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.
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.
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?
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
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
from this truck.
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."
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
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.
Actually LEDs are less efficient than most fluorescents for a given amount of light output. Unless the current backlights are unusually inefficient, the LEDs may actually hinder battery life.
Green peace doesn't care about people. They just use them as props because they know you care about people. They care about the environment.
Take it for what it is worth, 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.
Real Mac users don't get rid of their packaging! ;-)
Jonathanjk.com
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...
Well, according to "The Hitch Hiker's Guide", (otherwise known as Wikipedia), while some use arsenic, others do not.
aluminium gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) - red and infrared
aluminium gallium phosphide (AlGaP) - green
aluminium gallium indium phosphide (AlGaInP) - high-brightness orange-red, orange, yellow, and green
gallium arsenide phosphide (GaAsP) - red, orange-red, orange, and yellow
gallium phosphide (GaP) - red, yellow and green
gallium nitride (GaN) - green, pure green (or emerald green), and blue also white (if it has an AlGaN Quantum Barrier)
indium gallium nitride (InGaN) - near ultraviolet, bluish-green and blue
silicon carbide (SiC) as substrate blue
silicon (Si) as substrate blue (under development)
sapphire (Al2O3) as substrate blue
zinc selenide (ZnSe) - blue
diamond (C) - ultraviolet
aluminium nitride (AlN), aluminium gallium nitride (AlGaN) - near to far ultraviolet (down to 210 nm[4])
Which means that you can get red & green using gallium phosphate, and silicon carbide for blue. That gives you white light.
Or, you could use gallium nitride with the AlGaN Quantum Barrier, which also has no arsenic.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
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
Only after he dubbed it iSeal Mini.
"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?
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
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! --
However, if they were to actually acknowledge that their actions have done nothing but made Apple write up a nice looking document pointing out their current and future practices, then it would make Greenpeace look like they haven't actually done anything productive.
So instead, let's tell all the people who worship Greenpeace that we have defeated the mighty Apple, and made them change their environmentally-poisoning ways, so it looks like we "won" something.
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.
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?
Slashdot responds to FUD saying that Slashdot labels anything anti-Apple as FUD.
Hey, Apple's business model depends on its control of the hardware architecture. Hence, "Warranty void if seal is broken!"
"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.
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.
Howdy. I'm a grad student in the fusion reactor field.
:D
"emitting large amounts of radioactive materials."
This statement is false. A fusion powerplant won't 'emit' anything (in terms of gasses, or any kind of bulk material). There won't be anything transported away from the reactor. The 'waste' problem with a fusion reactor is it produces more neutrons than a fission reactor by a few times per kilowatt. So the reactor vessel and the building to a lesser extent (much less with the advent of low activation concrete) will transmute and become radioactive. Now the reactor vessel weighs a few tonnes in itself, so you have a few tonnes of low level radioactive waste. But it is only dangerous for ~ 100 years as opposed to ~100 generations.
Unfortunately, all these neutrons means we wouldn't be able to hand over a fusion powerplant to Iran. Neutrons can be used to breed weapons grade uranium and plutonium. Tritium is also bred, which can be used in an H-bomb after they figure out the fission bomb.
"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."
That's right. In fact, Deuterium and He3 are harmless. They're natural isotopes that aren't radioactive. You could drink deuterated water and you'd never know.
Ok, that's not totally true. If say... half of your water intake was heavy water (!expensive) then when the deuterated water was incorporated into proteins by your body, it would have a small chance due to the extra weight to make the protein fold into a funny shape, and then your body would have to discard that protein. So if you drank enough heavy water, you'd starve to death.