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

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

[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]

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

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...

Real greens would dump the consumerist iPod

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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...

[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.

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...

[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."

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

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]

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.

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.

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