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."
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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."
Greenpeace quotes Steve Jobs out of context with ...Steve Jobs saying, "Today we're changing our policy." 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.
Jobs is saying Apple is changing the policy of communicating its environmental policy in response to Greenpeace and others, not changing it's environmental policies. If Greenpeace wants to stay credible, they should not be taking quotes out of context.
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.
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.
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.
Mod parent insightful not troll. Green Peace is irrelavant. They are attention whores who try to grab headlines but do veyr little to forward true enviromentalism. all flash, no substance and hardly a braincell between them. A slightly smarter and wiser version of PETA. although thats not hard.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
So even if a company appears to not give a cr@p about their heavy impact on the environment, we should go easy on them, because they might be secretly investing lots of money into reducing their environmental impact?
I don't see how giving a 10% discount for replacing your iPod is environmentally friendly at all. Surely if they made iPods so they didn't have to be either thrown in the bin or replaced every 18 months (or less) then that would be far better, environmentally speaking.
It has been known for years that Apple's environmental record is absolutely terrible. Of course Steve Jobs is going to say otherwise, he's not a complete idiot, but that doesn't mean what he is saying is in anyway true.
Greenpeace talked to other companies and published a report including them. They spent a pile of money and organized protests only against Apple. Now ask yourself, how did the other companies rate better? Are they using fewer toxins? Nope, most of the companies that got better scores than Apple use more toxins. They got better ratings because they promised certain improvements, many of which Apple has long since accomplished (as Jobs points out). In fact, Apple seems to have been singled out because they did not provide specific future plans especially in regard to one substance of very questionable environmental danger and which even the EU's new strict guidelines conclude is not a proven risk in the levels it is used.
Greenpeace is not working against these companies, it is really working with them to help reduce the environmental mess.Really. On the points in the article did Greenpeace give Apple better or worse publicity because of being ahead of the others, or did it make up a lower score in an attempt to get press for themselves at the cost of the environment?
Highlighting environmental responsibility via the ipod sends a very strong message because the ipod is used by so many people.Yup they created a lot of awareness, most of which was misleading. They also provided direct motivation for companies like the one I work for to ignore a comprehensive policy of improving the environmental friendliness of our products, but instead to concentrate on publishing promises since that results in more good press than actually making better products and procedures.
Perhaps in a while people will be prepared to pay a premium (??$5?? per ipod, ??$20?? per laptop etc) for proper environmental handling.People in general won't even know what "proper handling" is. People are going to buy a product and they're going to compare features and prices. "environmental friendliness" is a feature, but only one of perception. If greenpeace publishes FUD that inaccurately portrays the relative friendliness of products, then people's buying power will result in less environmentally friendly purchases and hurt the environment. That is what they have accomplished with their campaign.
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...
You're exactly right. Greenpeace has been asking for information and Apple has been refusing to provide it. Now, apparently Apple will provide information on what it is doing and what it plans to do. That was co-operative. At this point Apple can be ranked and its progress monitored so long as they keep to their new policy.s -selling-solar.html
--
Get Solar Power with no installation cost: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
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
"Jobs is saying Apple is changing the policy of communicating its environmental policy in response to Greenpeace and others, not changing it's environmental policies."
...
Wrong. From Apple's statement:
"Unfortunately this policy has left our customers, shareholders, employees and the industry in the dark about Apple's desires and plans to become greener...So today we're changing our policy.
Today is the first time we have openly discussed our plans to become a greener Apple."
Yes, Apple is saying that it is changing its policy regarding communication, but it is also promising to become greener. There is nothing in the document that supports your claim that all their current and future environmental plans are unchanged. We don't know, but we should expect Apple to spin to story to their maximum advantage and we should expect Greenpeace to do the same. Both clearly have.
"If Greenpeace wants to stay credible, they should not be taking quotes out of context."
And you should read and think more critically.
"But I have never read anything from green peace talking about the health of humans unless it is prefaced with the environment and something to do with it"
You mean to say that an environmentalist group doesn't talk about the health of humans, unless it's got something to do with the environment? Never! Next you'll be telling me that the Free Software Foundation doesn't care enough about Darfur, except insofar as regards the Sudanese software industry. And Human Rights Watch is conspicuously silent on the Ivory Trade, unless there's a human rights angle. And the Campaign Against the Arms Trade has conspicuously failed to denounce the bastards who dropped their rubbish in my back garden last Wednesday week! Stinking hypocrites, the lot of them!
What is the world coming to, when single-issue pressure groups just stick to whatever single issue it is they were set up to campaign on?
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
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! --
I don't see how giving a 10% discount for replacing your iPod is environmentally friendly at all.
The 10% discount is so you'll bring the iPod in to Apple, who can properly recycle it, instead of tossing it in the trash, where it ends up in a landfill. I'd say that's environmentally friendly.
It has been known for years that Apple's environmental record is absolutely terrible.
Got any facts other than Greenpeace's flawed studies to prove it?
Well, in truth it probably would, nor is that necessarily bad. Radical environmentalists won't want to hear this, but industrialization has done more good for more people than anything else in all of human history. Remember, the normal state of humanity through most of that time is one of abject misery. Industrialization improved our lot and gave us hope of an even better life for our descendants.
I see a big problem here, when it comes to activism in the United States. For any number of causes, from environmentalism to abortion to gun control, misrepresentation and outright lying have become standard operating procedure. I mean, if enough people simply aren't buying what you're selling, and yet you sincerely believe that your pattern for living is what is best for them (or your donations are down for the year) why, what's the harm in a couple of minor fibs or some manufactured statistics? After all, it's for their own good, and if your lies happen to negatively impact a major industrialist, so much the better. Right?
Rhetorical question. Besides, telling lies in order to promote your agenda (no matter how justified you may feel in doing so) immediately alienates everyone that catches you in the lie, and is unethical at best. I have no beef with true environmentalism: combined with enlightened industrialism it is a powerful force for the betterment of Mankind. Unfortunately, the hyperbolic and technically illiterate verbiage spewn forth by many so-called environmental organizations has cost me any interest in anything they have to say, Greenpeace included.
The problem is largely one of education, or lack of it, on the subject of nuclear power. Untold millions of people hear the words "nuclear" or "radioactive", immediately lump fission and fusion together and cower at the mention of either. Not that they would grasp the difference between chemical and thermonuclear reactions anyway. More fools they.
It's a sorry state of affairs, it really is, and one that people on both sides of the fence are ready to exploit.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
WHy the hell doesn't your iPod work? Hell, I have ahd my 6G mini since it came out. Still works like a champ and I've dropped it from about 4 feet a few times. hard enough to damage the case, in fact.
Eventually the battery will stop working, and then I'll get a new battery. Which, btw, is more eco friendly thn putting 4 double As in a device every 4 months. Or was the sony walkman 6? I forget.
"To somehow try and turn that around and pretend the process is environmentally friendly is ridiculous."
they don't say that. They say "We will give you a dicount if you opt to let us recycle it for you."
Som exactly home much of a discount did sony offer if you let them recycle ytour walkman for you.
"Personally, its the fact that if iPods were released 20 years ago they would most probably be deemed "faulty" due to their pathetically short lifespan (particularly of their battery)"
again, I don't see that at all, neither does any iof my friends, or people I know that work at the Apple store.
If your battery has lasted less then two years, then either it is defective(not likely) or it wasn't used properly.(most likely)
iPod is far more eco friendly then any other portable mp3 player on the market. And according to the report, it's going to get better.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"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?
Slashdot responds to FUD saying that Slashdot labels anything anti-Apple as FUD.
Talk about out of context...
It is clear from their statements, that they are stating that they already had these plans. They are further stating that some of these plans have already been completed, some more than 5 years ago. And saying that they have already had plans to do more even before this whole thing began.
Trying to make it appear as anything else, without some evidence of your position, is nothing more than spin control! Just like all the other political groups, blatant political spin (a.k.a. lying with flair and just enough plausibility to avoid defamation suits)!