Slashdot Mirror
Jobs Responds to Greenpeace FUD
EccentricAnomaly writes "Steve Jobs has posted a response on the Apple homepage to the Greenpeace Green My Apple campaign in which he basically makes a case for the Greenpeace campaign being a heaping pile of FUD. On one hand, you could say that Greenpeace shouldn't expect a company that has spent years battling Microsoft to just roll over. On the other, it looks like Apple is agreeing to do most of what Greenpeace has been demanding."
Yes, he did, because he's Steve Jobs.
That's the first Apple related story I've read in ages that didn't mention the iPhone. Is Steve feeling OK?
Apple can do whatever they want to turn green, but some environmentalist won't be satisfied until every single human being on this planet is extinct.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
Apple has already generously moved manufacturing to other countries so the poorest of people could have jobs. If Green Peace really cared about the people of the world they'd buy TWO iPods so the poor people could get twice the wages.
If you were following this, you would have known that Greenpeace scored Apple really low due to other companies having given commitments to reduce this or that whereas Apple had not given such commitments. Basically Apple was being secretive and GP didn't like that. Apple likes to do stuff, not say stuff. And that serves them pretty well when it comes to the market because they get a lot of free publicity that way.
In this case, I think Apple doesn't really give much away in terms of new products while still being able to publish a timeline for reducing harmful substances used in their products.
I didn't realize I could get a 10% discount on a new iPod by trading in my old one. If my current one ever breaks, I will keep that in mind.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Is it not possible that Greenpeace started this campaign to pressure Apple to become more green precisely because they figured Apple would be the computer company most likely to respond? If so, it seems like Apple has done precisely what Greenpeace hoped they would do: they publicized their environmental impact to date, and promised to publicize further efforts to improve that impact in the future. In this way, Apple now becomes a valuable part of Greenpeace's efforts to get all computer manufacturers to become more green.
The poster doesn't say "Jobs says Greenpeace is FUD" or anything like that. No, he says "Job Responds to Greenpeace FUD". Could a title GET any more biased than that?
Grammar Nazi
Product take back A basic environmental principle is that if you make and sell a product you should be responsible for that product when it is no longer wanted. This is also a basic rule for children: you clean up your own mess.
Since when are manufacturers responsible of how people dispose of their product? Once I buy a product, is it not then my own? There's a difference between replacing faulty hardware and being responsible for the trash that accumulates after someone decides they want a shinier product than the one they already own.
Am I completely missing the point here?
Jebus X Allah, Slashdot really took fanboying to a new level here.
RTA. Throughout, Jobs makes comparisons to other companies in the Greenpeace Electronics Guide. He then writes:
I know editorial standards are pretty low on Slashdot, but unless it wishes to be seen taking sides it needs to know when to quote pieces of text. You never know, one day it might make a big difference in a court case.
that Apple isn't yet where Greenpeace wants them to be, but they're much farther ahead than Greenpeace claims they *were* -- and furthermore, are much farther ahead than most other companies in the industry are *now*.
I'd consider that at least partial FUD on the part of Greenpeace.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Well, that's settled. Except for the "I want it GREEN" part, apple forgot to announce a line of macs coloured in GREEN!
From TFA: "It is generally not Apple's policy to trumpet our plans for the future; [...]"
Holy crap, get out! No way!
So why, if the story is about Apple is the article mentioning MS? Why if some other story is about Linuzz or whatever is necesary to mention MS? Why that fixation? Yes, it's easy to use MS as the source of everything evil just to move the focus, but anyway... A cheap trick.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
I'm a crazy neo-hippie vegetarian and even I don't listen to greenpeace(or were aware they were still around). Yeah, polluters are bad, but greenpeace doesn't help.
He simply explains that Apple doesn't usually advertise its future plans in regards to environment but, since there have been much concern, he is going to go ahead and outline them.
Interestingly, Greenpeace has responded already, demanding more action, specifically, the products being green from the outset. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/tastygreenapple
Lenovo, et al., have not implemented enviro-friendly policies. They have announced that someday they *intend* to implement... stuff.
Apple, OTOH, has implemented enviro-friendly policies.
Now, I don't have a particular stance on this issue - all companies could use some work on environmental friendliness, and Apple seemed to be singled out - but that title is just a tad inflammatory.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
from this truck.
As I understand it, the Greenpeace fud was about how Apple was terribly bad for the environment, not that they just had room for improvement. The EPA results showed that Apple is no worse that the rest of the machines, as many of their products recieved silver and none of any company recieved higher. The fud was in Greenpeace's hyperbole, as usual.
That is to say, it's like saying Al Gore is worse for the environment than anybody else just because his home is inefficient and doesn't use solar. Because Al Gore later had the upgrades done and solar installed, does not mean he is or was worse than most other people for the environment; just that he, like apple, had (has) room for improvement.
Demented But Determined.
I totally agree. You bought it. Your responsible. Yesterday, half the internet was complaining that DRM limits ownership. We live in a immature society that only wants ownership for the frosting, and not the sh*t.
and Apple is not the only one.
We can either use a market system like Germany and Denmark do, where all manufacturers have to pay true costs for pollution and recycling, and in-source it, or we can pretend that PCs are pollution free.
But, image is important. Just ask BP PLC, with their Beyond Petroleum slogan, after all the disasters with pipelines, refineries, and other ecological bad things.
So, maybe Jobs should ask himself: "What can I do to make it better that is fairly easy."
One thing is power consumption - and on this score, the Mac Mini with a flat LCD monitor is pretty good.
Another thing is less packaging - or making it recylable.
Yet another idea is to do what they already do and take back old Apple products and recycle them.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Green peaces relavance has always been questionable. Most academic enviromental scientist despise them and groups like them because they target high profile but ussually unimportant causes. Diverting attention from real problems. For instance you could kill every spotted owl in existsance and it would not effect the basic ecology of the area. Other species will take up the niche the spotted. Almost all north american endangered species have a more successful cousin. Their loss isnt' significant. But more obscure causes like land preservation efforts in the amazon don't get the same headlines. Similiar groups like PETA also actively impede preservation efforts liek culling of certain animals to avoid a population crash. Enviromental Stewardship involves more then hugging fury things which a lot of activist organization don't acknowlege.
Nuclear energy and research which reduces the amount of damage energy generation causes is protested byt hese groups too. There are arguements against nuclear but they are more valid for the US. In canada our nuclear energy policies tend to be saner. But there is still a stigma about nuclear energy and it's mostly due to misinformation form media and groups like green peace.
For nuclear, it's not about IF we us eit it's abotu When and for how long.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Yes, but has Fake Steve Jobs posted a reply yet? That'll be the one worth reading.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Wait a second, they're talking about RECYCLING computers? I didn't know people throws them away. Maybe I'm just too much of a geek.
Though there's really nothing to suggest it, I could really imagine Microsoft giving Greenpeace a big bunch of money (FSVO "big") and asking them to trash talk Apple. Microsoft, IMHO, is not above doing this to disparage a competitor, and, IMHO, Greenpeace is not above doing it for the bux either.
How would anybody know?
I don't know about how Apple disposes of their waste, but I do know that their packaging is not environmentally friendly: Apple still uses lots of styrofoam and plastic bags. Those are not only bad for the environment, they're also a pain to get rid of.
And no other reason.
I know it's a stretch for the average Slashdotter, and the comments already posted reinforce that notion, but RTFA.
Apple has met or exceeded environmental standards in just about every respect. They've been doing it for years. Longer than most tech companies.
So what are they really guilty of? What got Greenpeace's panties in a twist? Two things:
First, Apple didn't publicize their work. They pulled a Nike and "Just did it" instead of talking about it. For this Greenpeace ranked Apple lower than other companies that just talk about doing it. Because Apple had the audacity to implement things without talking about it, they've been marked.
Second, Apple has become amazingly successful thanks in no small part to the success of iPod/iTunes and Steve Jobs. I personally hate that they killed the Newton, but I love the price of my Apple stock. This makes Apple the "publicity target." If you want publicity, mention something really negative about Apple.
Greenpeace is media whore mongering. Plain and simple.
I for one am glad that Apple has responded, perhaps not directly to Greenpeace but in a round about way they bitch slapped them. Greenpeace deserves it. The organization should either do real work, or disappear. This attempt to keep themselves relevant is a joke. Greenpeace made no attempt to measure or show in any statistically sound way the real efforts by the companies they ranked.
Lead by example. Apple's got a history of that.
What's Greenpeace got? A bunch of nut cases who signed a petition against dihydrogen-monoxide?
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-38781988658601"The avalanch has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh
that every Greenpeace mouthpiece is an attention whoring asshat out to take away the outdoors from everyone but the elite.
:-( I'm posting as an Anonymous Coward cause that AssHat is still in town.
For example several years ago the "Grand Dragon" of the local chapter of Greenthugs in Scottsdale Az ran an oil changing station. Great environmentally responsible job. One day while getting my Dad's oil changed I ask him if I could bring by a gallon of used oil I removed from some equipment at home, no problem he says. So I show up with a gallon of used oil and my XR650 dirt bike in the back of my OHMYGOD 4x4 Nissan, he freaks out. Tells me to F'off because I'm some kind of environmental terrorist. So next thing I know I have some guy from the state investigating me and threating to dig up my yard to see were I poured the oil!! Guess I shouldn't have paid for the oil change with a check
B.S. about apple already being green isn't interesting... even oil companies say they are "green".
What is WAY more interesting to me is this:
We plan to introduce our first Macs with LED backlight technology in 2007.
You're the consumers of Apple's products, and you've proven you make a real difference. You convinced one of the world's most cutting edge companies to peel the toxic ingredients out of the products they sell. They make it sound as if Jobs has changed Apple's environmental policy. He hasn't. From Apple's site: It is generally not Apple's policy to trumpet our plans for the future; we tend to talk about the things we have just accomplished. Unfortunately this policy has left our customers, shareholders, employees and the industry in the dark about Apple's desires and plans to become greener. Our stakeholders deserve and expect more from us, and they're right to do so. They want us to be a leader in this area, just as we are in the other areas of our business. So today we're changing our policy. It's very clear that the policy that Apple has changed is it's policy of telling others its future plans, at least with respect to Apple's green plans. The plans it has for improving its environmental policies are not changes - they are existing plans.
Doing something this transparently misleading - although not explicitly dishonest - is not going to help them in a public debate that is entirely about credibility. They just crumpled theirs up and tossed it in the waste basket.
By the power invested in me, I demand you to
Hand-in your troll card for failing to find a reliable server to host the image of your troll.
Jobs is agreeing that Apple is still producing a lot of toxic waste, so I think it's unjustified to call Greenpeace's message "FUD". What Jobs is saying is that the company is aware of the problem and has already been trying to address it, and that they are actually ahead of the competition. He is also saying that Apple hasn't communicated very clearly about it in the past and that they will improve this.
It seems to me that both Greenpeace and Jobs are doing their jobs, and there really isn't any big disagreement.
From Apples Release:
From the Greenpeace response:
Umm
Way to go making it seem like you're important, having an impact, and therefore worthy of large $$$ donations.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Want to give us some green to celebrate a greener apple?
OMG! I'm so happy I'm just throwing money all around.
Too bad you aren't here greenpeace.
Judging by what Greenpeace has been saying about Apple lately and how it has all turned out to be false, I think the title is rather tame actually. Some of Greenpeace's statements have been borderline libelous. How sad that such a once noble group has sunk to the level of scam marketeering.
Speaking as someone who grew up in the land where Greenpeace was founded, has been to protests they organised etc. (I even went to their first "Save the Whales" benefit event), I am shocked at their (now) cheap grandstanding behaviour. I am as left-wing as it gets, (to me Barak Obama is a little too conservative), but even I don't buy into that crap they have been spewing lately.
What's worse, is that Greenpeace's campaign against Apple seems personally and selfishly motivated instead of a campaign in support of the cause of environmentalism. If they published such lies and misinformation because they were foolish or mis-informed, that would be one thing, but it seems that their only motivation was to force Apple to knuckle under to their way of doing and reporting things.
GreenPeace was fully aware that Apple was not in fact the worst polluter, fully aware that it had rather a good record both overall and relative to companies that GreenPeace had conversely rated very highly. Yet because Apple refused to play their game, they put them at the top of a list of companies with bad environmental records? That is classic FUD.
Not only did Jobs make it clear that Apple was more about action than posturing, but he gave clear, concrete examples of how Apple was already ahead of the game. And it's perfectly within character for Apple not to announce future plans. For them to break from this tradition indicates that there has been a strong pull on the demand side. Combined with the recent excellent financial results, the upcoming launch of the iPhone and the release of Leopard later this year, this latest announcement will keep them in headlines for a while. Good play, Apple PR, good play.
So I'd like to ask the submitter to gather around her or his thoughts and decide whether:
1. Greenpeace arguments are FUD, or
2. Jobs thinks Greanpeace arguments are FUD, or
3. Greenpeace is telling the truth (and Apple is indeed using hazardous materials, intentionally harming its workers' health abroad and the environment).
Which one is it? I know what Apple is (a corporation after profit, just like Microsoft ), so I pretty much know who's telling the truth in this case.
Greenpeace is simply anti-capitalist. Apple's iPod is the latest example of capitalism at work. You make a superior product, the market rewards you. Greenpeace hates to see this happen, so they go on the offensive. Screw Greenpeace, in my opinion.
~ now you know
We're actually doing better than most of our competitors; however, we don't usually publish it. Take that Greenpeace, bi-otch!
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
As all Apple aficionados know, the real interesting information in Steve's post is about future product announcements. Thank you Greenpeace!
"We plan to introduce our first Macs with LED backlight technology in 2007." and "Apple plans to completely eliminate the use of arsenic in all of its displays by the end of 2008."
So all Macs should have LED displays by end of 2008. Think of the battery life for the MacBooks!
Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
I mean, they do such a good job providing sensible information on nuclear power, the Chernobyl diasaster and numerous other topics...
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
You know, I've heard that excuse from day one in Econ 100, all the way thru Econ 400 level courses, usually from people who don't actually have a real understanding of how markets actually function, what the preconditions for a market are, or why it's wrong.
Pollution exists. The fact that prior economists have been unwilling - or at best, unable - to properly account for it, merely shows their lack of skill and comprehension.
Consumers in fact don't tend to pay all the costs, depending on inflection points on the supply demand curve (and the Laffer curve is a joke, by the way), and it is normally more efficient in a market to impose such costs on a manufacturer or supplier than on a consumer.
Let's just do a word exercise. Basic Econ. Let's say you want to alter packaging wastage. Your view suggests we should impose it at the consumer level, whereas my more efficient and productive view says let's address it with all producers.
Since there are hundreds of millions of consumers, and only a handful of producers, my view is correct.
This is what Green GDP is all about. Using the invisible hand of the marketplace to measure goods and bads. Not just goods.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You might want to read http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview. cfm/oid/131
Be sure to take note of the connections mentioned in the "motivations" section.
=======
"I had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates. Clearly, my former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don't care about the truth."
-- Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder, writing in Canada's National Post
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
"...it looks like Apple is agreeing to do most of what Greenpeace has been demanding..."
"...it looks like Apple is doing some good stuff that Greenpeace is also very vocal about..."
Correlation does not imply causation.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Greenpeace is not working against these companies, it is really working with them to help reduce the environmental mess. Much of the environmental cost is driven by rampant consumerism and a quest for dollar cost over other costs. Highlighting environmental responsibility via the ipod sends a very strong message because the ipod is used by so many people.
Perhaps in a while people will be prepared to pay a premium (??$5?? per ipod, ??$20?? per laptop etc) for proper environmental handling.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I lost all respect for Greenpeace when they came out opposing nuclear power.
So, you're French, then?
If Greenpeace says that computer companies should reduce lead and Apple isn't doing it, "Apple isn't doing it" is the part that is FUD, and "computer companies should reduce lead" is Greenpeace's demand that Apple agrees with. There is no logical contradiction.
It's pretty easy to brag that you recycle a high percentage of your systems when you have a market share that is probably around 5%. If you've got something like 14% market share in the PC market, it suddenly becomes an order of magnitude or two harder from a logistical standpoint to recycle all your old systems.
How many people just throw out old hardware, anyway, without even bothering to check into recycling options?
I do find it admirable, however, if they are indeed reducing the amount of hazardous and/or potentially hazardous chemicals from their production.
"You know, I've heard that excuse from day one in Econ 100, all the way thru Econ 400 level courses, usually from people who don't actually have a real understanding of how markets actually function, what the preconditions for a market are, or why it's wrong."
You know, it's not an excuse. It's reality. The consumer is the only one who can pay for recycling or disposal. You nmay think it's a great idea to exact the price in advance, and give the appearance that the manufacturers are eating the cost (they aren't), but it's still the consumer who pays. What you're arguing about, in reality, is who should handle the processing, and the collection of goods for recycling. Whether you understand the mechanics of economics or not, the reality doesn't change.
--- Bill
Hm... it was on the news that Al Gore's annual electricity bill was about $30,000. Mine is around $500. Does that not mean that Al Gore, at least looking at electricity usage, is worse for the environment than I am?
I think he also flies a lot more than me. And that car in the movie he's riding around in looks a lot bigger than mine.
Am I the only one thinking how much further environmental co-existence would have gone if we didn't have Greenpeace making environmentalists seem like irrational, hippie, anti-technologists? I think this is like the 3rd of 4th time I've heard about Greenpeace getting their facts wrong.
This sounds like all the treaties the U.S. almost gets bullied into, like the Kyoto. In fact, they don't really care about any real results, but who is going to pay for their phony jobs. I've been to China and seen how polluted it is. To think they have a pass on reducing their emission level is absurd. This is as fucking stupid as buying energy credits to make you have a better carbon footprint.
Quote Jobs:
Maybe so, but if Apple had said this at the very beginning (when originally asked) then they wouldn't have needed to go through this entire PR exercise now.
Apple learnt a valuable lesson today; there are some issues (not all, but some) that when you're secretive about, people get rightly suspicious and assume you're up to no good. If they'd responded to Greenpeace in the first place, then this negative press would have never occurred.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
OK, I'd like to break this discussion down into two arguments.
I don't know who this Steve Jobs is, but shut up Greenpeace! I like my apples the way they are!
Thank God for evolution.
They're just changing their policy regarding how much they talk about it. The sad part is, Greenpeace made Apple look better, not worse.
Greenpeace (and most of the US) have failed to realize the obvious: vendor-based environmentalism is a mistake. It brings no profit to the vendor, only expenses. And it brings no easy disposal methods for the consumer because forcing each vendor to handle the return of the old gadgets automatically also forces the consumer to return each gadget at a different location (provided he/she can even figure out WHERE that is). And finally it is ludicrously inefficient.
... (?) store, there is only ONE place to go: the recycling station.
In many European countries, and in all Scandinavian countries, the vendors pay a minor environment-tax for each item sold. The money is used to finance public recycling stations where anything can be disposed. So rather than asking the consumer to return his iPod at an apple store (even though he may have bought it somewhere else), return his old PC at some HP office nobody heard about, return his old TV at a store that handles Pioneer products and return his old cell phone at the nearest
The debate about "Apples toxic products" has a wrong focus. Why demand that Apple should dispose of the old products themselves? Asking each vendor for such services is a total waste of resources. Tens of thousands of companies will have to do redundant work and incorporate extensive recycling procedures - with the only effect of forcing the consumer to return his gadgets at a gazillion different places. It simply makes no sense?
If you are serious about recycling and practicing environmentalism, force the state into accepting the job. And fund it by adding a small tax to the toxic products themselves. Its easy, its fair, it requires only a single point of administration, and it is much easier for both the vendors and the consumers.
How hard can it be?
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
Also today, Steve Jobs has apologized to the Reverend Al Sharpton for his insensitive comments regarding beige back in the 90s.
No... Soylent Green is people !
By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
Do you have suggestions for better altneratives? Maybe entrusting your $500 flat screen monitor to the delivery driver in a paper bag?
The packaging of most computers allows for very efficient handling. Furthermore, more of it is recyclible than you realize. Styrofoam is (but it may be hard to find a center equipped to deal with it). It's also not really that bad for the environment. It's just a plastic. The concern over styrofoam in that 80's was that producing it requires bubbling a mostly inert gas through it. The gasses most easily used were ozone depleting and seldom contained. Most manufacturers use much more friendlier gasses now. It's also is pretty visible as litter, but just sitting around doesn't do much harm unless a bird happens to ingest it (birds don't pass plastics, so they sit in their stomach and make them feel full until they die of starvation), which doesn't happen if it's disposed of responsibly.
Yes. But who actually goes crawling through the web to find that out? Okay, Greenpeace should have done it, before crying out lout.
But isn't Apple renowned for being ahead of the competition AND actually announcing that? (Once their products are ready to ship, of course) Then why didn't they just print their enviro efforts and accomplishments on every box they sell? To tell the customers *another* reason why paying a bit more is rightly justified and to tell their competitors where to stick it...
"Greenpeace has responded already, demanding more action, specifically, the products being green from the outset."
s -selling-solar.html
If you read your link, they say they want worldwide recycling, not just US recycling. This is not a new request, it was part of the original, and all manufacturers are asked the same.
--
Clean Solar Power fits in your current budget: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Greenpeace has always been more red than green, and I can remember several of their past actions that did not strike me as being particularly peaceful. They severely detract from the environmentalist cause, which would have more to gain from an open dialog in society and environmental improvement via democratic means. By staging a conflict between themselves and society Greenpeace leaves the impression that the people fight agains the environment. But they're an integral part of it, are they not?
If you'd read the article, you'd see that Apple has already taken a lot of steps others haven't:
They've been reducing PVC usage for 12 years (not planning to, but actually reducing).
They've been reducing BFRs since 2001. And according to the article, they are closing to eliminating PVC and BFRs completely.
They were RoHS compliant "years before" RoHS took effect.
They completely stopped selling CRTs last year. The average CRT uses 3 pounds of lead. The last CRT-based iMac had 484 grams of lead (about 1 pound). Those are now gone.
As of the posting of Jobs' article, they are planning on eliminating flourescent backlights on their LCD displays, which would eliminate mercury, and that rollout begins this year.
Their first arsenic-free glass for LCDs will roll out this year.
Obviously, they have been implementing solutions for quite some time. Other plans they have are well underway, not just plans on someone's whiteboard or in their PR statements. In your analogy, it's more like Apple has 75% of their homework done with %30 percent of the time left, and plan to be done before the deadline, while the others are saying "We'll get around to it on the last day."
im sorry, I mean 'a shit'. Greanpeace is A shit. My bad.
Of course the go after Apple without bothering to check their facts. Apple is in the news a lot, so by attacking them Greanpeace gets publicity.
Greenpeace lost it's way years ago. Gone from Finding ways to improve the enviroment, to we hate all corporations.
Bunch of bastards lyingh to people about what they do and who they are so som,e people at the top can have their damn 'power'.
Bunch of terrorists only marginally better then PETA.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
God, reading those comments, i really see what kind of assholes people are. Just die of asphyxiation crawling up apples arse.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
It seems to me that this is very much a win-win situation. _If_ Apple has been chaffed into action, well then, great! And if they did it because of Greenpeace, which seems to be the case, well that's fine too.
I guess my only concern is that if Jobs' letter is correct, Greenpeace's data is simply wrong. More accurately, its based on statements of what companies _would_ do, not what was actually happening on the ground. Its almost like, oh I don't know, someone at Greenpeace went to various web sites and looked to see what they said, and took that to be representative of what was actually going on.
As the letter noted, although all of these companies talked about going green, according to Apple, they already were. But because they didn't boast about it, they came off looking bad.
One thing I found interesting was the mention near the end about carbon footprint. Maybe the end result of this will be that Apple puts up a huge solar array over their parking lot, or installs super-effecient lighting, or, well, whatever. Nothing wrong with that.
I think if there is a lesson here is that you really do need to toot your horn on just about everything. Its somewhat odd that Jobs would have to be reminded of this.
Maury
Only after he dubbed it iSeal Mini.
I can understand why they oppose nuclear power. What I don't understand is their opposition to fusion power research.
In their own words:
It was a smart issue campaign waged against Apple. They leveraged the current buzz around Apple on the issue of corporations reporting what they are doing environmentally; specifically, electronics companies (they mention issues that are in all electronics and that further educates those who look at their "FUD".) It was sensationalism put to good use for a change; although, picking a company currently in a heavy advertising campaign doesn't get you any fair media coverage.
Its reasonable to assume corporations who are not capitalizing on their environmental policy have something to hide (or a stupid PR firm.) When this thing has lasted over a year now.. If you don't get prompt responses, its reasonable to assume that there is a reason. The harder they resist disclosure, the worse the problem likely is.
This also intimidates other companies who do not disclose this information (no its not terrorizing them.)
I'm not involved with greenpeace and I don't hate them. I don't hate the ACLU either. They are trying to help us in their own way. (FYI: real democracy is WORK.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
and if you read the greenpeace update, you will notice that they take credit for these 'changes'. Ignoring the fact that the happened many years ago.
bastards.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
But shouldn't the imposition of the cost at say 500 points rather than 5,000,000 reduce the overall transaction costs? and shouldn't the desire to increase margins lead mfctrs to search for a way to reduce exposure to these imposed externalities? and shouldn't the higher cost to consumers reduce use which would also help the environment?
The point isn't to give consumers a free lunch, it is to put the costs of a product on the people who benefit from it rather (both by buying and selling) than taxpayers or when cleanup isn't feasable, people who breathe or drink water or eat fish.
Again, as I explained, and any decent Econ 200 level book will, it depends on where you are in the supply demand curve.
You said the consumer bears the full passed-thru cost. This is incorrect. Sometimes, they do. Sometimes, they don't. Sometimes they are penalized - think of gas prices where the oligopoly passes thru immeadiate costs of price signal increases, but holds off on passing thru any price signal decreases.
All of this is dependent on quantity and status of suppliers and consumers.
In a perfect capitalist society, we have many millions of producers and many millions of consumers. We do not live in such a market. Failure to realize the limitation of economic models is why most people laugh at Laffer Curve devotees, who seem incapable of understanding the shifting nature - non-static - of the supply and demand curves, which are impacted by time, product and supply cycles, distribution inefficiences, artificial subsidies and penalties, and so on.
As an economic choice, having the limited number of suppliers (manufacturers) pay for recycling and disposal brings the true cost of the economic decision to the deciders, and allows the market to function at peak efficiency.
This is why the US economy so severely underperforms during the Bush cycle - a lack of comprehension of economies of scale, of decision points, of where the market levers are focussed.
And hence, having Apple bear the signal cost of the pollution impacts is a wise choice.
What would be a better choice would be if all manufacturers, in all countries, did so, making a level competitive playing field, where capitalism functions at optimal efficiency.
That is reality.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
leftwing environmental extremists are full of shit.. news at 11.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
At the same point in the economic cycle (years from the start of the recession/start of the recovery), the economy is doing marginally better under Bush than it did under Clinton. The thing people forget is that Bill Clinton took office with the economy a year into recovery, G.W. Bush too office with the economy several months into the start of a recession.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Tell you what, mate. The way you mistreat wallabies and pademelons is outright revolting — and it has a direct connection to what we are discussing here...
Assuming we accept the need to cull them occasionally to keep the numbers down, this can be done humanely. However, various tree-huggers made such a nuissance out of it, that the poor creatures are no longer instantly killed. Instead, they are often coralled (fenced) off into small areas, where they die slowly from thirst and hunger.
That's how devastating the ill-effects of the radicals can be...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This is an incorrect statement.
You are looking at stock market returns, but failing to consider monetary influences - valuation of the USD to EU and Yen and etc - as well as total returns - EU vs S&P500 or even TotStkMkt.
One sees patterns even in the dark, just as one self-justifies one's biases by seeing improvement from pitiful to underperforming as being a better economy.
No one with any gravitas actually agrees as to the recession statement you gave, for example.
The market cares nothing about ideology, nor does the economy. This is the lesson that many have failed to understand.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It's somewhat strange to have a big company listen in on their customers (or potential customers) as to what they want, then they actually follow through. This is one example. DRM-free music is another. We're on a roll ... what else do we want?
Wait a second, they're talking about RECYCLING computers? I didn't know people throws them away. Maybe I'm just too much of a geek.
...
I know.
I still have an Apple II+ with monitor and 5.25 floppies in my garage, as well as a Mac SE 2DD with ext 40 SCSI2 drive
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Greenpeace and FUD? Who ever thought those two words would be found in the same sentence?!
Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
Quite to the contrary. Apple can squeeze the Macbook Pro and the Mac Mini into those sexy, tiny boxes only because they protect them with styrofoam. Other manufacturers have to use big boxes because they use less material inside and instead rely on air and spacers to protect the product.
Greenpeace is willing to pay out the nose for the additional costs associated with green? More power to them. Hey Jobs! Give them what they want! How much for a biodegradable ipod that lasts forever? $1000? Hey guilty conscience bleeding hearts! Sound good to you? Great. Problem Solved. Enjoy your bandaid.
What do you bet greenpeace holds auctions to see who to slander? Microsoft behind this one? Maker of a "green" alternative to PVC?
Put a bumper car style strip around the damp thing and rubber gasket the case seal and you have a beer/klutz proof trend machine. Make sure it's 100 percent biodegradable on 10% of the parts.
being at the bottom of the page...
But really, what's with Slashdotters favouring a corporate statement over a campaign by an environmental (I hesitate to say charitable) organisation? Obviously one has a very solid agenda of making more money, whereas the other has an agenda of addressing environmental concerns.
Actually, the stock market was not one of the things I considered. I was considering employment numbers, increases in salary verses the bottom of the recession. In this cycle of the economy, the recession started in October or November of 2000 (during the election year). During the previous cycle the recovery started in May of 1992 (during the election year, I may be mistakenly recalling the month, but it was early in the election year). I know that the Democrats spent all of 1992 telling us how bad the economy was, but the recovery had already begun.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
We hate apple. Whats with that name anyway? Huh? Duh, apple, duh. Change it to something more dynamic. And whats with the white every where? We like green over here at GREENpeace. Fix it. Also, they dont taste good, and its our suspicion that they arent really edible. Dell and HP have promised us to make tasty computers soon, but duh, Apple, duh, has not. Whats with that? We tried to return these not-tasty computers, but the guy wouldnt accept them, said we werent supposed to eat them. Fix it, make it so we can return our stale computers for fresh, juicy ones. Here at Greenpeace we lead the world in hating duh, Apple, duh.
I stand by my statement.
Even The Economist and Wall Street Journal agree, and they're right wing.
The reality is what it is.
Just as economics is what it is.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Now, most people who subscribe to this "movement" are doing it as a joke, or because they are rationalizing the fact that they don't have kids.
:)
I don't know. I've been (unknowingly, for the first couple of years) "subscribing" to this "movement" since I was about fifteen years old. At that time I surely wasn't rationalizing the fact that I didn't have any kids, as it's not very uncommon, at least where I live, for fifteen year olds to be childless. And it's certainly not a joke. Well, the movement is a bit of a joke - all movements are - but the idea is not. I've never spoken to any "subscriber" who seemed to think it a joke, even though some go more or less far (not everybody thinks extinction is strictly necessary). As for how large part of the movement is rationalizing being childless, I honestly can't say. It would probably take trained psychologists to answer that.
But some of them really seem to be arguing honestly for self-extinction of the human race.
Aye. Most of us, I'd say. Me included.
I'm not going to start ranting about why it's a good idea to stop reproducing - this isn't the forum for it. I just wanted to point out that yes, the movement does, as you say, exists, and while we might be "kooks" from someone's point of view, we're definitely thinking rationally about concept.
Thank you for not putting us down
May we live long and die out
"FUD" stands for "fear, uncertainty, and doubt". Apparently somehow it has had it's meaning twisted around here to mean "lies" about any subject. FUD can be entirely truthful, just worded to make people want to take the safer course.
I mostly see this here if anybody says anything negative about Microsoft, they are accused of "FUD". The term is wrong, except in a few cases such as when people give warnings like "DRM will destroy free speech" or that "Microsoft will bury/discontinue/etc that product, don't buy into it". These statements could be true or false, but they are FUD in that they are trying to scare people into disliking Microsoft or doing something Microsoft does not want, by predicting bad things to happen in the future.
Saying "Microsoft sucks" or "Linux is more than 10 times better than Windows" is NOT "FUD". It may be a false statement, but it is trying to make people choose Linux over Microsoft for positive reasons.
Conversely if Microsoft says their software is superior or has higher up time or lower tco, that is NOT "FUD". That may be truth or lies, but it is still not FUD. It is normal advertising, saying your product is better. They certainly do a lot more FUD than anybody else, if they say Linux might subject you to patent lawsuits, or copyright violations, or force you to give all your source code away, that is FUD. It can be true or false, it does not matter, what matters is that it is a vague threat of something that might happen in the future unless you do what they want.
I tried to make up something that Greenpeace would say that really is FUD but could not really come up with an example.
Does anybody agree with me, or is the use of "FUD" been completely twisted to mean almost any statement about a competitor?
Why do you hate America?
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
"On one hand, you could say that Greenpeace shouldn't expect a company that has spent years battling Microsoft to just roll over"
So competing with Microsoft, somehow afford Apple exemption from being pressured to go green? Is this because it's Apple? If Greenpeace was targeting Microsoft, would Microsoft be the villain here instead of Greenpeace? That's the impression I get.
I'm not a militant-type ecoactivist or anything, I don't much like Greenpeace, either, but bloody hell, if you live on this planet, you damn well have an obligation to not shit all over it, You have a duty to keep it clean, and you have a duty to your species to keep its habitat habitable. It doesn't matter who you are, no excuses.
Giving Microsoft a hard time doesn't justify breaking those obligations. Or are we so caught up in this little, relatively insignificant jihad against Microsoft, and this also comparatively insignificant OSS militantism, that we just don't care about the real problems anymore?
News flash, environmentalism has a much higher priority than weather or not a company is able to compete with Microsoft. I can live with Microsoft being a monopoly, but I (literally) can't live without an environment. This is just absurd.
Slashdot responds to FUD saying that Slashdot labels anything anti-Apple as FUD.
I don't understand their comment about fusion reactors producing large amounts of waste, and emitting large amounts of radioactive materials.
Certainly, any kind of fusion powerplant is going to generate some nuclear waste - spare neutrons from the fusion reactions will likely "activate" the reactor vessel and surrounding structures. That's still an enormous improvement over fission reactors - I've been lead to believe that most of the waste generated by fusion reactors would be "low-level" waste.
A properly-operating reactor isn't going to emit any significant radioactive material into the environment. Maybe they're thinking about accidental Deuterium and He3 releases, which don't represent any kind of threat to the environment.
The proliferation argument is more persuasive. The Tritium that would need to be bred for a self-sustaining fusion reactor is also a critical ingredient in many types of nuclear weapons. A fusion reactor could be used to breed other radioactive elements as well, possibly including Pu.
Not that it would do much good, but for anyone caring to see what the Greenpeace fans think of this story and to interact witht them, go here:
f =12
http://forum.greenpeace.org/int/forumdisplay.php?
Knowledge is just opinion that you trust enough to act upon. -Orson Scott Card
It may not smear a competitor, but it fits the spirit of the term: Greenpreace used its position to spread questionable information that discourages decision-makers from choosing the products of certain companies. "Questionable" is the key word in that statement. Greenpeace was alerted to the flaws in its "greenness appraisal" system when Lenovo jumped from last to first place in its rankings after just a few months and without making any changes to its manufacturing processes. Greenpeace ignored this alarm bell and released another report anyway, in which it accused Apple Inc of "showing no signs of improvement" in its "bad" attitude toward the environment. When the rest of the media picked up on the story and berated Apple, Greenpeace did not correct them to say the report was based on incomplete data, and continues to stand by its review.
There are a few slight of hands Apple has pulled. Apple compares the total amount of waste recycled vs. what they sold when not too many people were buying Apple computers. But, Apple doesn't pick up old Apples. What Apple does is recycle computers when a new purchase is made.
Imagine that Dell sold 5,000,000 computers from 1995 to 2000 and about 5,000,000 computers between 2000 and 2007. Let's say Apple sold only 500,000 computers between 1995 and 2000, but 5,000,000 computers between 2000 and 2007. While I am pulling numbers out of my darker neither regions, let's assume all computers weigh exactly the same.
Let's say that 20% of Dell's customers return a computer when they purchase a new Dell, but only 10% of Apple's customers do the same. So, Dell recycled 1,000,000 computers between 2000 to 2007 and Apple only recycled 500,000 computers. Dell recycled more, but look at Apple's metric:
Dell only recycled 20% of their computers based upon the 1995 to 2000 sales information. However, Apple recycling rate is 100%.
Since Apple recycles when a customer buys a new machine, a better measurement would be machines recycled vs. the number now being purchased. Under these circumstances, does Apple shine so bright?
Now a rap at Greenpeace. Greenpeace's big problem with Apple is that Apple doesn't expand its recycling program world wide. Apple only recycles in the U.S. and Canada. However, in Europe and Japan, either Apple has a recycling partner where you can drop off your computer, or the government has its own recycling program. The U.S., Canada, Europe, and Japan probably cover 99% of Apple's market.
Meanwhile, most large corporations don't use Dell's recycling program because repackaging and shipping computers (even for free postage) is too costly. It's cheaper to simply have them carted off. Considering that large corporations probably account for at least 50% of Dell's business, that's a lot of computers not being recycled. Apple, which has a very small presence in large corporations doesn't have this issue. So, although Dell's program looks better on paper, it may simply not be as extensive.
I've had a lot of problems with Greenpeace over the years. They tend to do publicity stunts which many times have their own environmental consequences.
In 1995, Shell Oil wanted to sink an oil platform in deep water. Shell claimed that not only it was the cheapest alternative, but also the most ecological. The oil would seep out at a very slow rate, and there was minimal amount of life near the spot. The quanity of heavy metals and other toxins were minimal compared to the amount spewed out by deep sea vents.
Greenpeace however, forced Shell to take the platform back to shore to be dismantled. Later on, Greenpeace internal memos showed the Shell was actually correct in wanting to sink the platform as the most environmentally favored approach. Dragging the platform to the shore could result in it falling apart and leaking vast quantity of oil near the shoreline. The cost of dismantling the rig would be born by the taxpayers because that was all tax deductible. Plus, the oil slug and heavy metals now had to be disposed on land.
Greenpeace's response was that although it would have been more environmentally sound to dispose of the platform at sea, they felt it set a bad precedence. So, they risked a possible ecological catastrophe just to make a PR point. See http://www.american.edu/TED/SHELLRIG.HTM for more details.
Hey, Apple's business model depends on its control of the hardware architecture. Hence, "Warranty void if seal is broken!"
Apple has been in business longer than Dell, and while its sales as a percentage of the TOTAL industry are low, they're higher than most individual PC manufacturers and even Dell didn't start out making more than Apple... so put those numbers back where they came from and dig some real ones up.
Greenpeace only attacked Apple because they figured it would be the easiest way to raise money. Greenpeace isn't an environmental group, its a fund raising corporation that uses staffers to attack targets that will gain the most donations.
Check out Greenpeace's own claims and what environmental experts say, and there's little room for any controversy. Greenpeace is only after money. They do nothing for the environment, they take credit for work done by other groups, and they attack targets with little regard for facts, truth, or creating any sort of improvement. As long as they get donations, they've done what they intended to accomplish.
A longer version of the story is at: Top Myths of 2006: Greenpeace Toxic Apple Panic
The market cares nothing about ideology, nor does the economy.
'The Market' is is an ideology. However, you appear to have bought deeply into it, so never mind....
The Economist is NOT right wing. They're moderate-liberal. As is the Wall Street Journal except for their editorial page.
There are a lot of fairly wise people in the world who know what 'economics' is. Not all of them agree, in fact many of them totally disagree.
Quit pushing your ideology, dude.
(oh, never mind)
When trees build themselves out of carbon... where do you think that carbon comes from? The air is the most logical place for most of it... I haven't heard much concern over carbon depleted soil, and I would be very sceptical of someone claiming trees didn't take a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere. When you recycle paper you are reusing paper with carbon that would otherwise end up in a landfill in most cases (and not in the atmosphere) and recycling uses energy that very likely required releasing carbon into the atmophere to make. And it uses more energy to recycle than to process new trees... otherwise recycling would be cheaper than geting raw trees (you pay a lot of money for raw trees, you don't pay much if anything for paper trash) and wouldn't require government subsidies.Erring on the side of caution, rather than convenience, strikes me as the more rational choice here.
It seems to me like the rational choice on the side of caution is not to recycle, put the paper into a landfill and conserve energy. If everyone stopped recycling, they'd have to plant more forests... which would pull even more carbon out of the atmosphere.
Live green... recycle only things that save energy: Aluminum and Glass. Conserve energy and water. Write your government and lobby for more nuclear power.
Greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and water) are more serious than being able to feel morally superior
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Greenpeace is an organization for rich developed world college students, providing something rabble-rabble to do while they have lots of time to kill, so they can feel they rebelled against the system before growing the hell up.
When have they done anything that actually matters?
Greenpeace is the Fox News of ambientalism. They are a huge bureaucracy and they need to convince people to donate money, so they engage on this kind of FUD. Just like fox news that found out that having a nut like oreilly is good for the charts. I am a liberal and I am ashamed of people thinking that maybe I am a Fox News fan. If I was involved on ambientalism, I would be ashamed of having greenpeace by my side.
Your ad could be here!
A fairly significant population of the United States believes in the "rapture", which is essentially just as insane as any voluntary extinction movement. The very idea that humanity needs to be exterminated in order to cleanse the earth comes directly out of the bible and it is this irrational religious heritage of our society that breeds extremism in its many forms.
STFU about slashdot bias.
If an apple really does last seven years, then, wait, hold up, 100% (according to your numbers) of the people who owned one and had an opportunity to recycle the apple did.
To use other numbers. If there was only one apple in existance, then they came up with a new version (one that everyone wanted) and people bought 1 million of them (in one fell swoop), and that one guy traded in his old apple, I would think it was perfectly acceptable to claim a 100% recycling rate.
Apparently you would think only 0.0001% of Apples were recycled.
The hippy report card! Guess who scores a D-!!!
Seriously, can't these two organizations get along without staging a bum fight in the media?
I hate kids. Maybe I'll join this think on a lark.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
First of all the posting of this document is a huge, huge, huge win for Greenpeace. I think it's hard to overemphasize the extent to which this is a victory.
To understand why, you have to understand the role of edge activism. It's not to have a reasoned debate or to propose sober, moderate solutions. The goal is instead to move the center of the discussion in your direction, by stretching the edge of the issue. This means that a whole lot of things that are off the table for centrist organizations--like the Sierra Club--might be great tactics for Greenpeace. This includes exaggeration, hyperbole, heck even making stuff up. The goal is get your target to respond and clarify--thus simultaneously conferring importance to the subject, importance to you, and providing evidence of change.
In this case Greenpeace has prompted Apple into moving from no-show to professed industry leadership. Basically they have succeeded in forcing/convincing Apple to create a whole new set of criteria they have to live up to. And by virtue of such high-profile communication, Apple is telling the industry and world that this issue is very important.
This makes it even easier for moderate groups to do their work too. In comparison to the edge guys they look like saints, so they are able to garner more trust (they're the good cop, Greenpeace is the bad cop).They also have a new story to tell that illustrates how important environmental efforts are. And they now have a new set of benchmarks they can hold industries to--and best of all the benchmarks are self-imposed by Apple.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Most people do not possess your critical thinking skills, my friend. This is why I shy away from stating that I have anarchic beliefs, a conservative disposition, believe in God, am a Christian, and a number of other things.
The above is not mutually exclusive... I don't see why any two of those statements are incompatible, when explained thoroughly... Simply put, most people prefer to use the labels to skip over the critical thinking -- say anarchic beliefs to many, and you get the "He's a bleeding heart leftist!" response. That kind of ignores the fact that I try to strike a balance and don't tromp all over others beliefs without a second thought. This is also why I actually tend to be very upset with the church and right wing media... to the point where I eschew the labels. Sadly, I think we all stereotype to a certain degree. I admit that I do it... A vicious cycle (or is it circle?) indeed.
Sometimes I wonder if I think too much.
"First of all the posting of this document is a huge, huge, huge win for Greenpeace. I think it's hard to overemphasize the extent to which this is a victory."
I'm not very tuned into environmental issues, although I donate periodically to the Sierra Club and Nature Conservancy. Before this, all I knew about Greenpeace was that they are a recognizable leader in the movement. But after reading this set of documents (the Greenpeace site, the Ars analysis, and Apple's response), I've realized that Greenpeace is a bunch of not-to-be-trusted liars.
Now my default reaction to the claims of _any_ environmental group will be suspicion. I don't think thats a "huge, huge, huge win". Assuming your definition ("exaggeration, hyperbole, heck even making stuff up") is correct, "Edge activism" looks to me like the way immature idiots rationalize irresponsible behavior.
He purchases Carbon Credits (tm)! That's an automatic 'get out of controversy free' card, isn't it?
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
greenpeace just sold it's soul once again by cooperating with the german newspaper 'bild'[1] (equivalent of the english 'the sun') completely ignoring their dubios practises ( http://www.bildblog.de/ ).
7 7547,00.html
Greenpeace Germany: "it's a great chance to reach 12million people on a daily basis".
[1] http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,4
I'm glad that Apple finally put some focus this. We need focus on this. Consumers have a lot to say, but they don't always contextualize. When they do contextualize they have a tendency to do it on a limited information basis. For instance the Greenpeace campaign (which I fully support) apparently didn't have all the relevant information about Apple. While the power of the consumer is great to create focus on an issue, in this case, I think what we need is legislation. Set some limits for what chemical levels are allowed and require computer manufacturers to have a recycling policy. I think we need a objective and trusted investigation entity to determine how the computer manufacturers are doing. A solution would be to put a tax on chemicals in computers. That would certainly encourage computer manufacturers to reduce those chemicals.
Brought to you by the department of the bloody obvious.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
Bunch of terrorists only marginally better then PETA.
1) make a caricature of an organization you don't like
2) find anecdotes to support your arguments, and apply them to everyone in said organization
3) attack the caricature like a pinata
4) ???
5) profit!
I could make a caricature of Republicans as mule fucking, abortion clinic bombing, racists that believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. This would of course be ridiculous, but you see this line of reasoning in attacks on PETA all the time, as well as unions, Greenpeace, trial lawyers, etc etc. Those with a mad hate-on for PETA are just as irrational as they make PETA out to be.
5 digit user id, and you still haven't looked up the meaning of QED, eh?
You HAVE NOT proven demonstrably that PETA sponsors terrorists or terrorism. What you've proven is they've given money to an organization that has some members who have committed terrorist acts. You have not proven latitude. Sponsorship requires knowledge of it.
Slashdot deathmatch: Apple vs. Greenpeace. And Apple wins! /., still more techie than leftie.
You're doing it wrong--http://youredoingitwrong.mee.nu
It's not confusing, it's just irrelevant. Slashdot is an open forum. It doesn't strive toward NPOV or adhere to the standards of journalism. If you think Slashdot is fine but want to take away the soap boxes, you've missed the point of Slashdot.
Slashdot is not a journalistic news source.
Just for clarity: if you made this comment of a WSJ article (outside the Op/Ed pages), I would wholeheartedly agree with you; you may be surprised to learn that I'm sensitive to such mistakes myself. However, Slashdot is not the WSJ--Slashdot is ALL Op/Ed! Just try to enjoy the melee.
Greenpeace is not really an enviornmental organization any more... they are really a proxy political group established to target corporate rivals of other big corporations who fund Greenpeace. They have been funded by the big oil companies for years in order to attack nuclear power (sure, they attack the oil industry too... but since fossil fuels are already the established mode of energy production in our economy, those attacks are useless. However, Greenpeace is the primary reason that the only large-scale alternative to fossil fuels are essentially illegal).
If the big oil companies have Greenpeace in their pockets, why couldn't Microsoft by Greenpeace as well?
Now my default reaction to the claims of _any_ environmental group will be suspicion.
Good. That's how you should react to the claims of anyone who has an agenda (and almost all institutions with a large amount of money have an agenda). However. As they say "Even a broken clock is right twice a day". Simply because a group has been known to be wrong or even deliberately misleading in the past doesn't mean that everything they say, and every aspect of their agenda is wrong.
There needs to be a middle ground between blind acceptance of groups like Greenpeace's every word, and reflexive opposition to everything they say and stand for because they're "liars". It's not acceptable to simply ignore information because the group presenting it has been dishonest before, or because certain methods of presenting the information were manipulative. In fact, if we really did that across the board, we would end up rejecting pretty much all information available about everything - everybody lies and manipulates, usually without considering it manipulation.
I think the reality is that people use the "they're liars, don't listen to a word they say!" argument as a satisfying way of avoiding having to reconcile their own opinions with information that may contradict them.
the first reaction of a scared human is to go on the offensive
Imo it is exactly the opposite, scared people go defensive.
This US administration sold their stuff by using angst, true.
Maybe alpha-males react aggressive/offensive when being scared.
To see a discourse as a collection of defensive and offensive moves is an oversimplification.
The Economist is NOT right wing. They're moderate-liberal. As is the Wall Street Journal except for their editorial page.
Only an American far right winger would say that. From the viewpoint of most of the world, they are, indeed, right wing.
The US is not the only place in the world, nor the most interesting. It just happens to be where some of us were born and live.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The Market "is" an ideology?
My.
Look, unlike some posters in this thread, my first degree was actually in Business, with a concentration on Sales and Marketing, both of which I have done.
Please, log off, stand up, go outside, see the real world outside, and try to understand it. It is not a game like your FPS. It exists.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
That's the goal of the activism. You probably have a feeling about Apple and their environmental policies now. It has entered your mind as an aspect of what Apple, as a company, does. You might even feel sympathetic toward them--they're trying to do good, and got unfairly trashed for it. Whereas before you probably did not hold much of an opinion about Apple's environmental policies at all. See the change?
Greenpeace, and other edge activists, will happily sell out their own image to generate change. They don't care if you hate their guts and think they are a bunch of immature idiots. What they want is for your thinking about Apple--and other computer companies--to include environmental policy. Mission accomplished, I'd say.
And I should add that this type of "edge" tactic way, way predates environmentalists. Think KKK. Think John Brown. Think Al Qaida. Redefine the edge and you will probably shift the middle too.
Greenpeace used it well here but it's not like they invented the tactic. They're not even really on the edge of their own issue anymore... Earth First and ELF are beyond them.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Only a far left-winger would claim that the Economist is right wing.
Amusing. It just shows how little you have experienced of the world.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Perhaps Apple wasn't proclaiming greatness in environmentalism, since they believed they were being reponsible. As in, I don't trumpet that I clean the cat litter, or stay between the road markings, or shut the water off after showering, as these are all reponsible acts.
We can bat this around all evening. I'm not a far right winger, incidentally. Just someone who can appreciate a magazine (The Economist) with a centuries long classic Liberal tradition.
Carry on, oh wise one. Your rapier wit is stunning us.
Nuclear polutes in many different ways, leaves us with problem for much longer and is not economically viable.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Not strategic success. Actually I'd probably rank them unsuccessful, successful, TBD, respectively.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.