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."

Comments

This is pretty much what we knew before

[soft_guy]

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.

Re:So Greenpeace was right?

[jdbartlett]

RTA. Throughout, Jobs makes comparisons to other companies in the Greenpeace Electronics Guide. He then writes:

Dell, HP and Lenovo all scored higher than Apple because of their plans (or "plans for releasing plans" in the case of HP). In reality, Apple is ahead of all of these companies in eliminating toxic chemicals from its products.

Steve Jobs is not saying it's FUD

[iamacat]

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.

Greenpeace responds to Steve responding

[andphi]

Interestingly, Greenpeace has responded already, demanding more action, specifically, the products being green from the outset. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/tastygreenapple

Re:Greenpeace responds to Steve responding

[Rimbo]

Greenpeace has not been a credible pro-environment organization for a long time. In fact, a lot of the pro-environment organizations have been known to oversell their cases. Rush Limbaugh exploited this in the late 80's/early 90's to gain credibility in his rise to fame.

By overselling their cases, they helped establish the political landscape we have today, where proof of environmental destruction is a tough sell, and the habit of lying even to themselves about the true state of things leads to nutjobs like the Earth Liberation Front, who destroy the environment in order to save it.

The best thing for the environment remains to be considerate of what things you consume and dispose of and where they come from and go to. And doing so almost always ends up saving you money as well.

Re:Just what Greenpeace wanted?

[Reziac]

One suspects they'd consider Apple more "green" should Apple provide them with an infusion of cash.

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_financial s.cfm/oid/131

Re:FUD or "FUD"?

[jdbartlett]

I don't agree with the moderator who marked your comment Flamebait. I don't think that's how you intended it, anyway.

Yes, I believe Jobs is telling the truth about Apple's current manufacturing standards. I'm sure you have read in full the Greenpeace report that stirred this storm in a teacup, and therefore realize that Greenpeace assumed Apple's manufacturing standards weren't up to snuff simply because Apple hadn't explained in brightly colored crayons what friendly, earth-loving folk they are. Greenpeace's "scoring" of Apple and the other electronics companies reviewed was based solely on PR information available from company websites. Greenpeace had no reason to doubt the information published on Lenovo's, Nokia's, or Sony's websites, and neither they nor I have any reason to doubt the information now posted on Apple's.

Sorry if I made Greenpeace sound evil to you. Their actions were executed with trademark thoughtlessness and irrationality, but I'm sure their intentions were honorable. Their review was flawed, but not biased, and I'm sure Apple will be properly represented in the next Greenpeace Electronics Guide.

Greenpeace opposes fusion research

[Card]

I can understand why they oppose nuclear power. What I don't understand is their opposition to fusion power research.

In their own words:

Fusion energy - if it would ever operate - would create a serious waste problem, would emit large amounts of radioactive material and could be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons. A whole new set of nuclear risks would thus be created.