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."
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.
"but some environmentalist won't be satisfied until every single human being on this planet is extinct."
Sounds like several political leaders in the world right now...and the biggest one doesn't give a fuck about the environment.
Personally given the odds, I'd rather the greenies extinct us...at least the next sentient lifeform that springs up might forgive us.
At the very same time, I can't stand Greenpeace. They've proven themselves to be as much a bunch of loonies as PETA. Sad as I've supported both at times. I might have well given my money to the RNC because it would have caused just as much damage to the same people they all claim to be protecting.
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
What a ridiculous comment. Even if it's true, so what? Your implied conclusion is "therefore, don't bother with environmentalism."
How about this logical fallacy:
"Some buisness leaders are so greedy they won't be happy until we're all working down in the coal mine for nothing - therefore we should be communist."
See how stupid you sound? I'm sick of people making sweeping generalisations like this - I hear/read it all the time with regard to nuclear power, as if it's impossible to have a reasoned opposition without being a psycho-greenie.
It would be an undue compliment to call Greenpeace's report even barely researched. It was presumptive, snide, misleading, and obviously flawed. FUD seems a fair description.
This isn't a case of "he says, she says". This is a case of "Greenpeace assumed, without any facts, that Apple doesn't care about the environment, and told everyone that this is the objective truth". Greenpeace went on to waste probably quite a bit of money on a campaign and website to "change" Apple, all based on their flawed report.
Currently the Green My Apple campaign site is posting a headline suggesting that Jobs's explanation of Apple's actually-quite-greenness is some sort of policy change, rather than what it is: the good news Greenpeace had previously assumed was bad.
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.
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.
Greenpeach can do whatever it wants to present actual information about a specific way they think Apple should change, but some Slashdot pundits won't be satisfied until every single debate is characterized as a debate between their own opinion and some unrelated extremist strawman.
I'm sick of people making sweeping generalisations like this - I hear/read it all the time with regard to nuclear power, as if it's impossible to have a reasoned opposition without being a psycho-greenie.
...
That's what happens when your most outspoken proponents come off like rambling kooks, people get stereotyped.
For instance, if i said I was Republican you would say I was
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.
I lost all respect for Greenpeace when they came out opposing nuclear power.
Some business leaders are so greedy they won't be happy until we're all working down in the coal mine for nothing
No,as we are reminded regularly on slashdot, all business leaders are required to maximize (short term) shareholder value as their sole motivation. As a result all business leaders must see to it that we're all working down in the coal mine for nothing. Anything less would be a perversion of capitalism.
Perhaps the biggest point missed by the recycling police is that recycling is the LEAST desirable of the three Rs. Reduce, reuse, recycle -- they are in order. Consuming less in the first place is best, reusing is next and recycling is last. I had a roommate who used to harp about recycling but she ate so much packaged food she generated FAR more waste than I do.
As you say, the best place for many recyclable materials is in a landfill, waiting for the day when we can recycle them economically, ie using less resources than it would take to start from scratch.
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...
Let's answer your innuendo. If you said you were Republican, I would say you were... what? What exactly did you have in mind? I would stereotype you in with all the "outspoken rambling kook" Republicans? No. Just saying you were a Republican would not be enough to warrant that. And here's the difference.
It's not until you start spouting kooky notions that you'd get lumped in with the other kooks. Merely being a Republican does not mean you are against environmentalism. But once you start going on about how environmentalists want the human species extinct, or how carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, or how mercury from a single compact fluorescent bulb is a toxic travesty, but the mercury from a coal plant is A-OK, you aren't being unfairly lumped in with the kooks, you *are* a kook.
I'm not saying you promote any of those things, this was just your "what if?".
This is just like the Intelligent Design nonsense. It's not that we're oppressing their theory, they don't *have* a theory. Same with anti-environmentalism. They *are* kooks.
The implied conclusion was 'ignore Greenpeace' not 'ignore the environment'.
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
Sounds like a perfectly sensible thing to me. Why not live a full rich life free from the burden of raising children?
evil is as evil does
"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?
Greenpeace was already once taken to task on this issue, to the effect that real scientists and computer industry officials flat out said Greenpeace was making shit up about a lot of what Apple was doing, and that they where using Apple only because
1) Many of Greenpeaces own members are Apple users.
2) They are high profile
And even in Jobs own letter, while being very tame, takes them to task for their supposed evidence as well, by pointing out many of the Companies they considered good at environmental concerns where doing LESS than Apple was.
So you really have to wonder, are Greenpeace out to make the world actually better? Or have they grown so big as to be a perpetual money machine for its own officials, which need to keep themselves in the news to continue to make more money.
Remember the Environmental industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, just the same as the NRA, or PETA, or any other concerns groups.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
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
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?
A person who gets their scientific information from a Penn and Teller show frightens me. It's entertainment. Just like Mythbusters.
I think the Voluntary Human Extinction group is an example of going so far in making a very important point that they shoot themselves down. They point out the human activities that threaten our species and others with extinction, and then say we have to die off so other species won't. Most people won't listen to this, no change actually gets made, so we're back to square one. This means that the point has to be put across all over again, in more sober terms.
Fact is, the consumption inherent in our lifestyle, including the mining, logging, transportation, and manufacture, are such that we'd need this world's resources several times over to keep on doing it. Either we make real and effective changes - and I don't just mean buying things with cute logos or driving a hybrid - or we leave a big question over our offspring. How it is responsible to have many more children when that jeopardizes the world they'll live in, I don't know. It's tragic, like laying them straightaway in a grave. That is the heart of the matter, I think.
There's already quite a lot of children to care for who need more than egg and sperm donors to have a fair shot at a long and healthy if not materialistic life. I think anyone who chooses to increase the next generation's hopes rather than numbers deserves to feel good about it!