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

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... ;)

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...

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:Mirror?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Mirror?

[LotsOfPhil]

mirrordot

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.

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.

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.

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: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.