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."

7 of 531 comments (clear)

  1. Just what Greenpeace wanted? by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Just what Greenpeace wanted? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      It is possible, but it doesn't actually help anything with regard to achieving Greenpeace's stated goals or benefitting the environment.

      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.

      Yeah, we are all pretty well educated by Greenpeace now. All they care about is talk. You have to publish crap, or they'll come after you with incredibly misleading statements and by spending large amounts of money and manpower protesting you for only being way better than your competitors, but not publishing a bunch of marketing nonsense about it.

      In this way, Apple now becomes a valuable part of Greenpeace's efforts to get all computer manufacturers to become more green.

      How do you figure. They managed to generate a lot bad press for one company who was doing relatively well with regard to environmentalism, while not doing the same for companies that do poorly but publish promises that they're working on being better and in 10 years may meet the same goals Apple already has. If anything they've discouraged companies from being green, in favor of making empty, marketing promises. Seriously, as a businessman, that is the message they delivered to me loud and clear. Who cares if we just shipped a pile of environmentally unfriendly boxes overseas to avoid their environmental protection laws about to come into force. If Greenpeace calls about it, we can just publish a paper promising we'll stop that practice, while moving on with business as usual. It sure is cheaper and more effective from a marketing perspective than actually reducing the toxic chemicals in our products and packaging like Apple did.

  2. Re:Extinct by wall0159 · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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.

  3. Re:FUD or "FUD"? by jdbartlett · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Greenpeace responds to Steve responding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Extinct by xappax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. You Spin Me Right Round Baby Right Round ... by powerlord · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Greenpeace may have responded to Steve Jobs' response but they failed reading comprehension:

    From Apples Release:

    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.


    From the Greenpeace response:

    Today we saw something we've all been waiting for: the words "A Greener Apple" on the front page of Apple's site, with a message from 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.


    Umm ... Greenpeace, I hate to say it, but the policy you "forced" Apple to change was the "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."

    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.