Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lenovo Tops Eco-Friendly Ranking

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the laptop-hugging dept.

gollum123 writes to tell us that according to a recent list compiled by Greenpeace, Lenovo has topped the list of "eco-friendly" companies scoring an 8 out of a possible 10 while Apple fell to the bottom of the list with only a 2.7. "Iza Kruszewska, Greenpeace international toxics campaigner, said the industry had made some positive steps in the last 12 months with firms starting to act rather than just issue statements of intent. Of the 14 companies profiled, said Ms Kruszewska, nine now score more than five out of 10."

11 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. But apples grow on trees by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 4, Funny

    But apples grow on trees, you can't get any greener than that.

    Mind you, think of the poor turtles murdered each year for Steve Jobs' wardrobe.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  2. All you do is promise you'll be good by saikou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Say, in 2009 and you get the top billing.
    Greenpeace is weird. But we already know that :)

    --
    Hyperom.com
    1. Re:All you do is promise you'll be good by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Greenpeace's claims have been analyzed in this BusinessWeek article and....

      That business week article is the same article the OP posted - just syndicated on a different website. Do you read the threads you're responding to?

      ....and in a series of articles at roughlydrafted.com.

      Roughly drafted? Sorry. They have no credibility after being busted spamming digg

      One conclusion both sources make is that Greenpeace applies different criteria to different companies and seems to be targeting Apple due to the company's visibility.

      Errrr, I didn't read that conclusion in the Business week article. Can you please explain how Greenpeace is applying different criteria to different companies?

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  3. As a thinkpad owner; its so obvious by arcite · · Score: 4, Funny
    It's simple really. Thinkpads are so well made that they never need to be replaced.

    Incidently mine is in the shop with a dead processor cooling fan unit, soon to be replaced. Just testing the faith in the black monolith, thats all.

  4. Why Apple came last .... by Qwavel · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Apple came last in this ranking because, when they've done poorly in this ranking in the past, they sent out the PR attack dogs to undermine GP and the study, rather then making any changes to the practices in question.

    Of course, many companies behave this way. When MS discovered during the anti-trust trials that the public's perception of them was a problem, they too responded with PR rather then changing their behavior.

    Yes, Yes, I know that both GP and this study are far from perfect, but they are a more objective judge of this matter then Apple itself (or the Apple fanboys who are modding me down as we speak).

    1. Re:Why Apple came last .... by smithwis · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

  5. You want an eco-friendly computer? Here it is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Check it out here:

    The Damn Small Machine!

    This guy is the same guy who produces the distro Damn Small Linux. The distro is basically Knoppix cut down to fit within a 50MB CD. Well, he decided, being a tree-hugger California type, to build fanless and low-power boxes for people to buy. They use VIA's low-power (8 watt peak) x86 "Eden" CPU's and are actually pretty good.

    There are now even newer ones by other folks which use the VIA C7; I saw a couple of models at TigerDirect. The C7, while requiring a fan for the highest CPU speeds, goes up to 2.0GHz and uses 20W at full tilt, max. If I didn't already have a bunch of computers (I'm an IT consultant), I'd have bought one already. Matter of fact, my next one will indeed be one of these.

  6. Re:Bah. by owlnation · · Score: 5, Informative

    Greenpeace has no credibility on this subject.
    Absolutely 100% correct! Greenpeace has very little credibility in most subjects. They have considerable history with manipulating data to suit their fund raising profile, and have been caught doing on a number of occasions - Bret Spar is one example, though others can be found easily . Remember Greenpeace is NOT a charity. Historically, they have provably lied to make money.

    Environmental economics was the subject I studied at university; I have undertaken environmental assessments in the field. .To perform a fair, accurate and precise assessment of a company's environmental impact requires weeks, if not months, of intensive on-site research and measurement. It requires full access to all processes within the company, and access to privileged information.

    There is no way Greenpeace has access to this information. A true and fair assessment cannot be done externally. This is a fund raising publicity stunt and absolutely nothing more. It has no credible science or economics behind it whatsoever.
  7. Re:Toxic substances? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 5, Funny

    However, Lenovo lost marks for still using some of the most toxic substances to make its products.

    Yeah, but they're doing that in China, which as we all know, Doesn't Count.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  8. Re:Most unexpected by wellingj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So buy a Panasonic ToughBook. Engineered and Made in Japan, and aguably more bomb proof than a ThinkPad.

    --
    Money is the root of all evil?
  9. Something seems fishy.... by God+of+Lemmings · · Score: 4, Informative

    This seems to be part of a campaign bend apple into more of a green product.

    On their own page, they go as far as manipulating the truth to make it appear that
    Apple is doing less work than it is actually doing: http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/about.html

    "Apple finally came around to a limited recycling program in the US, but they can do better."

    This is worded as if it just happened recently. Except that the US (and Japan) take-back program started
    up in 2002. (Announced in 2001) It includes not only recycling of its own computers, but also other
    vendor's computers and monitors. I wonder which way they consider this to be "limited"?

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

    The images at the top of the Greenpeace site show Chinese children holding color iMac keyboards dating
    before 2000.... before recycling programs in the US and Asia actually existed.

    The page is designed to get Apple to do two things:
            * Remove the worst toxic chemicals from all their products and production lines.
            * Offer and promote free "take-back" for all their products everywhere they are sold.

    The question here is, is it reasonable to persecute Apple for not meeting an arbitrarily set "worst toxic chemicals" goal? And I say this because "worst toxic chemicals" is fairly ambiguous.
    They recycle plastics, foam, paper and whatnot from their products, they follow a number of environmental standards in the US and Europe and maintain their own.

    Should Apple offer free "take-back" worldwide? Even Levono doesn't do so.
    http://www.pc.ibm.com/ww/lenovo/about/environment/ ptb_us.html

    However, in the very least, it should be reasonable for Apple to accept recycled equipment worldwide, if at
    a fee.

    --
    Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.