seem completely ok with it getting into the environment as long as it goes through people first. Hell we'll even pay for it! Not to mention the damage it does to a person while it's going through them.

Re:Bogus

[vadim_t]

Your own argument makes equally little sense, as you're simply taking it into the opposite direction.

Let me continue that train of thought. Why not remove all safety controls? If you can't prove something is 100% safe, why bother? Think about the great things we could have if we didn't have to do things like testing whether food is poisonous, or whether cosmetics will give you skin cancer, or make sure that a car doesn't fall to pieces on the road or blow up in a collision.

We could have such wonderful things as the Happy Fun Ball as an actual consumer product!

Nobody's saying we should discard useful things because they might hurt somebody somewhere. But we've got to study things first, and evaluate risk correctly. That's why I thought the thalidomide example was so good: Was it really worth it to have your child born with horrific malformations in exchange for not having morning sickness? Hell no! But, it turns out that it alleviates a very painful complication of leprosy. Thalidomide is still useful, when applied in a situation where its worst side effect is inexistent (men or non-pregnant women), and where the other one (peripheral neuropathy) is outweighted by the benefit of alleviating horrible pain in a patient who is in a very bad condition anyway.

Re:Bogus

[DDLKermit007]

The Greenpeace article is a complete sham. Greenpeace's article had the investigative quality of a shitty High School English paper. It was discussed when it first came up that the whole thing was just taken from each companies website without actually contacting anyone within the company for specifics. Dell & Nokia are the best documented in these repects since both really have nothing better to do while a company like Apple really never thought to make up a sheet on thier environmental concerns. They have been too buisy making new products to think about it.

Not to mention anyone whos bought more than just an iPod can tell you that Apple computers last far longer than anything Dell or Nokia makes. Not to mention Apple's packaging has been far more recyclable and smaller than Dells. Kind of eaisy however when your products are usualy much smaller & lighter (LCDs instead of massive CRTs for instance).

Re:Bogus

[sjames]

even if the full extent of harm has not yet been fully established scientifically. It recognises that such proof of harm may never be possible, at least until it is too late to avoid or reverse the damage done.

I don't see anything invalid there! If you lived downstream from a factory and got your water from that stream, would you feel comforted by a statement like "None of the novel chemicals we dump in the stream have ever been conclusively proven to be harmful"? How about if you found out half of them hadn't been studied for health effects at all? or perhaps they are all under study in the sense that if you and all of your neighbors drop dead, it will be considered significant but 'not conclusively proven' because it might have been second hand smoke?

It IS unfortunatly true that there seem to be a surplus of people who believe "any chemical is bad" and don't even understand why that is an absurd statement. It is also unfortunatly true that there tends to be a strong financial incentive to take a position like "It's not bad, you can't prove it, la la la, I don't hear you, LA LA LA". There is a largish gray area of reasonability between the extremes, but exactly where the line should be drawn is a matter of much public debate.

Greenpeace clearly prefers that the line be further to the cautious side than you do, but that doesn't make their position unreasonable. Science cannot tell us where the line should be drawn since it's a value judgement.

It IS reasonable and logical that all else being the same, less exposure to an unknown risk is better than more exposure.

Re:Bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a wild guess here: do you deny women your essence?

Re:Bogus

[nwbvt]

Well, I would certainly oppose banning certain chemicals or organizing a boycott or mass protest based on insufficient evidence, but what is wrong with using it in a ranking system they post on their webpage? I can see how avoiding a certian chemical because of fears of its effects on the environment can be seen as being "environmentally friendly", which seems to be what Greenpeace is trying to rank. Yeah, they may have higher standards than most people would use, but I have news for you. Greenpeace is generally considered a fairly liberal environmental organization. Thats what they are known for.

Re:Bogus

[nusuth]

Humanity can choose to have a lesser impact on environment but that can't be done by adhering to a very restricted precautionary criteria. If we are to be really precautious about environmental effects, we must cease all industrial production. We don't and can't ever know our green products are actually, really safe in the long term. If they are not safe, "by the time the effects become painfully obvious it'll be already too late." So stop producing now.

There must be a better way than going back to stone age, and I think there is: stick to what is known when assesing risk of environmental damage. If the knowledge is missing, do research instead of assuming the product in question is harmful (or harmless) to the environment. Do not jump into conclusions.

It goes without saying that your research will be incomplete and sometimes you won't have the information until it is too late to undo the damage. I don't think there is any practical way to avoid taking that risk.

Re:Bogus

[vadim_t]

Why is it that the only objection people can come up with is setting up a ridiculous strawman ("Let's stop all production")? I can do that as well, why don't we just eliminate all safety controls? Who cares if we poison rivers, decimate ecosystems, and give thousands of children horrific mutations? The free market will figure it out.

Nobody is talking about making everything 100% safe. Nothing is. The thing is achieving a balance, where reasonable precautions are taken to ensure some rather vital things, like that water remains drinkable.

Read the quote. It says:
"In the context of chemicals management, it means that when (on the basis of available evidence) the use of a chemical or groups of chemicals may harm human health or the environment, action to eliminate the use of the chemical(s) should be taken - even if the full extent of harm has not yet been fully established scientifically. It recognises that such proof of harm may never be possible, at least until it is too late to avoid or reverse the damage done. "

Meaning, if we already know a chemical might be harmful, but we don't have a full chemical analysis yet, then, just in case we should stop using it until we can be sure it's safe. Doesn't sound particularly unreasonable to me.

Re:Bogus

[dondelelcaro]

Kelsey (the FDA scientist that evaluated thalidomide) had an amazing luck: She was given something that was actually very harmful. She was pressured by both the company and her superiors to just approve it, but she didn't give in. She became a hero when the truth was known

This is a bit disengenous, as thalidomide has specific effects (primarily by blocking angiogenesis) and is quite useful in individuals who have leprosy and won't be undergoing angiogenesis (that is, they are adults.) In other words, unless your a fetus or embryo undergoing vasculogenesis or angiogenesis, it may not be harmful.

Understanding the effects of chemicals is best done by studying them. When there is reasonable evidence that they may be harmful, we should be cautious, but when repeated experimentation into the effects has been done and no evidence has been obtained, attempting to insight public panic over them is counter-productive.

Re:Bogus

[mrbobjoe]

aw, man, and just after I use up my mod points...

Re:Bogus

[vadim_t]

This is a bit disengenous, as thalidomide has specific effects (primarily by blocking angiogenesis) and is quite useful in individuals who have leprosy and won't be undergoing angiogenesis (that is, they are adults.) In other words, unless your a fetus or embryo undergoing vasculogenesis or angiogenesis, it may not be harmful.

Actually, I know, and I have pointed that out in one of my posts.

What I meant to say is that she was lucky it had harmful effects. Had it happened to be harmless, the perception of what she did would have been vastly different, even thought the acts themselves would have been equally valid.

Re:Bogus

[2sheds]

Or even his Precious Bodily Fluids...

Re:Bogus

[nusuth]

Striking a balance is exactly what Greenpeace is not doing. I'm not a native English speaker but AFAICT you are not just paraphrasing the quote, you are adding your own policy to it. The quote advocates eliminating use of chemicals if there is any doubt of their safety. It doesn't mention doing more research to establish if it is really unsafe, it doesn't have your "until we can be sure..." phrase. Ceasing all industrial production is not a strawman, it is the logical conclusion of policy of eliminating use of chemicals when there is any possibility of harm. As you say nothing is ever %100 safe, so the policy as stated bans everything and anything. OTOH your strawman has nothing to do with my stated arguments. I support banning of unsafe chemicals. I just don't like harmful until proven harmless type of thinking. It goes nowhere and is unscientific.

Re:Bogus

[Jobe_br]

Organic food companies make organic food not because they believe in environmental responsibility, but because it's a great way to carve a niche in an otherwise saturated market. Similarly, companies phase out toxic chemicals not because they are trying to protect the environment, but because it either saves money, reduces potential liability, or ensures compliance with the law.

In principle, I agree. But, as in practically any other context, blanket statements are rarely correct 100% and in fact, a number of companies do take on responsibility for what they're doing, though many of those things don't always see the light of day in a PR statement.

That said, regulations to push the more reluctant companies in the right direction is good in my book, especially in instances where there's ample scientific and empirical evidence to support the regulation.

Re:Bogus

[Hercules Peanut]

"The gatorade example is bad, anyway. Gatorade, AFAIK, doesn't contain anything very strange, and an isotonic solution is made of completely normal things (water, salt, sugar, orange juice or banana IIRC)."

I used Gatorade as an example because the parent used Mercury. I figured one extreme merited another.

blah

[Anonymous Coward]

slashdotted already? wtf? mirror anyone?

Already Slashdotted

[Zo0ok]

Is the link already slashdotted, before there is a single comment???

Slashdotted in record time

[UFgatorSean]

First post and already the site is dead. They must be hosting this from an ipod... or an xserve... Sigh...

Slashdotted on the weekend?

[LotsOfPhil]

Hmm, I didn't think things really got slashdotted on the weekend. Maybe it is Monday in Australia already...
The greenpeace link

"The real reason is Greenpeace! They came out with a report on how environment friendly consumer electronics manufacturers actually are. And guess what? Apple is close to the last! :( [More:] Reproaches against Apple mostly include: * Overuse of toxic chemicals (brominated flame retardants, polyvinyl chloride) which make recylcing hazardous. * No timeline to phase these chemicals out. * Recylcing program limited to the US or where Apple is legally compelled to. * Products designed to have a short life span. Of course, Apple prefers to focus on packaging size, energy efficiency (which the all the competition does equally), the fact that flat panels weight less than CRTs (hello!?) and other environment friendly side effects to their marketing strategy. Ironically, there's this other computer maker Apple likes to make fun of. That company with the computers where the Intel processor is limited to "dull and repetitive tasks". That company called Dell. Well, ironically, Dell is ranking very well: number 2 on the environment scale! (#1 being Nokia) "It is disappointing to see Apple ranking so low in the overall guide. They are meant to be world leaders in design and marketing, they should also be world leaders in environmental innovation." --Greenpeace Don't get me wrong: I love my Mac, I love my iPod, I love the way Steve amazes us all the time. But I'd really really like him to amaze us in a "greener" way... ;)

Re:Slashdotted on the weekend?

[mblase]

Products designed to have a short life span.

I don't get why this is on there. I've always felt that one of the best things about Apple products is that they're designed to last.

Re:Slashdotted on the weekend?

[5plicer]

Me too. For example, my sister is running a 7 YEAR OLD iMac!

Re:Slashdotted on the weekend?

[raddan]

As a friend of mine in Germany once discovered, "the Internet is closed on weekends." Or so said the guy running the computer lab. Yeah, clueless.

Real greens would dump the consumerist iPod

[Anonymous Coward]

I play my mp3s on a totally organic player made from twigs and mulched hippies.

Re:Real greens would dump the consumerist iPod

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations. One day, there wont be any people left to produce you damned mp3s, thanks to guys like you.

Re:Real greens would dump the consumerist iPod

[Midnight Thunder]

I play my mp3s on a totally organic player made from twigs and mulched hippies.

Fair enough, but I suspect you aren't using the new recycled twigs and recycled mulched hiippies?

Re:Real greens would dump the consumerist iPod

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, *hippies*.

We all win!

Re:Real greens would dump the consumerist iPod

[Murphy Murph]

I play my mp3s on a totally organic player made from twigs and mulched hippies.

But can it run Rockbox?

Apple should migrate to a new system

[bestinshow]

E.g., build and assemble in China, package in target country.

This does go against their direct shipping to the customer from the factory system they currently operate.

However the small packaging for the nano is a good first step. Also the turnover on Apple computer hardware tends to be less than PC hardware - people will keep an Apple running for a year or two more than a PC in general. Of course there will those of us running 12 year old SparcStations as print servers and old P200s as routers, but generally people replace PCs when the old one gets slow for whatever reason. Lower turnover means less hardware being recycled overall.

Re:Apple should migrate to a new system

[Ritchie70]

But there still has to be *some* packaging between China and the target company, or you just receive a container full of broken iPods. You could maybe pack them in tighter, but all that packaging would have to be discarded, which is almost certainly more costly than shipping the final packaging from China.
I suppose you could have some sort of trays that hold them, but then the trays would have to be returned to China to be reloaded. Also probably expensive.

Re:Apple should migrate to a new system

[lptport1]

I don't know how you can say "overall" with any certainty. Per unit of time, perhaps. What if, assuming environmental practices stay the same, Apple outlasts Dell by N+1 years, where N is equivalent to the Dell turnover rate divided by the Apple turnover rate?

Which part of that ratio would you be willing to eat?

Re:Apple should migrate to a new system

[Teth-Adam]

"However the small packaging for the nano is a good first step."

This is a not even a first, they already did this months ago for iLife '06 (New Apple software shipping in mini packaging), the MacBook Pro (pict), Mac OS X Tiger (Apple to update Mac OS X Tiger retail offerings), etc. This is not to say Apple is eco-friendly, I don't know, but the new boxes have been around for some time now.

Re:Apple should migrate to a new system

[Mattintosh]

I'll eat any apple turnovers you might have laying around. Dell turnovers don't sound so tasty, though, so I'll have to pass on that one.

Re:Apple should migrate to a new system

[johnpaul191]

actually Apple really only ships direct from the factory when something is brand spanking new. they even acknowledge this in quarterly earnings reports.... or did when they were more specific as to what models sold how many units. they would say something about how much they made from iBooks and follow it up by explaining that when the freighters with containers full of ibooks show up their profit margin will be a bit higher than when they pay to FedEx every early purchase direct from the factory to your door.

for example i just ordered one of the pretty new iMacs, and it was shipped from California, not Asia. they only came out a few weeks ago, but i guess long ago enough that Apple has *some* stock here. i am pretty sure a lot of resellers are still waiting to get them in volume though.

More information from a non-/.ed site...

[perlionex]

Since the article site is so clearly slashdotted, here's a related article from MacObserver.com entitled Greenpeace Hazardous Material Report Slams Apple.

The environmental activist group, Greenpeace, released a report on Monday titled Toxic Chemicals In Your Laptop that attempts to list the percentages of toxic chemicals found in several different laptop computer models, including Apple's MacBook Pro. Greenpeace tested the computers for compliance with The European Union's RoHS directive - a set of voluntary guidelines that restrict the use of six hazardous materials in electronic devices.

The study tested Apple's MacBook Pro, the Acer Aspire 5672WLMi, Dell's Latitude D810, the HP Pavillon dv-4357EA, and Sony's Vaio VGN-FJ 180. The tests concluded that the MacBook Pro was fully compliant with the RoHS guidelines, but the HP laptop was not. In fact, the MacBook Pro was fully compliant with the RoHS guidelines months before they were enacted.

The tests also checked for two substances not included in the RoHS guidelines: PVC and TBBPA (a flame retardant). 262 parts per million of TBBPA were found in an internal fan assembly in Apple's laptop, the highest percentage of the laptops in the study. PVC was also found in the plastic coating on a fan wire.

Considering how the MacBook Pro ranked in the Greenpeace study - with a decidedly negative spin - it's no surprise that the group listed Apple as one of the least environmentally friendly companies in its report titled Guide To Greener Electronics. In that report, which was weighted more heavily on the use of toxic substances in production instead of recycling, the group ranked Apple near the bottom of its list.

Iza Kruszewska, Greenpeace International toxics campaigner, made a point to single out Apple by stating "It is disappointing to see Apple ranking so low in the overall guide. They are meant to be world leaders in design and marketing, they should also be world leaders in environmental innovation."

The two reports seem to be at odds since the Guide To Greener Electronics report slams Apple for its hazardous materials use, but the Toxic Chemicals In Your Laptop report offers a different story. The HP Pavillion, which Greenpeace ranked higher in the September report, contains lead - a material Apple does not use in the MacBook Pro. Dell also came in with the highest overall concentration of bromine in its laptop.

Apple explains its environmental stance, along with information about its voluntary take-back and recycling programs, on its Web site.

Re:More information from a non-/.ed site...

[perlionex]

Found an original Greenpeace article that probably triggered this; Apple scored very lowly in their "green electronics" ranking...

Re:More information from a non-/.ed site...

[PygmySurfer]

The Greenpeace article is of dubious quality. Apparently, they even ignored their own lab testing, deciding instead to slam Apple. They even made a nifty little site to trash Apple, not only ripping off the apple.com design, but apparently a script as well (Apple's version).

To me, Greenpeace seems about as trustworthy as PETA at the moment.

Re:More information from a non-/.ed site...

[slowbad]

two substances not included in the RoHS guidelines: PVC and TBBPA (a flame retardant).

Whenever I post on an Apple story, that TBBPA stuff could come in handy --
neutralizing both the flames and the 'tards.

Re:More information from a non-/.ed site...

[JulesLt]

I suspect there is an element of publicity here - targeting Apple makes more headlines than, say, Lenovo. On the other hand, Apple have traded for a long time on a cuddly 'computer for hippies' image - even if they've never actually been explicit about it, there's the implicit idea that Apple should somehow be more right-on than other computer firms.

Negative publicity also seems to be about the only way to achieve corporate accountability these days, given that governments everywhere have rescinded responsibility to 'market forces' - and market forces are rarely about facts. It does seem that the campaigns where Greenpeace has been less than scientifically accurate (Brent Spar being another case) attract more attention than the ones that are (perhaps because it's easier for people to get angry at a corporation for pollution, than change their own behaviour).

The downside of this is that it continues the slide that there are 'two sides to every story', 'scientists can prove anything they want', etc.

Re:More information from a non-/.ed site...

[Cyno]

To me, Greenpeace seems about as trustworthy as PETA at the moment.

That's a given.

What I'm curious about is why so many people put so much trust in Apple, HP and Dell to be environmentally friendly. And why Greenpeace is focusing on laptops instead of other much more serious environmental concerns, such as transportation, power, etc.

I think its been proven notebooks do not cause global warming.

Re:More information from a non-/.ed site...

[bsane]

I think its been proven notebooks do not cause global warming.

They heat up my pants, which contain my world...

Thats pretty close to the same as global warming isn't it?

Re:More information from a non-/.ed site...

[Americano]

I don't know... given all the heating issues we've heard about in the Apple MacBooks & MBP's... imagine if they had a bigger market share, and everybody then turned their laptop on at the same time!! You'd probably see a 2 or 3 degree jump in average atmospheric temperature overnight!!!!!!!!!!oneone!!111!!!

It's science. You can't argue with that.

Re:More information from a non-/.ed site...

[brain159]

Nonono, you misunderstand...

A flame retardant actually makes the flames even more retarded!

Re:More information from a non-/.ed site...

[Cyno]

It's science. You can't argue with that.

You can, but without using the scientific method it might be a hard arguement to win.

Aha...

[Garse Janacek]

1. Post vague, ominous anti-Apple FUD.
2. As evidence, cite a link that is already down -- people will assume it's slashdotted.
3. People don't know what you're claiming, but a negative cloud surrounds their image of Apple.
4. Next time, they'll buy a Zune! Yeah! (aka: profit)

Re:Aha...

[joe 155]

ok, you don't like that site... how about this one; http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/ ?

Re:Aha...

[MightyYar]

That's the same link that's been discussed on /. over the last couple of weeks. It has been pointed out numerous times that Greenpeace is not critical of Apple for environmental infractions, but because Apple isn't playing with Greenpeace. Apple did not submit enough (any?) information to Greenpeace for them to make an educated decision. We can argue whether Apple should or should not play with Greenpeace, but I don't think that it's proper to say that "Apple is not as environmentally friendly as Dell."

Re:Aha...

[ronanbear]

Generally agree except for point 2. Go to here and you can see that the site actually is slashdotted.

Re:Aha...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Greenpeace uses corporate websites for information. Companies do not submit information nor reports to Greenpeace. Based on the quality of the company's stated policies on the website (and not whether the company successfully adopts the policies), Greenpeace ranked who's more environmentally friendly.

Re:Aha...

[vertinox]

We can argue whether Apple should or should not play with Greenpeace, but I don't think that it's proper to say that "Apple is not as environmentally friendly as Dell."

Unfortunatley Greepeace, like PETA, is borderline "terrorist" group in its tactics and unilaterialism. I'm for all being nice to animals, drinking clean water, and breathing clean air and forcing corporations to comply, but some of their hostile actions really turn off moderates and centrists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace#Criticism_ and_attacks

Re:Aha...

[MightyYar]

Wow, that's even worse than I thought.

Re:Aha...

[Garse Janacek]

Oh, I believed it was slashdotted (though it happened a lot quicker than usual)... but even slashdot summaries usually have more content than "But it turns out that there is SOMETHING SCARY going on! Click on the link!" with no hint at what the link contains. I mean, it's the only link in the whole summary, I think it's reasonable to expect some idea of what the story is about rather than this teaser nonsense...

Of course, other posters have now given mirrors, etc., as well as some pretty solid critiques suggesting that this really is more or less the vacuous FUD I suspected... but we should have at least had a hint at what FUD was going to be presented, since that's the whole point of the story...

Weeks old FUD

[cafin8d]

It's hard to be sure, since the link is down, but assuming this is the 'Greenpeace report' FUD, they admitted it was all lies over a week ago.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/E83D58B3-10E 0-4A9C-8847-BCE665EE235C.html

Re:Weeks old FUD

[pacc]

One cannot really weight 280 statistically calculated deaths in fires per year
against certain pollution of poisonous flame retardands. Are the unlucky owners
of laptops with exploding sony batteries glad that they didn't die when the
house burned down or concerned that the fumes they inhaled could make them ill.

Re:Weeks old FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, is that ENTIRE website paid for by Apple? the whole right side of the article is repeating iTunes Music Store advertisements!

Re:Weeks old FUD

[cyber-vandal]

I'm a bit confused who 'they' might be since all that link gives reasons why Greenpeace are wrong and evil for daring to criticise Apple; I don't see any retraction from Greenpeace on there, and the Apple part of their site is still up.

Re:Weeks old FUD

[Dilaudid]

And environmentalists wonder why no one will believe them about global warming. This is not just lies, this encourages people to discount environmental arguments as bullshit, thus making it more difficult for politicians and business people to stop global warming.

Re:Weeks old FUD

[shawb]

Probably just keyword sensitive advertising. Since the word Apple comes up a lot, the advertising aggregrator weighs products with that tag higher.

Re:Weeks old FUD

[clifyt]

"This is not just lies, this encourages people to discount environmental arguments as bullshit..."

This is one of the worst things about Greenpeace and Peta -- and others here have made the same sorts of arguments.

For instance, it is widely known that if you have an older gas guzzling car it is STILL far more environmentally friendly to put the money into this car and drive it until it literally just crumbles one day that it would be to get rid of it -- most likely in a trade in to a car dealership that will sell it to a car auctionhouse where someone will buy it for practically nothing and let it fall apart -- and pick up an electric or a hybrid. The energy to make a new car is still far more than it is in wasting gas in an old one (though if you are going to buy a new one regardless -- go for the hybrid).

Yet, if you are caught in one of these, you would be demonized by these idiots.

'Environmentalists' who call themselves such are as much about the environment as many folks that call themselves 'Christians' (I believe myself to be both, but its not a tag I generally put towards myself publicly -- I try to lead by example as opposed to by title). At one point, I supported Greenpeace, but this has been par for course for them for too long. I support environmental policy changes and I support initiatives like Kyoto, but these guys are way out in la-la-land.

Re:Weeks old FUD

[hyperstation]

you actually believe roughlydrafted, run by an (obvious) apple fanboy with an axe to grind? please, stop posting links to this guy's "magazine" with the idea that it's proof that greenpeace "apologized".

Re:Weeks old FUD

[DECS]

Fumes from burning plastics don't come from the flame redardants, they come from the plastics. Most plastics emit toxic fumes when burned.

Traces of a NON REGULATED fire retardant CONSIDERED SAFE by the WHO (and the EU and the EPA) is all Greenpeace could find in the Mac Book Pro, so they spun a tale about how this TBBPA was a toxic chemical (is isn't) that is potentially killing babies (it isn't) when in reality, it saves lives by retarding plastics from burning and allowing an extra chance for babies to survive being taken out of a burning building before the toxic chemicals are released. Greenpeace lied to create sensationalist panic.

The flames of fires don't kill as fast as the toxic smoke. Pretty much everything on fire creates toxic fumes. That's why flame retardants are required by law to limit the damage of toxic fumes as much as possible. Obviously one shouldn't roll up their laptop and smoke it, but in a house fire, a new laptop is far less toxic than an old TV on fire.

Greenpeace doesn't give a fuck about the environment or fire safety or any other facts, they just want to create panic that generates donations. They are total frauds and lie incessantly.

Greenpeace Lies About Apple
Greenpeace Apologizes For Apple Stink
More Secrets: The Scandal of Green Computing
Top Secret: Greenpeace Report Misleading and Incompetent

Re:Weeks old FUD

[brain159]

Good work on the summary here - your pages as linked have already convinced me to withdraw my modest financial support of Greenpiss (I'd been giving them 5 GBP a month for the past 5 months or so, after allowing myself to be convinced by one of their street fundraisers). Not only have I stopped giving them my money, but I also had a damn good whinge at them by email to tell them exactly why.

Smug Alert!

[insomniac8400]

Apple users should all move to san francisco where they can enjoy smelling their own farts.

Re:Smug Alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

All I know is that you won't find me there after any George Clooney's acceptance speeches.

Re:Smug Alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank Almighty Jesus we have you salt-of-the-suburbs Republicans to thank for the wonderful state of this country.

Why don't you all move to Texas, where you can live out your God, Guns, and Gas Guzzlers lifestyle, and leave the rest of us the hell alone?

Re:Smug Alert!

[Concerned Onlooker]

Please don't post anonymously. It makes it impossible to add you to my friends list. :-)

The rich get richer ...

[Anonymous Coward]

mostly by being exploitive and irresponsible.

IMHO, Gates and Jobs are bad men doing evil things.

Re:The rich get richer ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So when are you giving away your computer?

Oh please...

[gambit3]

Greenpeace???

Apple is reacting to GREENPEACE???

I guess we should be on the lookout now for Lenovo, Acer, Motorola and the others in the bottom of the list to hold press conferences touting how "green" their companies are. As if they take Greenpeace seriously. This blog is bullshit.

This is a business decision. Pure and simple.
---------------
A Thinker's Hangout

Re:Oh please...

[Anonymous Coward]

The timeframe seems a little short for them to be reacting to Greenpeace. Just a little.

Re:Oh please...

[jacksonj04]

I must admit, that's what I was thinking.

Smaller packaging = more units per shipping crate = fewer shipping crates needed = fewer shipping fees.

Profit!

Apple's trump on environment

[in2mind]

http://www.apple.com/environment/

Stop buying ipods if you want to be green

[bigtrike]

It's great that Apple is willing to do something to reduce waste for the people who really *must* buy the newest ipod (and the few remaining people who want one but don't have it). I would be however that the waste involved in the packaging is minimal compared to what it takes to produce the electronics of the ipod itself. Many people I know who would considered themselves "environmentally superior" to others also always have the latest ipod and cell phone models.

If you really want to be green, just keep your old ipod. It's good enough.

Nothing ulterior that I see

[mnemonic_]

From TFA:

The real reason is Greenpeace! They came out with a report on how environment friendly consumer electronics manufacturers actually are. And guess what? Apple is close to the last!

So Apple realized they suck at environmentally-friendly products, and now they're trying fix it. Would it have been better had Apple done nothing?

Yes, their motive is not altruistic; it's mostly marketing. Apple is a for-profit corporation, after all. Is a focus on image something new for Apple? Or for any company? Not really.

Re:Nothing ulterior that I see

[gnasher719]

'' So Apple realized they suck at environmentally-friendly products...''

That Greenpeace study didn't look at how environmentally friendly products are. Mostly they looked at what promises "(commitments)" companies made for the future. Apple is known to be very bad at making promises and excellent at delivering, so that didn't go down well with Greenpeace. Making promises is cheap. Maybe Greenpeace makes a follow-up study in three years where they measure percentage of promises actually delivered. Then Apple was measured at how many percent of stuff is recycled. This doesn't take into account that things like MacMini and iPod Nano are tiny and produce much less garbage in the first place.

Re:Nothing ulterior that I see

[paeanblack]

We've got some new packagings for the new Nano as well. And it's 52% less volume.

Isn't the new Nano about 52% smaller anyways? Wouldn't you naturally expect less packaging?

Yay Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is evolving. It's gone from MS bashing to MS _and_ Apple bashing. It's true what Linus said about this site; it's all about public wanking sessions.

Re:Yay Slashdot!

[Mistshadow2k4]

Damn, I didn't know that was what /. was for. I need to get new batteries for my vibrator. Uh, btw, where is there anything worth masturbating to on this site? I don't see any tied-up, helpless pretty boys or anything....

(Just because I like Linux doesn't mean I think everything Torvalds says is golden. Also, I only bothered to read this because I'm that bored while I wait for the liquor store to open -- for some stupid reason they don't open on Saturday until noon.)

More FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok #1 and #2 in the article are basically the same thing -- Apple uses nasty chemicals during the production of their products.

So what? Are they ejecting these things into the environment around their manufacturing plants? I don't see anything here to assert they do. I don't care that they're dangerous unless your dumping them untreated into a stream or puffing them up into the atmosphere or something like that. I can understand outrage over reckless handling of hazardous materials, but they don't even allege that.

Yet another reason why Greenpeace is irrelevant. \

This is the same crap we see for terrorism and child pornography. Environmental FUD.

Re:More FUD

[fplanque]

What you don't see is that those products get sent to China for recycling. There they are dismantled by hand by children. Part of the contents get burned. This is where the chemicals really get nasty.

I assume you didn't mean to say it's irrelevant just because it affects Chinese children instead of your own children.

Go look at the dirty stuff:
http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/about.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/itox.html

Al Gore

[aurelito]

Al Gore is on the board of directors, IIRC, and did not hesitate to allow himself to be shown gratuitously with his Mac in "An Inconvinient Truth". Hm.

mirrordot link

[Anonymous Coward]

mirrordot link to story

In case of slashdotting...visit site earlier....

[Anonymous Coward]

Text copied and pasted from cached version of website:

At Apple's last special event, after introducing the new iPods, Steve Jobs added this:

"We've got some new packagings for the new nano as well. And it's 52% less volume. This turns out to be an environmentally great thing. Because it dramatically reduces the amount of fossile fuels we have to spend to move these things around the planet."

Isn't that odd?

I mean, I have been religiously watching Uncle Steve's speeches for at least two years now, and I believe this is the first time he's been mentioning the environment in one of his one man shows. More than that, he actually seemed pretty proud about Apple's contribution to the environment.

Well... yeah... I could be almost happy about it... If only Apple was really concerned about the environment! But so far, all I heard is "look we're saving a lot of money on shipping costs and that will help us be cheaper than the Zune". (Good enough?)

But there's another reason for Jobs turning environment friendly. (They have even put up a nicely marketed environment page on Apple's site).

The real reason is Greenpeace! They came out with a report on how environment friendly consumer electronics manufacturers actually are. And guess what? Apple is close to the last! :(

[More:]

Reproaches against Apple mostly include:

• Overuse of toxic chemicals (brominated flame retardants, polyvinyl chloride) which make recylcing hazardous.
• No timeline to phase these chemicals out.
• Recylcing program limited to the US or where Apple is legally compelled to.
• Products designed to have a short life span.

Of course, Apple prefers to focus on packaging size, energy efficiency (which the all the competition does equally), the fact that flat panels weight less than CRTs (hello!?) and other environment friendly side effects to their marketing strategy.

Ironically, there's this other computer maker Apple likes to make fun of. That company with the computers where the Intel processor is limited to "dull and repetitive tasks". That company called Dell. Well, ironically, Dell is ranking very well: number 2 on the environment scale! (#1 being Nokia)

"It is disappointing to see Apple ranking so low in the overall guide. They are meant to be world leaders in design and marketing, they should also be world leaders in environmental innovation." --Greenpeace

Don't get me wrong: I love my Mac, I love my iPod, I love the way Steve amazes us all the time. But I'd really really like him to amaze us in a "greener" way... ;)

From his dealer

[Anonymous Coward]

From his dealer on the street corner?

This is news???

[Bob Hearn]

It was news when Greenpeace announced their list some time back (and Apple disputed their ranking). Is anybody remotely surprised Apple wants to up their environmental profile?

Re:This is news???

[slowbad]

Is anybody remotely surprised Apple wants to up their environmental profile?

You could go to any big box retailer 15 years ago, and the 'current style' was to package stuff in clean white cardboard.
In the early 90s Apple didn't put boxes through extraneous bleaching. You could instantly spot all their brown box product.

--
Dispose of your old plastic iPOD
and get a new green-friendly one.

Re:This is news???

[Bob Hearn]

Sure. Apple's always had a good environmental image. But they got a bit of a black eye from the Greenpeace report, bogus or not, and it's no surprise Jobs would take an opportunity like this to talk about how green Apple is. I mean, there is just no news here.

Re:This is news???

[IHC Navistar]

I remember buying my Macintosh LC in a shiny, clean, white boxes.

Righteous

[Doc Ruby]

"It recognises that such proof of harm may never be possible, at least until it is too late to avoid or reverse the damage done"

emphasis mine.

They simply say that when evidence says some chemicals are risky, we should eliminate its use, even if proof of the harmful extent is impossible before it does the damage at risk.

You know, the way you avoid getting killed, even though no one can prove that you're going to hell.

The entire prudence of this Precautionary Principle rests on how to evaluate the evidence of risk. Once that's established, of course you stop before you might break something. Every 5 year old learns that. It's time we stopped letting our corporations work like bulls in our china shop.

Re:Righteous

[Doc Ruby]

Actually, water has been proven lethal in some situations, in case you didn't notice.

Meanwhile, your obfuscation underscores the entire point I made about the actual evidence of risk and its evaluation.

You're trying to argue that we should ignore proven risks until the full extent of their damage is proven, even when that is impossible,

Your inability to consider independently risks and their damage is typical of people who are afraid to swim.

Re:Righteous

[shmlco]

"The entire prudence of this Precautionary Principle rests on how to evaluate the evidence of risk."

If they actually DID that I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, all too often they take a hard-line, head-in-the-sand approach and insist that there be NO risk whatsoever. That NO amount of polution or radiation or environmental impact is acceptable.

And that leads to no progress whatsoever.

Someone wants to build a wave-power generation system off the coast. "Oh no," they say. "We don't know the effects of doing that, and the poor little crabs that live on that one mile stretch of beach will be hurt." Of course, we don't know the effects because we've never done it. Can't really evalaute the risks, because we've never done it. And we can never do it, apparently, because we've never done it and as such can't prove with 100% certainty that there are NO risks whatsoever.

Life is about taking risks, and wisdom lies in the ability to know when and how to make acceptable trade-offs. Yes, we may have SOME impact on that stretch of coastline, but in turn we're not dumping a thousand tons of CO2 into the atmosphere over here. Whereapon the greenies turn even greener and say, "No! No coastline impact AND no CO2 AND definitely no solar-cell MANUFACTURING because those use nasty chemicals, and no bad, bad, bird-killing wind-mill farms, and..." ...and we end up doing nothing.

Unfortuately, we live in an increasingly litigious and risk-adverse society. Where EVERYTHING must be soft and round-cornered and "safe".

Re:Righteous

[Doc Ruby]

Do you have a citation of Greenpeace opposing a specific project with no evidence of risk, just the absence of evidence of safety, as you described? Because their policy that we're discussing explicity says that action should be taken on available evidence.

So there's yet another layer being conflated into bashing Greenpeace. There's evidence, risk, and harm. Their policy says evidence of risk, even without evidence of harm, means we shouldn't use the risky chemicals. Which sounds like a completely sensible policy, that we all use in our own lives. But if Greenpeace acts outside that policy, against chemicals (or, by extension, other products) without even evidence of risk, then there's a different argument, about whether Greenpeace even follows its own policy.

FWIW, "head in the sand" describes people who ignore risk as well as people who fear it despite evidence its harm is negligible. And our litigious/risk-averse society is commensurately full of irresponsible harm and ignored risks. Mostly to the benefit of chemical corps which risk and harm us with impunity. The unnecessary lawsuits are mostly exploiting oversimplification of even basic complexities like evidence/risk/harm evaluation. And the risk aversion is much more characteristic of corporations than of humans, as you can tell from the balance of lawsuits.

Re:Righteous

[Moofie]

"ignore proven risks until the full extent of their damage is proven"

If the risks are proven, then they can be evaluated rationally. If they're not proven, then anybody can make up whatever they want. I think that proven risks are useful data points, and Greenpeace's rampant speculation and grandstanding is fluff.

Re:Righteous

[Doc Ruby]

It might be, if I did that.

Now you're just lying to cover up your failed trick.

Re:Righteous

[Doc Ruby]

Which rampant speculation and grandstanding would that be, exactly?

You're still failing to distinguish between the probability that something bad can happen, and how bad it will be if it does happen. That's the distinction made in that Greenpeace policy. Which says that when knowing how bad it will be is impossible, that we should still stop using chemicals that are proven to pose substantial risk.

Aren't you just engaging in rampant conflation and grandstanding by ignoring that distinction and its prudence?

Re:Righteous

[Moofie]

Greenpeace asserts that Apple's laptops are the dirtiest ever, by studying Apple's web site. This conclusion is contradicted by Greenpeace's laboratory tests, which demonstrate that Apple's laptops are the cleanest on the market.

That's grandstanding. By attacking trendy Apple, they get publicity. Nobody expects Dell or HP to be environmentally responsible, and Apple (although it is in fact environmentally responsible in terms of their actual products) doesn't make the satisfactory PR samba on their web site.

We should not stop using all chemicals that are proven to pose a substantial risk. We should stop using all chemicals that are proven to have a substantial risk that is not outweighed by a substantial benefit. In any case, Greenpeace should not demonize popular companies with good environmental practices and lionize large companies with good PR departments.

Re:Righteous

[Doc Ruby]

Where is the Greenpeace assertion that Apple's laptops are "the dirtiest ever"? All there is asserted in the report is that Apple, by its own admission in its published documents, is "dirty" according to Greenpeace's published criteria. Lenovo, Motorola and Acer are all scored dirtier. Where are these Greenpeace laboratory test results, which have not been mentioned in this thread or the article?

Where is Greenpeace lionizing large companies with good PR departments (assumedly with dirty products)?

And how does "5% cheaper notebooks" benefit outweigh "poisons people" risk?

Re:Righteous

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a joke, you asshat. Calm down, already, would you?

Re:Righteous

[Doc Ruby]

Anonymous random Coward jumps in to claim some undefined "it" was a "joke", and that I should "calm down", when I am calm?

The only reason to reply to that ridiculous troll is to point out that people who say "asshat" usually think that they can run away from saying unfunny things that blow up in their face by calling it a "joke". Just because people are lauging at you, Anonymous Coward, doesn't mean you're joking. It means you're a joke.

Re:Righteous

[Moofie]

"Where is the Greenpeace assertion that Apple's laptops are "the dirtiest ever"?"

Oh, I beg your pardon. I misunderstood. Greenpeace shrieks the loudest about Apple's products, so I was left with the assumption that they were manufactured with the blood of the innocent. My bad.
"Where is Greenpeace lionizing large companies with good PR departments (assumedly with dirty products)?"

They seem to love all over HP, which makes cheap quality disposable PC junk.

"Where are these Greenpeace laboratory test results?"

this guy says that the reuslt should be published by Greenpeace real soon now. Is he lying? Maybe. Let's look at the data and decide.

"And how does "5% cheaper notebooks" benefit outweigh "poisons people" risk?"

I'm not in the habit of eating electrical insulation, so I'm not entirely sure how I'm going to get poisoned by my powerbook. If there are in fact better alternatives, I hope Apple would in fact research and implement them. I don't care about whether they talk about it on their web site, which is the only thing Greenpeace's GreenOmeter seems to pay any attention to.

Re:Righteous

[stupidfoo]

then attacking me based on assumption alone is typical of Americans

Where did he/she even say they were an American?

Hypocrisy thy name is Sj0

Re:Righteous

[Doc Ruby]

So in other words, you're just lying again, just like the last time you spouted off at me. Maybe you should eat your powerbook. It's quicker than just absorbing the pollution indirectly from your environment, so if you act now I won't have to listen to your lies any more.

Of course, you'll have to spit your foot out first.

Re:Righteous

[Moofie]

Lying? Wow. Save your venom for people who actually have the power to do harm. I have none.

Deep breaths, Doc.

Greenpeace is taking stabs at Apple which are based on sketchy premises, and only aimed at Apple because that's the highest profile manufacturer on their list. Not because they're the worst on their (again, sketchy) list, or because they are in fact manufacturing computers in an environmentally hostile way (which, apparently, they aren't), but because they're highly visible. I wonder if they approached Jobs for a donation and he turned them down.

They're certainly free to whatever marketing campaign they like. It seems to be working on some people. Guess that rational skeptics aren't in their target demographic.

Re:Righteous

[Doc Ruby]

Why would I take any advice from you? You're a liar, and are so deluded that you think people should only get called liar when they're "doing harm".

You're a liar. That's not "venom", that' the truth. The unvarnished truth, despite your incapacity to recognize something so unfamiliar.

Your summary of lies, your deep breaths - all bullshit. You've got nothing. Don't bother wondering in my presence - it's a wonder you even know how to breathe.

You're an idiot.
"Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth,
Blowing down the backroads headin' south.
Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth,
You're an idiot, babe.
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe."

Re:Righteous

[Moofie]

Hmm. I was misled by Greenpeace, and mis-stated their case, and I'm an evil lying liar idiot.

Kay.

Never mind the rest of my points, they're beneath notice. Never mind the fact that Greenpeace is spouting lie after lie, because they agree with you, and that's really all that matters. And it's OK, because they hug seals.

Re:Righteous

[Sj0]

I never said he was an American, only that it was typical of americans.

Functional Illiteracy, thy name is stupidfoo.

Re:Righteous

[Sj0]

It wasn't a trick, I know full well that everyone on Slashdot knows full well what DHMO is. It's a massive internet meme, for christs' sake. My POINT, which you missed entirely, is that you can't just say "There might be risks associated with this but we don't actually have any proof that there is" and use that as a part of a legitimate study regarding environmental risks associated with certain chemicals.

To do so is to resort to pure scare tactics. "BEWARE! APPLE COMPUTER USES DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE IN THEIR PRODUCTS! WE CAN'T PROVE THAT IT'S HAZARDOUS, BUT WE'LL PRETEND IT'S MERCURY ANYWAY!!!"

Re:Righteous

[Doc Ruby]

No, you are missing the point. The point is that there is proof that some chemicals are risky, even when the extent of harm is impossible to know until it's too late.

You are conflating the known risk and the unknowable damage to ignore the risk. That's a worse trick than trying to use water in an obfuscated form that everyone knows makes a relatively harmless chemical seem more harmful. All strawman tricks, none worthy of respect.

Re:Righteous

[Sj0]

And you're missing the overall point, that the problem being pointed out so long ago was that Greenpeace wasn't making a distinction between chemicals with known, proven risks, and chemicals which MAY pose some unproven risk.

An important point that's flying over your head is the fact that the obscufication isn't mine. Greenpeace are the ones throwing a bunch of scary chemical names out there, saying that "though for many of these we don't actually have any proof, they might possibly be dangerous", and tut tutting Apple et. al. for using them.

Re:Righteous

[Doc Ruby]

It's useless to explain this to you. Every time I explain that Greenpeace is making the distinction between known risk and unknown harm, you just conflate them together and say that "there's no proof of risk", when there is.

I give up. Live in willful ignorance. Don't ask me for help when you get sick.

Re:Righteous

[Sj0]

Sun Tzu says that the victorious strategist seeks victory first and battle second. If you hadn't been so quick to fight me, perhaps you could have successfully expressed your point in the first place. Instead, you decided that it would be better to battle first. It is your error, not mine.

On the other hand, Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, so perhaps you were just hoping for a good waste of time debate.

Re:Righteous

[Doc Ruby]

You're the one who has failed to learn from this debate. You lose because you insisted on victory or battle, rather than the chance to learn, and got nothing. I have learned that you can't understand a simple risk analysis. I win because I'm not wasting my time on schooling you any more, and I'm still right.

Sun Tzu is dead.

Re:Righteous

[Sj0]

The most important aspect you have to remember when applying the teachings of Sun Tzu is the realizing who your enemy is. Thus, a major part of winning the victory before the battle is realizing what victory is. In the context of this discussion, the one who I am trying to achieve victory over is untruth, not Random Guy On The Internet. I'm a reasonable person, so now I know the truth - that my original interpetation of the facts was mistaken. If I wanted to seek battle, I would have ignored that realization and fought you until I "won", regardless of the truth.

You're still making assumptions about me, then attacking those assumptions. Attacking paper tigers is never good policy.

Sun Tzu is a fictional character created by Chinese philosophers, as such, Sun Tzu cannot die.

Re:Righteous

[Trumpet of Doom]

If we're going to start complaining about dangerous topics, then perhaps we should stop reading any "debate" that, like this one, quickly transforms into a mudslinging match (at least, that's the impression I got from reading Doc Ruby's comments... yours don't seem quite so bad, though.) I guess it's a good thing /. doesn't let anyone find out someone else's snail mail address unless they're foolhardy enough to publish it on their user space page... otherwise, things would get really ugly. :)

Re:Righteous

[Moofie]

I dunno, I can take care of myself. Anybody who wants to come to my house to discuss my opinions would be well advised to remain polite. : )

Re:Righteous

[Trumpet of Doom]

Oh, it's not your well-being I'm really concerned about, it's the victim of the next genius that decides to take matters into his own hands... Staying polite would be a good idea, but I think my dog's loud enough to scare off any intruders (well, I hope so!). Just don't get on her bad side - we're trying to train her to bite on command, but it's not working.

Re:Righteous

[stupidfoo]

Wow, what a ridiculous little loophole you're trying to squirm yourself through. As if anyone would ever read your statement and think that you weren't implying they were an American. Whatever makes you feel better. Wear that asshat proudly.

Does anyone seriously believe...

[gnasher719]

that Apple would do anything because of Greenpeace?

Re:Does anyone seriously believe...

[vadim_t]

Yes.

Statistics from Wikipedia: $360 million revenue, 1800 employees, estimated 2.8M supporters.

Whatever you think about Greenpeace, the fact is that they're far from being insignificant.

New package probably worse.

[vitaflo]

The new Nano package is probably worse for the environment. While it is a lot smaller, it's also all thick plastic. The old Nano packaging was all cardboard and could at least be recycled. The new stuff will end up in a landfill.

Re:New package probably worse.

[Tim C]

Depending on the plastic it may well be recyclable.

Re:New package probably worse.

[vitaflo]

Depending on the plastic it may well be recyclable.

It's #7, non-recyclable.

Steve Jobs == Enviro-conscous

[ElitistWhiner]

I've been around since 1984 with the birth of Lisa, then Mac, then NeXT and now *Pod. At every instance of manufacturing, design drove process. Manufacturing computers is the nastiest most resource polluting industries on the planet. The very last accusation Greenpeace can find refuge is in holding Apple products to a higher standard than governmental agencies, its competitor's practices and those of the manufacturing industry.

My close friend and Greenpeace founder will have nothing to do with what become of his protest against logging practices in Canada for Greenpeace strongarm tactics.

Nice :)

[ghostbar38]

Let's buy from apple so they could be the first in green!! D'oh

Mirror

[Ankur Dave]

Mirrordot mirror for the lazy.

Trans Fat in Apple Newtons

[joe_n_bloe]

Oh, wait, that's a different Apple.

I say BS

[Udo Schmitz]

Well, if anyone thinks a company reduces the volume of packaging for environmental reasons, he should go see a doctor.

About the the inconsistencies and outright lies in Greenpeace' report read this, this and this.

Steve Jobs and environmental issues

[metamatic]

I guess all the Windows users at Slashdot who've suddenly discovered the Mac won't remember, but for years Apple used to ship all their machines in unbleached recycled cardboard boxes. They would put a flyer inside explaining why the computer was in a brown box.

Then Jobs returned to Apple, and suddenly everything had to be in glossy boxes, so it looked cool.

So yeah, I believe that Apple under Jobs has a bad environmental record.

Re:Steve Jobs and environmental issues

[fermion]

I am for minimizing packaging and costs, but there has to a broader agenda. Simply turning off the car and going for fast food, instead of leaving the car on when going through the drive through window, is not enough.

Likewise, the least of my concerns when it come to computers is the packaging and shipping. A bigger concern is that a computer dirty item to make. Therefore it should be a somewhat durable good, and last for 3-5 years. Many computers meet this requirement, either through allowing upgrades or building a long lasting product to begin with. Many manufacturers make good computers, including Apple, but many manufacturers make through away computers, again including Apple at the very low end. Shipping few more expensive units cuts down on packaging, as well as the other pollutants that result from the manufacturing process.

As far as the long term record. much of Apples progress or not, is based on consumer expectations and the retail price of the product. Apple was able to ship low radiation CRTs. That was because Apple could charge for these monitors, while other ship the more dangerous monitors, not because they did not car, but because it was not cost effective. Likewise, Apple went to LCD screens, which reduced the significantly reduces the power that the computer uses. Again they were able to do this because people will pay for apple products. The cheap PC manufacturers were not able to help save the planet because the consumer would not pay to so do.

In terms of the iPod we are at a potentially scary place. I like the original Mini packaging, even though it was wasteful. I worry the the iPod is going to lead to increased pollution because Apple needs to sell so many, and people may get a new one ever year. OTOH, the general MP3 market and online sales may eventual lead to a world in which we do not have to press pieces of plastic, many of which get thown away or end up littering the street. Recall the original CDs, which came in wasteful packaging so it could compete with LP.

The last piece was packaging. I wonder how many people buy breakfast cereal in the box instead of a plastic bag? Buy individually wrapped snacks instead of a big bag that can be separated into reusable containers? I in no way want to defend Apple because every large corporations has pressures that limit what it can and cannot do, and everything that business does is as likely to be caused by market pressures as otherwise. However, I will say two things. First, as responsible business will conform to market pressures. Second, the market pressures are created by the individual, so if consumers want change, writing blogs is not the way to make it happen. If you want less packaging, buy products will less packaging. For instance, if you want plain boxes, buy Apple refurbished, and save a packet in the process. That is what I have been doing.

Re:Steve Jobs and environmental issues

[Moofie]

OK.

Look at the packaging for a Mac Mini.

Now look at the packaging for a Dell tower.

Which has less environmental impact?

Re:Steve Jobs and environmental issues

[metamatic]

False dichotomy. I'm not saying Apple under Jobs is worse than Dell, I'm saying they're worse than Apple was before Jobs returned.

Look at the packaging for a PowerBook, and compare with the packaging for a MacBook. The PowerBook was all recycled brown cardboard and acid-free paper; the MacBook is all glossy-coated cardboard.

Re:Steve Jobs and environmental issues

[Moofie]

The packaging is lower volume. To me, that's a lot more important than whether or not it's glossy. Recycling glossy paper is not a big deal. Ever read a magazine?

Re:Steve Jobs and environmental issues

[metamatic]

The local recycling center won't take glossy cardboard, only brown corrugated. If it's not a big deal to recycle glossy cardboard, perhaps you could tell me where?

A quick search reveals plenty of places where only non-glossy cardboard can be recycled.

Re:Steve Jobs and environmental issues

[Moofie]

Huh. Never been a problem for me. Oh well.

Ever heard of "Reduce, reuse, recycle"?

Packaging has been reduced. I reuse the packaging, because it's small enough for me to store without losing an entire closet. I can put the packaging at the curb and it gets recycled.

Re:Steve Jobs and environmental issues

[porcupine8]

again including Apple at the very low end.

I don't think the Mini has been out quite long enough to make this kind of statement about it. Before the mini came along, I bought the cheapest Mac available - the eMac. I've had it for over four years now, and I have no intention of replacing it for probably another two years. I upgraded the RAM, and it has no problem doing everything I need it to do. I had to use DiskWarrior on it once when the hard drive went crazy, but DW salvaged all my data and I've had no problems in the year since. Overall, I think it's aging very nicely - you'd hardly know it was four years older than the nice Intel iMac I'm using here at work, except that it starts up a little slower.

In general, I think that Apple does a great job on the longevity of their computers. I don't know about iPods; I've heard a few stories of people still using their G1 or G2s, but more horror stories about needing replacement batteries. The computers, though, there are plenty of 5+ year old Macs out there chugging away with no problem. I don't think any Apple computer has ever been a "throw-away". They're generally built to last.

everything had to be in glossy boxes, so it looked

[Anonymous Coward]

"everything had to be in glossy boxes, so it looked cool."

Isn't that the entire story of all Apple merchandise?

Rebuttal

[Udo Schmitz]

And may I quote a part of the week old rebuttal also:

The basic problems in the Guide, which I originally critiqued in Top Secret: Greenpeace Report Misleading and Incompetent, were sidestepped in a rebuttal from Tom Dowdall of Greenpeace International, but the followup laptop lab test report seemed to indicate a new direction for Greenpeace: an interest in accuracy.

Picking up the Pieces
Stephen Russell, a materials consultant to the IT sector, explained that the complete disconnect between what Greenpeace reported in their Guide and what they actually found in their lab tests "proves three things:

* that the criteria used by Greenpeace to award HP pole position in last month's Guide to Greener Electronics clearly didn't account for what is actually happening on the ground today.

* that other manufacturers' computers really don't contain toxic chemicals in concentrations that are of concern.

* that Greenpeace has an inexhaustible level of funds to burn on a chemical campaign the basic chemical principles of which they sadly don't appear to understand."

Poison Apples?
Unfortunately, Greenpeace ignored their own very expensive lab reports to instead retreat back into sensationalism, fear mongering, and deception. The top story on Greenpeace International's press release blog is an entry titled "HP and Apple's toxic laptops exposed" which states:

"Some of the best-known laptops are contaminated with some of the worst toxic chemicals. Of the five top brands we tested Hewlett-Packard and Apple laptops showed the worst contamination levels."

After reporting that the testing found traces of chemicals in HP's laptop which HP's website "claims it removed from its products years ago," the press release then jumps on Apple. Under the headline Poison Apples, it claims:

"Apple has recently launched its new range of MacBooks, but what you also get with a new MacBook is the highest level of another type of toxic flame retardant, tetrabromobisphenol A. Apple claims it is looking for alternatives but for now it appears to be using far more of this toxic chemical than its competitors."

The Apple and the Environment website does claim Apple "is actively researching materials with better environmental features to replace tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBA)," and that "Many Apple products have enclosures made of inherently flame retardant aluminum and polycarbonate plastic, reducing the need for added flame retardants."

Under Attack
But is TBBA really one 'of the worst toxic chemicals,' and is true that "Apple's laptop shows the worst contamination levels?" Was Greenpeace lying in its press release?

Yes, Greenpeace lied to sensationalize a report it spent a lot of money on, but which didn't provide data the group wanted to hear. While the group's earlier press releases and information was mostly just incompetent and sloppy, the latest 'poison Apple' campaign was simply a malicious attack based upon lies.

[...]

The EU Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) reports it:

"agrees with the conclusion that there are no concerns for the carcinogenicity of tetrabromobisphenol A and supports conclusions ii) for all exposure scenarios since the Margin of Safety (MOS) are very large. Due to low systemic biovailability and efficient conjugation of the phenolic groups in tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), bioaccumulation of this compound is not considered to be of concern."

In EU Risk Assessments, a "conclusion ii)" means that there is no need for further information or testing and no need for risk reduction measures. That's why TBBA isn't even regulated under the strict RoHS guidelines. Greenpeace knows this, but this fact does not fit into their fear mongering campaign.

[...]

In this email, Greenpeace claimed Apple "has a very poor environmental policy," but he facts are that Apple is recognized as a leader in environmental policy by the Sierra Club, and that Greenpeace was unable to find a

Do the Editors Read the Site?

[mrfett]

So I'm just wondering... we all had a discussion a few weeks ago about how Greenpeace released a report that was critical of Apple. In our discussion it came to light that the report was unfair, and that in fact, Apple's record seems to be at least as good as the companies on the top of the list. We determined that the criteria Greenpeace used to rank the companies was unscientific and arbitrary.

Now, several weeks later, an article is posted referencing some guy's blog who has just now discovered the Greenpeace report and wants to pontificate on why Steve Jobs mentioned environmental concerns in his keynote. Why is this on Slashdot? It's old news, and it's been proven FUD.

Something that might be interesting, though, is whether or not Steve added the environmental bit to the speech because he was miffed at the obviously biased greenpeace report. He probably wanted to get Apple's concern for the environment into the press releases, which he succeeded at doing. This helped overwhelm any bad press Apple may have gotten earlier. Jobs knows his shit, and his small blurb about packaging achieved just the result he was looking for.

How the HELL is this "story" worthy of /. coverage

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA is an opinion blog post that cites Greenpeace. Come on, editors. I'm used to the Slashdot-quo, but this is just effing ridiculous. As if the author of TFA knows a bloody thing about why SJ changed up packaging. Again, he cites Greenpeace for crying out loud. Hardly a reliable source. The post is a tirade -- nothing informational about it.

Not overnight

[cpct0]

Great article ... with many problems ...

Including the discovery of the "oh so new" page for Environment. Strange that I used to visit that page back then ... and a very quick inquiry revealed the result:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.apple.com/ environment/

2004 huh? Yep, I'd say it's overnight.

Psychotic Rant

[catdevnull]

Ok, I'm about o go off on Greenpeace and all the wanna-be idealist hippies out there...just skip this or mod me down for my lack of tact, flamebaiting, or going off-top but this needs to be said:

Let me just say that most people aren't really serious about being "green." If they were, they'd just STOP being consumer whores altogether. However, being green is en vogue and cool. Why? Because all of the efforts and publicity stunts done by Greenpeace and their compadres are nothing more than fertilizer for the "green marketing" corporate marketing spin doctors come up with to sell more products that aren't really any better for the environment than before. If you're "green," congratulations; you're now a front-and-center marketing demographic. All that marketing plays up to your green sympathies and they guilt you into buying anything with a "green" sticker the've re-branded just for you.

Greenpeace activists seem to think that they're making a difference but I don't think they are anything more than unemployed idealists who hate authority. I don't mean to sound like a Philistine Republican but, c'mon--you people look like a bunch of kooks. Organizations that do all kinds of crazy stunts (that are oftentimes, ironically, hazardous to the environment) lose their message in the medium.

Apple's new "green" marketing plan is nothing more than damage control. They know that most consumers don't truly care and that a "green" sticker on the box makes them feel better about their purchase.

Even if my Macs and my iPod are full of poisons and environmental hazards, it's ultimately up to me, the consumer, to dispose them properly or have them recycled. That's really the problem--people who throw shit away that shouldn't be in the landfill.

Obvious joke (now that I've had a beer)

[Mistshadow2k4]

Someone painted him?

Is there a point that I'm missing?

[beaverfever]

So Jobs claims Apple is being more green in its business practices, and this guy throws around some sort of low-end consipiracy theory of the "real" reasons Apple is going green, and then at the end of his article says he wishes Apple would be more green in its business practices. wtf?

Recycling

[Da3vid]

This isn't Apple's first step, but previous steps involved a lot of pushing... check here http://www.texasenvironment.org/news_story.cfm?IID =217

Greener than Gore

[abh]

He might as well get green, because the reality is that the greenies' spokesman Mr. Gore in reality lives a life of excess.

Re:Greener than Gore

[Bing Tsher E]

algore isn't the 'Green's spokesman.' In fact, he ran AGAINST the green candidate in the 2000 election.

algore is just a party hack from one of the two wings of the big stupid bird called 'the US political bird.' (Right wing labeled 'Republican' and left wing labeled 'democrat' but attached and just one big stupid bird.)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Huh?

[Sir Holo]

How is it "not so very nice"?

Greenpeace issued a report ranking manufacturers according to how "green" they are. In response, one of the companies decided to change their packaging to increase their rank.

That is the whole point of such rankings and Greenpeace PR campaigns. It looks like it worked. Good for them.

MODERN SLAVERY!

[Anonymous Coward]

So Apple is one of those companies who practise modern slavery ? Macworld article here.

greenpeace is always right!

[minus_273]

just listen to what the founder said about greenpeace's opposition to nukes in the 70. Such wonderful foresight has been a great boon to the environment.

Campaign on the Greenpeace site

[Incadenza]

Seems like a third-hand account of the Greenpeace campaign I love my Mac. I just wish it came green. I like the fact that Greenpeace ripped of all the Apple style elements for this campaign, calaculating that Apple would not dare to sue them over this - would be more much attention to a campaign Apple would like to ignore.

Numbers lie

[ryanhos]

The "52% less volume" nano packaging sounds like an impressive statistic, but if one takes a closer look, it will become clear that this is just an inflated number that was quoted to sound good.

1.) The Nano packaging is quite small as it is. Volume is not the major factor when calculating the fossil fuel required to ship these things from the asian sweatshops to the apple stores around the world. Weight is the key factor.

2.) The heaviest part of a nano package is the nano itself. I don't own a nano, but my shuffle (a gift from an employer) came with an overgrown instruction manual, which was actually the heaviest part of that package. I imagine that the nano contains a similar manual. The outer packaging materials were awfully light compared to the contents tiny contents.

3.) Volume and surface area (and thus, packaging weight) do not vary linearly. A 52% reduction in overall volume does not equal even half a reduction in packaging weight.

If the reduction in package weight due to this green-ification were even remotely significant, Jobs would have quoted that number. Instead, he got us all to ooh, and ah at a big, insignificant number.

**rethinking here**
i suppose that a 52% reduction in volume does mean that they can ship these things across the ocean in about half as many containers. If the weight of a container's worth of nano boxes is insignificant in comparison to the weight of the actual container, then perhaps my previous argument is incorrect since the additional container weight will be saved. However, if the weight of the nano boxes is significant, then we're still only seeing a fossil fuel efficiency increase of 20-30%. Don't get me wrong, that's nothing to sneeze at, but I wish they'd quote a number with REAL meaning, rather than the bigger, but insignificant, number.

This all reminds me of a car commercial in San Antonio (where dumb math rules) that advertises, "Did you know that for every mile per hour you drive over 60, your fuel prices go up by 13 cents per gallon." (Disclaimer: My memory of the quote probably suffers minor inconsistencies with the actual quote, but the I took care not to change the concept at all.) Everytime I see that commercial, I just want to call them up and ask how they arrived at that $0.13/gallon figure.

Re:Numbers lie

[Brietech]

Hey, at least in your comment about weight vs. volume in shipping costs, I would argue that you're fairly wrong. One of the largest "costs" is just the truck transporting itself, so if you can increase the density if goods on the truck, it saves money/resources/fossil fuels, etc. Try the following example:
Moving 1000 ipods from a packaging center to a store.
Using large packaging: say, 200 ipods can go per truck
Using smaller packaging: 500 ipods per truck, but the truck's weight is also increased somewhat
=> large package=5 trips, not to mention the trucks are transporting more weight total (1000 ipods, plus more packaging)
  smaller package= 2 trips, and less overall weight (though higher density)

The individual journey of the truck might burn more fuel, but there would be way fewer shipments and significantly less fuel burnt overall

Re:Numbers lie

[ryanhos]

Your comment is spot on. I think you missed my second-to-last paragraph (**rethinking here**) where I mentioned the weight of the container (aka: cargo ship container, which incidentally becomes your intermodal semi trailer) vs. the weight of the contents. I think the specific sentence you neglected to read is: "If the weight of a container's worth of nano boxes is insignificant in comparison to the weight of the actual container, then perhaps my previous argument is incorrect since the additional container weight will be saved." This sentence sums up your entire counter to my argument. Next time, RTWFCBR (Read The Whole Freakin Comment Before Replying).

Furthermore and lastly, the amount of fossil fuel required to source, produce, and deliver (to the assembly facility) said reduced packaging is greater than the fossil fuel required to deliver the finished nano to your door. Thus, a more significant reduction of weight would save a greater amount of fossil fuel before the nano even got put inside the box. (Since you're likely to be a software engineer, you should be familiar with the idea of applying the most optimization effort to the code that gets executed the most.) Steve's short-sighted view of how reducing the packaging volume will reduce his bottom line shows that this is less of a green-motivated action and more of a move to save himself a few $$.

Ok, I lied. This is the last paragraph. It appears that the new box the nano ships in (seen here is plastic, whereas the original box (here) was completely paper. Sure, it costs less to ship them now, but it costs so much more (in fossil fuel volume) to produce that plastic box! This isn't a green-motivated move at all! Heck, it probably weighs more than the original! That's why he used the bogus volume statistic!

Re:Numbers lie

[Quila]

The heaviest part of a nano package is the nano itself. I don't own a nano, but my shuffle (a gift from an employer) came with an overgrown instruction manual, which was actually the heaviest part of that package

My new nano came with a small fold-out flyer with the basic instructions, cable, earphones and adapter. It's also missing the CD for the software. It is a smaller, lighter package.

Everytime I see that commercial, I just want to call them up and ask how they arrived at that $0.13/gallon figure.

It's a generalization that is most likely not correct for you. The actual optimum speed for fuel efficiency for any car is a complex calculation of many factors, including engine and drivetrain efficiency, accessories using power, aerodynamics, tires, road surface, air density, etc., and therefore any number given must be for one exact model of car driven in a specific manner in a specific environment.

A simple factor: Air conditioning ups the optimum speed of the car a bit. It helps to drive faster to get where you're going because the A/C is a constant drain on your power (thus using fuel), and getting there faster will have this drain going for a shorter amount of time.

Since they were trying to get your speed down, they probably picked a car with the worst possible results.

Apple recycled

[pbjones]

Apple used to be green with the use of plain brown recycled cardboard boxes, soy inks, no foam etc. But people don't buy brown boxes...

Re:Apple recycled

[Bing Tsher E]

People weren't buying brown boxes back then, either. They were buying Apple Computer hardware.

But Jobs 'saved the company' by turning the whole business into a marketing-first operation. All happy and shiney marketing.

How Steve Jobs got green overnight?

[mr_nuff]

For some reason I was expecting TFA to be about a late night sushi craving gone wrong.

G'peace or Chinese labor?

[yusing]

Greenpeace, huh? That wouldn't have been my guess he brought up green.

I think it has to do with the Chinese manufacturing the iPod, sleeping 100 in a dorm, getting $50 a month.

If he can't do anything about that ... *something* green will have to do.

Re:Err... Batteries?

[skroz]

I suspect that it was done intentionally. The batteries used will typically last only three years or so, rendering the device essentially useless after their expiration. It goes beyond planned obsolescence... it's forced obsolescence. Apple is perfectly happy to sell everyone a new iPod every three years.

The battery issue is the primary reason that I will not buy an iPod. Like you, I'm somewhat disgusted by the fact that the product is expected to end up in a landfill (battery and all) in a relatively short period of time. That, and I'm not too happy about shelling out $250+ for an item that I know will "break" soon after I buy it. I know we're heading towards a disposable society and all, but come one!

I still have a Panasonic boom box I bought in 1990. The speakers are just as loud as they were sixteen years ago, the radio still works, and the CD player still plays CDs. Sure, the dual-cassette player is broken, but who still uses tape, anyway? I've bought plenty of better players since, but that one is still works just fine in my workshop.

Show me an iPod that'll still function in 2022 (not to mention in extreme and changing winter/summer temperatures as well as surrounded by sawdust and metal shavings) and I'll buy one.

Two Words: Al Gore

[Anonymous Coward]

He's on Apple's board of directors. Nuff said.

Re:everything had to be in glossy boxes, so it loo

[soft_guy]

Obviously, mr coward, you didn't even read the post you are replying to. The older stuff was in unbleached recycled cardboard - and it was that way for a long time before Jobs came back and changed the packaging.

Re:Err... Batteries?

[soft_guy]

The iPod's nearly seamless design results in there being no easy way to actually replace the battery

That is completely false. It is very quick and easy to replace the battery in an iPod. I bought a kit from then and replaced the battery in my 2nd Gen iPod in maybe 5 minutes.

Re:Err... Batteries?

[soft_guy]

Show me an iPod that'll still function in 2022

Not possible since it is only 2006. However, I would bet that in 2022 it will be possible to buy a working unit of any model of iPod you want via eBay (or the 2022 equivalent of eBay.) The problem is that you may not have a computer with USB or Firewire to attach it to in 2022.

Help Apple be greener...

[Fluoxetine Freak]

...and buy white i-pods to help increase the planetary albedo.

Should we care?

[bluephone]

Frankly, I for one do not care if a company does an environmentally responsible thing for purely fiscal or public image reasons. And I don't think the enviroment cares either. I've never really been one to flip out about the right thing being done for the wrong reasons.

no, no, no

[Anonymous Coward]

they've represented the right thing for years...

how many environmentalists have been using Apple products?

a greater percentage than in other industries....

juice up your brain, naturally

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Err... Batteries?

[Ullteppe]

Many computers still have RS-232 (came to life in the 70s), and if you don't there are USB-RS232 converters. So, I'm pretty sure that you will at least find whiz-bang->USB converters in 2022. However, it may be more difficult to run iTunes in 2022. Still, I can run 1980s software inside of DOSbox, so probably there will be emulators as well.

iMac and the good design award

[Anonymous Coward]

back in the last century, Apple lost out on a 'Good Design' award due to the iMac use of plastic which was heavy with Biphenol-A.

"overnight"

[AlgorithMan]

this was not "overnight"! this report about how "green" which company is, is over a month old!
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/28/111206

I wonder if Apple had changed anything if that report had gotten no attention by the media

yes, batteries

[Scudsucker]

Lots of devices use non-easily replaceable batteries, but only Apple get's bitched at. I don't see people complaining here that the Dell DigitalDJ is just like the iPod in this respect. If you don't want to get a kit and do it yourself, Apple charges $50 to replace an iPod battery. Or if you abosolutely want a player that uses simple AA's, then buy one. Either way, stop whining.

Europeans prefer less packaging

[Che Guevarra]

Widely known fact: Europeans are more sensitive to environmental packaging concerns than Americans at this time. Just a marketing move, everyone relax ...