Greenpeace Slams Apple For Environmental Record

nandemoari writes "According to a recent advertisement airing on American TV, Apple's new Macbooks (well-received by most technology critics) are 'the world's greenest family of notebooks.' It seems an indication that the Cupertino-based company is increasingly aware of a consumer base that demands green electronics. However, Greenpeace is less than enthused with Apple's overall green performance. In their report (PDF), the environmentalists argue that Apple 'needs to commit to phasing out additional substances with timelines, improve its policy on chemicals and its reporting on chemicals management.'" Ars Technica points out that Greenpeace's research isn't quite up-to-snuff, and it's also worth noting that Greenpeace admitted to targeting Apple for the publicity in the past.

Comments

But...

[isBandGeek()]

What could be more organic and green than apples?

(Not even oranges measure up.)

Re:But...

[nametaken]

I think they're upset that all those Apple people wear turtlenecks. ...I'll be here all week, tip your waitress.

Re:But...

[oberondarksoul]

Limes!

Trickle down is beneficial

[digitalunity]

Greenpeace's strategy isn't really bad. Sure, they're picking on a big company for publicity, but whatever effects are the result of greenpeace's research will trickle down into the factory floors of their component suppliers having a much larger effect.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[c_forq]

I think it might actually have a kind of opposite effect. By focusing on Apple worse offenders continue on under the radar. In addition it sends a message to the Dells and HPs that "if you advertise your green programs, we will rip you apart for publicity". So as a competing manufacturer, why would you take on expenses to advertise, or even clean up, your manufacturing process?

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

Does crying wolf sound familiar? If we cannot believe Greenpeace on this, what can we believe them on?

Eventually they will be ignored - even if they are telling the truth.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[jellomizer]

But you can go to far where your views are considered to radical to be possible. Thus becoming a buch of crazy nuts and go back to your way of doing things, As they will be mad at you no matter what.

Much like extreme veganism, where you are not supposed to eat anything from a plant where you end up killing the entire plant. Because the rules are so strict very little food service places will try to follow those recommendations if they did it was purely accidental. So they realized they cannot make this group happy without a huge penalty, heck you are lucky if they will have something for normal vegetarians other then boring salads (Which are not full vegan because you need to kill the leafy greens plants for the salad and the roots for the carrots. Leaving Beans, Nuts, and Fruits as the only source for your diet)

If you want change you need to reward baby steps. You can scold your child for not winning a marathon just as it just learned to stand.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't that already happened?

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[flyingsquid]

Greenpeace is just being *completely* unfair here. I mean, what next? Are they now going to go after Apple for the new sealskin covered MacBook, or the walrus ivory iPod?

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

What would be more beneficial is rounding up these environmentalist clowns and sending them off to the gas chamber. Reducing the earth's population of assholes would be the greatest improvement in the environment yet.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference of coruse is Greenpeace's goal here is at least good. Getting manufacturers to be as green as possible makes sense. Refusing to eat carrots because you kill the plant makes no sense and is a waste of time and effort.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Moofie]

Pursuing a good goal by lying and misleading is not good.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[ceoyoyo]

"Beans, Nuts, and Fruits"

Murderous vegans, devouring the unborn plant children. I bet they don't even have the common courtesy to defecate in fertile soil, in the right climate, so the poor unborn babies at least have a fighting chance.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Greenpeace are a bunch of attention whores.

Fuck them.

That is all.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[nsayer]

Leaving Beans, Nuts, and Fruits as the only source for your diet

You left out eggs. milk and honey.

Eggs may or may not count depending on your point of view about protecting the unborn/unhatched, but I have yet to find someone both strongly anti-abortion and insanely vegan. Never mind the fact that most eggs in the store aren't fertilized anyway. But then, if eggs are out, then so are strawberries and pomegranates.

But milk and honey are truly the only foods that you could truly say can be obtained from the plant and animal kingdom without harming a plant or animal or impinging on its reproduction. It is, however, counting on the animals in question to overproduce for their own needs to supply yours. In other words, living purely on milk and honey puts you in the same category as a leech.

No, the only meat eaters that are acceptable to militant vegans are scavengers.

Me? I'd rather eat militant vegans. Long pig. The other white meat.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[ceoyoyo]

Now now, there's something to be said for scavenging. The Roadkill Cafe even has some great recipes!

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

"Beans, Nuts, and Fruits"

Murderous vegans, devouring the unborn plant children. I bet they don't even have the common courtesy to defecate in fertile soil, in the right climate, so the poor unborn babies at least have a fighting chance.

So actually strict vegans are cum eaters, because beans, nuts and fruits are the plant's equivalent of animal's semen.

In other words, vegans swallow, don't spit.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[jo_ham]

Except it just further drives rational people who share their ideals away from them and makes them look like desperate losers.

I am an environmentalist, green, pro-recycling, green energy, save the planet, save the animals guy, but I want *nothing* to do with Greenpeace whatsoever.

They go about their agenda in totally the wrong way. Not just this targeting of Apple (and their prior attack on Apple for being "less green" than competitors when in reality, Apple had "gone green" with the suggestions Greenpeace made many years before that but just didn't tell anyone, but their assault on nuclear power with totally fictitious "tug at the heart strings" videos about how nuclear power can only ever result in Chernobyl-level accidents.

Ugh. Greenpeace, just go away already. You're scaring away people from being green.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

So your basically saying that the ends justify the means, regardless of what they do or who they hurt. Seems like groups are putting everyone on different types of lists these days, "You on my bad list for not following the rules that we do." Environmental groups put companies on lists because they don't spend enough "saving the planet" Media groups putting countries like Canada on watch lists because they don't have the same insane copyright laws as the US does.

Every can take their worthless lists and cram it up your vaginas because it doesn't mean a thing and you have too much time to tell us who is bothering you today.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[MichaelSmith]

But you can go to far where your views are considered to radical to be possible. Thus becoming a buch of crazy nuts and go back to your way of doing things, As they will be mad at you no matter what.

Interesting that your sig seems to support radical positions taken by RMS.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[bornwaysouth]

But milk and honey are truly the only foods that you could truly say can be obtained from the plant and animal kingdom without harming a plant or animal or impinging on its reproduction.

I was once a nice young lad too. Life is ugly.

Reproduction...
To get a cow into lactation nicely, the process is to get it into calf. On birth of calf, send it off to the slaughter (Called bobby calves. Don't know why. Premium veal for US market.) Then milk cow like crazy. Also, breed cows to have more milk than needed for a calf.

And from a wider *green* perspective... I live in a New Zealand. Here, milk production is a mainstay of the economy, and the methane that cows belch and fart is a really serious part of our greenhouse emissions. Methane is 14 times as nasty as carbon dioxide.

So cross milk off the list too.

As for honey. Well, you are ripping the hive off its store of winter food, for the sole benefit of having designer apartments supplied. That is parasitism. On balance, I will concede that it is ok to eat honey. Just honey. A diet of 99% sugar and water has much to recommend it. Call it the Coca-Cola diet. It must have a really good Darwin rating.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't bad? They're insane. It is impossible to be 100% pro-nature and 100% pro-electronics. I prefer electronics, I know my laptop and PDA batteries are full of terrible things. I don't care, I like them and if you asked most people if they would prefer a green cell phone with less talk time and cost more or one that was worse on environment with more talk time and cheaper, the majority would pick the longer talk time and better buy. Environmentalism when it gets so extreme is terrible. The funny part is most of these greenpeace retards come from urban cities? Why are all the environmentalist in LA and NY and whatnot, if they love nature why aren't then out living in the country side? Exactly, because they are totally disconnected from what they are talking about, they have green-guilt that drives them to act the way they do. If they would just live their life by their code and let me live my life by my code we would be OK, but oddly enough they often times cannot even live by their code. I would laugh at them more if their BS weren't holding up good projects like domestic drilling for natural gas or nuclear reactors with insane court cases. I mean these foobars got a court to decide polar bears are endangered while the total number of polar bears is at an all time high, the are more P-bears then at any point in history, yet environmentalist and lawyers sighted one small area where the population of bears has dropped. That would be like me saying the world population of humans is dropping sighting Detroit's population decline as proof. I hate environmentalists because they are bullies.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[DiscoverySound]

Greenpeace's strategy isn't really bad. Sure, they're picking on a big company for publicity, but whatever effects are the result of greenpeace's research will trickle down into the factory floors of their component suppliers having a much larger effect.

I totally disagree. Greenpeace is a great organization, but they are known for picking fights with big name corporations just to boost publicity. I think Apple is not going to listen anyway. Steve Jobs has stated before that he is not intimidated by GP and they could at least be more tactical about careless accusations.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

So actually strict vegans are cum eaters, because beans, nuts and fruits are the plant's equivalent of animal's semen.

In other words, vegans swallow, don't spit.

Actually they're unborn baby (fetus) eaters, not cum eaters. To be cum eaters, they'd have to eat pollen. But anytime you eat saffron (the stigma which is a female part of the plant but also catches pollen), you are eating the vegan equivalent of a cum-covered pussy.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Poorcku]

nicely put point of view.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

Vegans won't eat milk, eggs, or any other animal products, regardless of whether the animal was harmed. Vegetarians will.

I don't know where everyone is getting the idea that "strict vegans" don't kill plants. Maybe some hippies somewhere are trying it, but that's not what "vegan" means.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

Greenpeace's strategy isn't really bad. Sure, they're picking on a big company for publicity, but whatever effects are the result of greenpeace's research will trickle down into the factory floors of their component suppliers having a much larger effect.

Right and wrong, fact and lies don't matter..... when it's for "the greater good!"

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[PitaBred]

Milk, the cows are killing the environment. They take up too many resources, and belch and fart methane into the air. Milk is worse than eating 15 entire heads of lettuce.

That said, I'm gonna go grill me a steak.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[davester666]

Actually, I don't think Dell and HP are worried about this. Greenpeace is doing this, not to tear down Apple or to change Apple's behaviour.

These press releases (which seem to have increased in frequency) are to try boost awareness of Greenpeace. They claim all the credit for any positive changes Apple makes, while constantly changing the goalposts so that most of the time, Apple has a failing grade. They are trying to new young people to be part of their movement by targeting the company that makes the cool products that so many of them like. If Apple could grow completely organic computers, Greenpeace would still find some way to give them a failing grade, just so Greenpeace can say "We're still relevant".

Greenpeace will NEVER be happy with Apple until Apple goes out of business, and any land they have is returned to farmland.

I would find Greenpeace more credible if they targeted the worst offenders, instead of just 'popular' companies. So it's about improving the environment, not improving the image of Greenpeace.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[alexibu]

I think that you'd be surprised to find that you wouldn't actually know how to be green with out groups like Greenpeace bringing things to you and your societies attention just like they have with this issue.
Would anyone know the Japanese were harvesting whales if noone was watching / would you know about climate change ? I'm sure the oil / coal companies would have managed to tell us eventually.
Greenpeace use the media to bring attention to things that there is no commercial interest in publicizing, but which it is in all our interests to know about. That is extremely valuable in a world where most of our information about our ever closely interconnected world comes from international media which is mostly dominated by commercial interests.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Hao Wu]

I hope Apple sues Greenpeace.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, being vegan means you don't eat animal products. Being a vegan has nothing to do with not eating a whole plant. That would be Fruitariansiam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[forgoil]

What they do that is believable? Go get the facts yourself and you will find out.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Bacon Bits]

So as a competing manufacturer, why would you take on expenses to advertise, or even clean up, your manufacturing process?

Because you have kids and they need to live here, too? I know, I know, worrying about something other than the bottom line for current quarter is so anachronistic these days.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[theaveng]

Right on. I'm anenvironmentalist, but I think a lot of my "colleagues" like greenpeace are frakking idiots. Apple is what? 5% of the PC market? Probably less. Even if Apple decided to quit making PCs, there improvement to the environment would be negligible.

Greenpeace should target Microsoft and Microsoft-compatible Windows PCs. That's where they will make the maximum amount of change to improve conditions. Target the big guys and leave the small frys alone.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to know some vegans who would eat eggs "as long as they were free-range". Otherwise was unacceptable.

As for milk, I could be wrong, but if I recall correctly, unlike humans, who have the potential to lactate for years after the initial birth, cows only lactate for about a year after they calve. In order to keep the cow producing milk, you've got to keep her having calves. Even if all of the female calves grew up to be milk cows (hint: they don't), there would still be a large number of male calves. And since bulls don't give milk, and very few are needed to inseminate the cows, most bull calves become meat.

So by drinking milk, you're essentially encouraging the production of veal.

Honey would depend on how you feel about smoking bees. I'd probably not have a problem with it, but I don't think people who have qualms abut killing plants for food would like most methods used to tranquilize bees.

I'd say that it'd probably make sense to okay eating true annual and biennial plants that are near or at the end of their life cycle; this would put lettuce, watercress, carrots, beets, celery, and cauliflower back on the okay list, if you grew them yourself. However, I'm not an extreme vegan; there may be some other rationale there.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[CodeBuster]

Greenpeace is not credible because they are not reasonable. Even some of the founding members have left the organization over the years due to the increasingly extreme nature of their positions. If Greenpeace had its way modern life as we know it would not exist, they even proposed banning all bleach (which is totally crackpot) despite the enormous benefits to mankind from continued use of this and other power disinfectant chemicals. The biggest problem with Greenpeace is Greenpeace itself and until they manage to clean their own house of extreme and uncompromising people they will continue to marginalize and render their own efforts on other more reasonable positions completely ineffective. The other posters are right, the message that other companies will take from this is, "Don't give Greenpeace any credibility by actually speaking to them, no matter what you say or do it will only cost money and be more trouble than it is worth."

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Elektroschock]

It is not so easy. Greepeace actually has a "computer waste" focus for quite some time and they developed some good pratices. All companies do now Green IT, not only APPLE.

I would suspect that the solution to computer problems lies in the software. You can install less resource-consuming applications, for instance as a Linux user the LXDE desktop environment, this is organic software. These days hardware *burns* a lot of energy but responsible is also software-as-a-brake (Saab). The environmental effects of speed optimisation would be great.

How come that your Vista-desktop is slower than your good old Win98 installation although you basically just do the very same things. A 1998 style processor today consumes very little energy. A fast low carbon desktop would make a lot of sense for many commercial and private users in times where energy pricing explodes.

Just 5% of IT energy reduction would have massive effects on the economy at large.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, wait, wait. You do realise that quite a) a number of plant seeds benefit from being passed through a critter's stomach/digestive system, and b) plants grow fruits PRECISELY to entice critters to eat them (and, in the process, consume and distribute the seeds as well), don't you?

Eating fruits is not "impinging on [a plant's] reproduction". Quite the opposite, it's taking a plant up on a deal it's offering.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[jo_ham]

We'd be doing just fine without Greenpeace. Al Gore was trumpeting climate change and actually trying to do something about it since the 70s (as just one high profile example), and there are several other "green" interest groups that don't resort to the sort of thing Greenpeace goes after.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Wizard Drongo]

Actually a lot of vegans won't eat dairy products because the dairy farming system regularly produces a lot of male calves that are then slaughtered and sold on dirt cheap. If you drink milk, you're supporting a very unpleasant life/death cycle for them.

I'm a meat-eater and I'm not sure I like the dairy system, ethically speaking. I highly doubt vegans being any less ethical.

That then leaves them veggies (which they WILL eat), fruit, fungus and nuts. And maybe eggs. Some won't eat eggs tough, since it's still supporting chicken farming...
I don't mind them. As long as they don't stop me eating what I want I won't stop them eating what they want.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[jcr]

Greenpeace's strategy isn't really bad.

Yes, it is. It discredits the environmental movement. Greenpeace is a collection of publicity whores, who suck up contributions that could otherwise be doing some good in the world.

-jcr

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[jcr]

I am an environmentalist, green, pro-recycling, green energy, save the planet, save the animals guy, but I want *nothing* to do with Greenpeace whatsoever.

I would expect any environmentalist with a clue to shun Greenpeace.

-jcr

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[amias]

the same could be very easily said about businessess , there is no altruism in commerce but there is in environmentalism . the big difference here is that any harm greenpeace might do is tiny compared to what businessess do on a daily basis. check your economy and climate if you dont believe me.

wake up people , nobody has the right to pollute.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

Meme alert, meme alert!

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

Eating fruits is not impinging on a plant's reproduction as long as you remember to eat the apple core and shit in the woods. Otherwise, the seeds don't end up anywhere they can grow.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh man, what would life be today without BLEACH?! Humankind would never be the same!

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[couchslug]

"Much like extreme veganism, where you are not supposed to eat anything from a plant where you end up killing the entire plant."

Why isn't plant vivisection considered sadistic?
It's like carving off steaks without first killing the cow.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Jesus_666]

wake up people , nobody has the right to pollute.

In that cast someone should start some kind of organization that fights pollution. Greenpeace certainly doesn't appear to.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[shutdown -p now]

As for honey. Well, you are ripping the hive off its store of winter food, for the sole benefit of having designer apartments supplied.

Yes, but you also protect the hive and ensure that it is located in an environment that maximized the produced honey. Also, to the best of my knowledge, even after the beekeepers retrieve the "extra" honey, the bees are still better off compared to a wild hive. If so, the relationship is symbiotic rather than parasitical.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Reziac]

The same applies to the milk cows, who get a nice warm barn and generous fodder all winter, instead of having to stand out in the blizzards and forage for themselves as best they can when the grass is under two feet of snow...

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[vandelais]

Greenpeace are a bunch of attention whores.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton should sue them for gimmick infringement.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[bornwaysouth]

I agree that it is symbiosis rather than parasitism. However, the symbiosis is unbalanced. That is, humans are in control, and are exercising that control. If we stuff up and snuff out honey bees, well, we just eat something else.

In terms of reproduction, two decisions are being made for the bees. Queens are assigned to hives, both to improve honey production and control aggression. Secondly, to make money, diseases are allowed to happen. That is, given a choice between profit and enormous risk to large number of hives, humans opt for the profit. Not all humans, just a tiny percent in the teeth of vigorous border controls. But it only takes one dumb import into this country to introduce disease. This year as for the past 5 years, there are very few honey-bees around my house. That is because some idiot imported in the varroa mite and it has been spreading.

So I cannot accept that we do not drastically influence bee reproduction in our quest for honey. However, you are simply pointing out that it is symbiosis, as bees gain quite a lot from the association. On balance, I agree. But if bees imported a disease into this country that wiped out 90% of the humans, I cannot see us happily agreeing that hey, it's all part of the give and take of symbiosis. From a biological perspective however, wiping out me and another 6 billion people off the planet could be a really really good idea. But as I croaked my last, realizing that the bees did it just to be able to buy a bigger digital TV for the hive, I'd probably illogically mutter - parasitic bastards!

So yes, I agree it is symbiosis. The local bees might disagree. The last bee that I had a personal relationship with summarizes the state of the union. It was on a glass that I picked up, inadvertently crushing the poor wee bee. As it died, it stung me, and my hand swelled up nastily. The hive lost a minor worker, and I had a bad day. I got the message. Symbiosis is not about win-win. It is about fair trade.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[nsayer]

A diet of 99% sugar and water has much to recommend it.

Where does the sugar come from? Militant vegans would point out that it comes from either destroying a sugar cane plant or a sugar beet plant. Corn syrup comes from the seeds of the maize plant, so none for you.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[bornwaysouth]

Honey is near enough all sugars and water in nutritional terms. As a primary food source, honey would be fatal fairly quickly because you would get no protein and very little minerals.

But if you sneaked enough other food, then you could live long enough before obesity and type 2 diabetes took you out.

On the plus side, the tiny traces of pollen in the honey should help suppress hay fever. Provided it was local honey.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[GaryPatterson]

Once you use an ivory iPod, you won't want anything else.

And that leopard print case... well it's no 'print'.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Cowmonaut]

Um, how does his sig actually support what RMS said? It just says that people here are sheep because they were all for "cloud computing" before RMS said no.

Digression aside, Greenpeace are essentially terrorists. Their ethics are skewed so loss of human life doesn't matter, just loss of anything else. Also, the philosophy of vegans are flawed just like the philosophy of anything else man 'believes' in. The cost of an imperfect world I suppose.

I'm with most of the rest here. You eat what you want, I'll eat what I want. Most of the time what I want is a roll of bread and a hunk of cheese. The rest, give me a big ol' steak. Veal even. I don't care. I'm hungry and it tastes good.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[korean.ian]

whoops. that should have been insightful, not informative...

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[kchrist]

Actually a lot of vegans won't eat dairy products ...

The term you're looking for here is "vegetarian". Vegans by definition do not eat any animal products, including meat, eggs, and dairy (eg, milk, cheese, etc). Someone who doesn't eat meat but does eat eggs and dairy is simply a vegetarian (sometimes called a lacto-ovo vegetarian).

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[kchrist]

Much like extreme veganism, where you are not supposed to eat anything from a plant where you end up killing the entire plant.

Can you actually provide a source for this claim?

I ask because I'm a 20 year vegetarian (not vegan) who has in the past been active in animal rights circles, I've had lots of vegan friends, I live in Berkeley for god's sake, and I have not once heard anyone suggest that entire plants not be used for food.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[badkarmadayaccount]

Dude, that's worse than goatse ascii art...

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should ask a vegan why they won't eat eggs or milk. I've never asked about honey. It's not just about killing, but harm.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial

[tripdizzle]

nobody has the right to pollute.

just as long as CO2 is not considered pollution. If humans are exhaling pollution, we are apparently destroying the planet and just need to end our lives.

Greenpeace?

[BigBadBus]

The same twonks behind this story?. I might have considered giving money to them at some point, but now, the answer is a definite no.

Re:Greenpeace?

[zx-15]

To be fair the article was written by a twonk too, instead of doing research and actually speaking to people involved, the said twonk just started slamming Greenpeace. Oh, and by the way, it was published in a freaking Register, which doesn't really help its credibility.

Re:Greenpeace?

[jo_ham]

Indeed, but it does contain quotes from Greenpeace, which I assume are accurate. Whether they are or not is a case for verification - you can ask the people involved (who are named in the article) if they said what was attributed to them.

And it's exactly this kind of thing that gets me about Greenpeace - Patrick Moore said it exactly: "By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism," Now, while I don;t believe the entire environmental movement has gone this way, Greenpeace certainly has.

They have taken this anti-technology stand on practically everything they don't understand - fusion power being one of them.

Fusion power could be the answer to long term, large scale, clean electricity, and end forever the need to burn coal, oil, LNG or whatever else was once alive millions of years ago and is now flammable to make energy, but they want to stop it because they don't understand it.

Re:Greenpeace?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they are a bit off on this, although from a quick Google search, fusion does in fact create radioactive waste, but it is *perhaps* more controllable than fission.

But fusion is effectively vapourware, by the time it's viable it will be too late; we really have to stop refusing to fix our wetware (i.e. not waste so much bloody power on that pointless graphics card ;-) than rely on future promises of silver bullet tech.

The reality is that the ONLY way towards sustainable economies is to reduce each individuals ecological footprint, and this means social change not only technological change.

Re:Greenpeace?

[alexibu]

Fusion power has also been 20 years away for about 60 years now.
Greenpeace seem to understand technology better than most as they seem to recommend massive rollout of wind and solar thermal to fix climate change.
Thats not anti technology - thats appropriate proven technology urgently needed to fix problems caused by old school fossil technology now.

Re:Greenpeace?

[Lars T.]

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance

Nuclear fusion reactor project in France: an expensive and senseless nuclear stupidity
"Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today"

Re:Greenpeace?

[jo_ham]

Yeah, the advocate a huge offshore wind farm development (which is perfectly sound) but neglect to tell anyone that a 50km offshore farm has severe logistical problems - cabling that much power back to land has resistance losses, huge economic cost, large infrastructure cost. I'm not saying that large scale solar thermal or wind farms are a bad idea, but Greenpeace has a "it must only be wind/tidal/solar/CHP or nothing else! wah wah!" and will shoot down any attempt you have to try and widen the debate.

They have dismissed fusion as a "dangerous toy" while we're still working on it. They are only informed on the issues they want to be informed on - anything they dismiss (like nuclear fusion, nuclear fission) they simply wave the propaganda wand over.

Consider this - in their new DVD, Greenpeace states that new nuclear reactors will do nothing (or almost nothing) to help CO2 emission reductions, saying that nuclear can only generate electricity and that 86% of transport and heating is done via oil.

Ok, great - looks bad for nuclear power. But wait! They want to replace all those nuclear stations with wind and tidal generators! So, tell me again how those wind and tidal generators heat your house or move your car (remember, if nuclear can only generate electricity, and it's being discounted because of that, then you have to also exclude the fact that wind and tidal can only generate electricity.....)

Solar thermal can help heat your house (and solar thermal with flat panels is an excellent way to provide domestic hot water), but there's no reason why you can't have solar thermal and nuclear.

You can't have it both ways.

Of course I want renewable energy - the cleaner and cheaper the better. However, dismissing fusion research and fission power (which is reliable, safe, clean and high density) is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Re:Greenpeace?

[An Onerous Coward]

You have a pretty short memory if you think any register.co.uk story is worth trusting, especially one from Internet Troll King Andrew Orlowski. Neither the man nor the news outlet have any journalistic integrity. In this particular instance, he takes two quotes (which are probably accurate, but don't actually say what he claims*) and bootstraps them into an entire article, padded with petty digs against environmentalists, sustainable energy, and just plain irresponsible editorializing.

"If a scientific breakthrough promises a better of quality of life, then the organisation is probably against it."

That's FOX News-quality journalism there.

* The first quote merely states opposition to a single project. The second is simply pushing back against those who would overhype the safety and cleanliness of nuclear fusion. It isn't clear whether either is speaking on behalf of Greenpeace. A search for "fusion" on the Greenpeace website uncovered no official position on nuclear fusion, and widely divergent views on the member blogs and bulletin boards.

In short, there doesn't seem to be an official position by Greenpeace on nuclear power, and Orlowski is committing journalistic malpractice by trying to imply otherwise.

Re:Greenpeace?

[bnenning]

However, dismissing fusion research and fission power (which is reliable, safe, clean and high density) is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

That assumes your goal is to actually produce clean energy, not eliminate modern civilization and replace it with a utopia where we Live in Harmony with Gaia. Prediction: as soon as solar, wind, or tidal power becomes cheap and efficient enough to replace a substantial portion of fossil fuels, Greenpeace and other radical environmentalists will discover a reason why they're unacceptable.

Re:Greenpeace?

[alexibu]

Maybe they will,

Removing solar and wind installations that cause distressing amounts of visual polution is a problem that I would love to have, it is easy to do and you are left with a legacy of just some concrete foundations.
Compare that with the legacies of irreversible effects of climate change, dangerous underground stored C02 or nuclear waste.
Let them discover a reason why renewables are unacceptable, we need leaders to point the way.
Alex

Flawed study

[Anonymous Coward]

Greenpeace's conclusion on Apple (and Nintendo) is based not on objective studies, but on the fact that neither Apple or Nintendo are releasing information on the manufacturing process to Greenpeace.

From the Ars Technica article: "[Greenpeace] notes that these ratings are, in part, an attempt to encourage companies to publish verifiable information regarding the use of toxic chemicals in their manufacturing and supply chain."

Re:Flawed study

[TeacherOfHeroes]

As I understand it, these ratings are, in large part, a way to help environmentally conscious consumers buy green products. By not disclosing that information, they make this impossible for consumers to do accurately. Reducing their scores for not cooperating is about the only means they have to pressure the companies into being more consumer-frieldny in this matter. While it may be flawed as a study, it functions correctly as a guide to buying products you know to be environmentally-friendly.

Think if it a different way: If you showed up for a university exam or a job interview, and refused to disclose what you knew about the subject in question, wouldn't *you* expect to get low marks, too? If you in fact knew a great deal about the subject, you could claim that the exam/interview was a flawed study, but the fact of the matter is that you refused to participate, and in this case you don't get the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Flawed study

[jlarocco]

The difference is that a university exam or a job interview is something you voluntarily participate in. In this case GreenPeace is demanding information and crying when Apple tells them to get lost.

Though I do see GreenPeace's point. If you're going to brag about being "green", you should be willing to provide information backing that up.

Re:Flawed study

[Anonymous Coward]

The proper way to aid consumers in environmentally-friendly purchases is to provide accurate ratings. Scoring based on lack of information is inappropriate in all categories except an "willingness to divulge information" category.

The fact of the matter is Greenpeace has no idea and so simply cannot provide this information to consumers. What they've decided to provide instead is unquestionably inaccurate and I fail to see how this helps consumers buy environmentally-friendly products.

A useful guide would plainly state when information is not available. If they want to "pressure the companies" a simple note saying the companies would not provide the information is not only more accurate, but leaves open the possibility of the company cooperating in the future. Looking like coercive zealots is not an effective way of getting people to open up!

Re:Flawed study

[beelsebob]

The problem is that Apple can't provide the information that Greenpeace want. Last time greenpeace did this study, apple got marked down for having no schedule for removing PVC from their packaging. The reason apple had no such schedule was that they hadn't used PVC in their packaging since 1990.

Re:Flawed study

[Znork]

1995 according to Apple. And searching on Apple and PVC gives you a nice Apple webpage detailing these things, so it seems that Greenpeace managed to convince Apple to publish the details at least.

That said, while I certainly don't hold Greenpeace in a particularly high regard, but as far as Apple and environmentalism is concerned, you don't need to go further than the battery replacement issue to draw your own conclusions.

Re:Flawed study

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, it's nice to know that there is, in fact, a balanced view here ... it makes the comments worth reading.

Re:Flawed study

[carou]

Battery replacement issue?

You mean, the one where you have to hand your iPod in for service and they replace the battery, ensuring the materials in the old one can be properly recycled - as opposed to selling people new batteries and letting the old ones contribute its toxic elements to landfill?

Re:Flawed study

[DDLKermit007]

Ignore the GP...hes the type who eats up the Greenpeace garbage without thinking. He knows not how stupid what he says!

Re:Flawed study

[je ne sais quoi]

The first issue I have with this study is that if you're going to buy electronics products based on their waste, you're starting at a low point. E-waste in particular is nasty, and even recycling it ends up poisoning a lot of people if it's not done properly. Here's a link of a cnet article talking about Chinese problems at recycling centers. The issue is the heavy metals like lead, chromium, cadmium, nickel, etc. Recycling may occur that is more damaging than putting the metals in a landfill. It's stupid for Greenpeace to single out Apple for "not recycling" when "recycling" is of dubious helpfulness if not done properly, and this is a sympton of the industry as a whole.

As for the specifics, it seems like a lot of the bad ratings of Apple are coming from the fact that they won't disclose timelines, or explain how various numbers are accounted. How do they know that the timelines published by "green" companies aren't complete bullshit? Also, I suspect they aren't giving enough credit to Apple for what it has done and focusing instead on what it hasn't. E.g., Greenpeace gives no indication why Apple's renewable energy purchases are in the "bad" category, were they not enough or what? They give Apple no credit for having a timeline to put their Ireland manufacturing facility on 100% renewable. Also, they give Apple a "bad" rating for not disclosing how much recycled plastics they use in their packaging some of their products. Hello?! The plastic in the packaging are some plastic bags, it's trivial, the rest of the packaging is cardboard and styrofoam. Greenpeace will look like idiots if the reason Apple doesn't report recycled plastic content in their packaging is because they aren't using any plastic at all in some product packaging.

Although I can sympathize with Greenpeace, I think we've all been annoyed by the secrecy or control-obsessiveness of Apple at some time in the past. Maybe Greenpeace is just expressing its views that Apple's secrecy in this case is not acceptable.

Re:Flawed study

[eh2o]

Living with the byproducts of industrial pollution is not something we voluntarily participate in either.

Re:Flawed study

[vvaduva]

How can a flawed study function correctly? That doesn't make any sense. First off, Apple does not owe anyone, including Greenpeace, any public explanation regarding their products; unless their products contain illegal products, they cannot be held liable, especially by a bunch of whackos in Greenpeace. Secondly, judging by Greenpeace's history with anything "corporate," you cannot judge any corporation for refusing to participate, mostly because when they do, they still get screwed over for doing it.

Instead of commending Apple for taking steps in the right direction, they skewer them for not going far enough. There is never "far enough" with these people...unless their machines will be painted communist red, because let's face it, their agenda is mostly political in nature. They've lost their ways a long time ago.

Re:Flawed study

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to not being without your electronics for weeks by recycling the battery and buying a new one without having to break into the gadget in the first place.

Re:Flawed study

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, nevermind that little $100 service charge, eh? Of course it's not for profit, it's all because they care for the environment.

Re:Flawed study

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Every other manufacturer gives their batteries away for free.

Re:Flawed study

[Rakarra]

It's not the cost of the batteries that people complain about, it's that they're not user-servicable.

greenpeace are nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

they are out of touch with reality in a very disturbing way. all corporations now are very very aware of environmental issues, and do their best to phase out wasteful or destructive practices, how about a little praise and positive publicity instead of sounding like a spoilt kid stamping it's feet, screaming MORE MORE....

What in the world is the point

[Anonymous Coward]

.... in giving these loons any more free publicity than they already get?

Greenpeace - research

[arthurpaliden]

Greenpeace is nothing but an organization of eco-terrorists trying to gain attention and money from the ignorant masses. To use their name and 'research' is oxymoronic at is best.

Re:Greenpeace - research

[pipingguy]

Actually, it appears that Greenpeace is a political organization that plays on people's guilt in order to gain funding. Cute, furry animals that die at the hands of evil humans (whether for food or the neglect of the irresponsible west) obviously deserve more attention than ugly, bothersome ones.

Their histrionics, hypocracy and irrationality sank them a long time ago, but you'll find the occasional brain-dead celebrity supporting their efforts.

Re:Greenpeace - research

[alexibu]

Would you care to explain exactly the nature of the terror you feel from greenpeace ?

If you think they are terrorising Apple i think you are wrong
Implementing best practice that will be standard practice in a few years will only be good for Apple
They are being picked on because Greenpeace has recognised them as a technological leader. The recognition will only do them good. Being forced to become more of a leader will only do them good.

You are the terrorist. You are the one raving about ignorant masses, and trying to make people scared of the green movement, with no reasoning.
Greenpeace rationally pointing out better ways of not doing things, and promoting a ranking of companies based their supply of relavant consumer information, is not the act of a terrorist group.

Re:Greenpeace - research

[canadian_right]

Greenpeace lost its way a long time ago. Even one of its founders couldn't stomach its new direction.

There is no "Great Bear Rain-Forest". I live where it is supposed to be and they just made that up for publicity. There is a rain forest, and it has bears, but no one outside of Greenpeace calls it that.

They used to do good. Now they are just fear mongers.

Re:Greenpeace - research

[cliffski]

wow. this shit is modded informative? gimme a break. Perhaps you would like to go back to a time where asbestos and lead paint was used in school buildings and companies had carte blanche to put whatever the fuck they wanted in food. Why don't we just hunt a few species to extinction while we are about it.

I don't see whats 'eco-terrorist' about trying to get less toxic chemicals used in making equipment that most geeks have in their homes.
But then, in the UK it's not as common for us to hurl 'terrorist' as an insult against anyone who we have no idea how to argue against.

Re:Greenpeace - research

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats exactly the point: Greenpeace is less interested in clean, sustainable, energy than lets say Exxon Mobile.

Exxon Mobile could use it's huge monetary potential to enter this market. But Greenpace will lose funding and eventualy die, if they really reach their propagated goals...

Re:Greenpeace - research

[Aviation Pete]

Sorry to make this look less spectacular - but Greenpeace is just serving its audience what they want to hear. If they would't do it, someone else would fill the gap.

What really is to lament is our press and influential people (politicians, Hollywood stars - you name it) being so attracted to sensations and uncritical of simple stupidity. They have - a least in my eyes - a moral responsibility to stick to truth and logic. Instead, they go the easy road of political correctness and pandering to the masses. But where should those masses improve their knowledge and reasoning if not by example of those who determine what can be read and heard?

We have a lot of growing up to do - even 300 years after the enlightenment started, much of the world is left in darkness!

Re:Greenpeace - research

[Anonymous Coward]

Rubbish. Have you ever played ShadowRun (the RPG - I'm not sure you young whippersnappers even recall it, or would know that there are ways to play RPGs without a mouse and a monthly subscription to WoW) and come into contact with GreenWar?

Now THAT is eco-terrorism!

Re:Greenpeace - research

[YrWrstNtmr]

Actually, it appears that Greenpeace is a political organization that plays on people's guilt in order to gain funding.

To quote one very vocal 'greenie':
"They played on our fears!!"

Re:Greenpeace - research

[Danathar]

A greenpeace cult groupie asked me what my favorite planet was when I was coming out of the Metro in D.C. (as a way to draw me in so they could recite their eco-religious speech).

I said my favorite planet was VENUS! And that they should take their vacation there.

Re:Greenpeace - research

[DDLKermit007]

Really? This is rational?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/fusion_greenpeace_no/

Re:Greenpeace - research

[DDLKermit007]

Yeah...they never do any wrong. They got their way with lead solder, and now any components that get hot with any regularity end up having half the lifespan previous electronics had. Sure we end up buying twice as many electronics, but hey! The trace levels of lead in something your supposed to recycle even without lead are gone!

Re:Greenpeace - research

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally speaking, I find it even more amazing that there are groups out there that even the Greenpeace won't touch with a ten foot pole. Specifically, the Sea Shepherds. (I don't think it's a coincidence that the abbreviation is "SS".)

Re:Greenpeace - research

[TMB]

Attacking Greenpeace is not attacking environmentalism. Greenpeace is the single most counter-productive environmental organization in existence.

Re:Greenpeace - research

[arthurpaliden]

No but I would like to go back to a time when Green peace actually told the truth. For example: for more thatn the last 20 years it has been illigal in Canada to harvest and trade in white woats. Yet every year we still see those same pictures of the cute little white coats on their anti-sealing propaganda no where do you see pictures of the seals that they actuall do harverst. I guess they are not cute enough.

Re:Greenpeace - research

[DNS-and-BIND]

Nah, they're still pulling the same crap that they've always pulled. The difference is that you've grown up since then, and you can see them for the idiots that they've always been. Why? Because now, you disagree with their conclusions. As long as you agreed with them, then their tactics might have been a little aboveboard, but hey, they're trying to protect the environment! And that's important, even if it gets a little extreme! But the moment that their goals diverge from your own, they become no-good fearmongers who need to disband and grow up and accept the reality of the world as it is.

Greenpeace hasn't changed. You have.

Re:Greenpeace - research

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than the fact that they gave it a name it didn't previously have, did they say anything wrong about it?

Re:Greenpeace - research

[GaryPatterson]

You mention asbestos and lead-based paint.

Were Greenpeace responsible for the stop in their use? I'm not aware of that, but I'm happy to be wrong if you can provide something to back up those claims.

As for putting stuff into food, many countries have pretty stringent regulation and testing on that one. Have Greenpeace contributed to this? Are they active in the countries where that is most needed (poor countries, third-world countries, etc)?

Lately all I see of Greenpeace is a loose group of people who are dedicated anti-development and anti-technology. They make statements that are either outright lies or show a complete failure to understand the topic (look at previous posts for links to statements about nuclear fission as an energy source, for an excellent example).

The stated goals of Greenpeace are noble goals, worthy indeed. The actual practice of the group has degenerated to simply saying "No" at every opportunity. They need to return to the science of environmentalism.

Re:Greenpeace - research

[rossz]

Many years ago I donated money to Green Peace on a regular basis. Then it dawned on me that they had been taken over by the lunatic fringe. My charity money now goes to more worthy organizations (my current favorite is Spirit of America). I canceled my ACLU membership for similar reasons.

Re:Greenpeace - research

[alexibu]

No.
Quoting an obscure quote on an irrelevant topic in that bastion of accurate reporting "The register" to argue your point doesn't qualify you as rational.
BTW the flame bait tag should clearly have been applied to the eco terrorist comment, which somehow managed to get 5 informative.

I feel the urge to shop

[davmoo]

The fact that Greenpeace comes down on Apple is a good reason for me to consider buying a new Macbook.

Re:I feel the urge to shop

[Tubal-Cain]

It's still Black Friday where I'm at...

Re:I feel the urge to shop

[Greyfox]

Or go to Japan for the sole purpose of eating whale. They hate that! Anywhoo it must really suck to be a marketroid or politician in this day and age. They still think they can get away with lying but with so many people with such ready access to information, it's pretty much guaranteed that someone is going to fact check what they say.

Re:I feel the urge to shop

[gnasher719]

The fact that Greenpeace comes down on Apple is a good reason for me to consider buying a new Macbook.

Don't do that! Greenpeace says the percentage of recycled plastic in the weight of the MacBook is too low!

green

[Emesee]

"Apple Touts 'Greenest Family Of Notebooks Ever'"
http://www.crn.com/hardware/212200570
That's nice, yes?
Even more will be done, yes?

"Researchers getting the lead out of electronics"
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/111808-researchers-electronics.html?hpg1=bn

Re:green

[hairyfeet]

And has anyone done a study comparing the failure rates of items created with lead free solder VS lead? Because from what my engineering friends tell me the non lead solder is crap. it doesn't flow evenly, it seems to fail more often, it simply doesn't work nearly as well as the lead according to them. So while insuring a clean environment is a good thing(and recycling the lead would probably work just as well) if the lack of lead in solder joints causes us to end up with giant mounds of e-waste as electronics fail earlier than they need to, then we may very well be "penny wise and pound foolish".

We need to have consumer electronics that will last. And if that requires lead then either raise the price a little to pay for the recycling or have the manufacturers provide an easy way to drop these items off for recycling. But if we don't look at these situations logically we may end up being buried in "green" e-waste from electronics dying before their time.

So shouldn't we just ignore them?

[Timothy Brownawell]

Ars Technica points out that Greenpeace's research isn't quite up-to-snuff, and it's also worth noting that Greenpeace admitted to targeting Apple for the publicity in the past.

Why was this posted, then?

Re:So shouldn't we just ignore them?

[Macrat]

Why was this posted, then?

Why indeed.

Re:So shouldn't we just ignore them?

[cheekyboy]

Teal'c is that you again?

Get back to Stargate :)

Is Danial Jackson still using Dells?

Re:So shouldn't we just ignore them?

[Reziac]

Because a lot of otherwise intelligent and generally well-educated people are nonetheless unaware of Greenpeace's actual activities and real motivations, nor does it occur to them to investigate further. And we can't educate them by failing to refute Greenpeace's bullshit -- how is the average person to learn better if no one ever points out the flaws??

See also my post up above, subject line "follow the money".

Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel

[girlintraining]

Greenpeace--Seriously? They're the PETA of the environmentalist movement. It's like how I feel having Michael Moore on Team Liberal, or Richard Simmons on Team Gay. These people are bordering on terrorist tactics; They have put concrete plugs in industrial exhaust plumes, endangering the plant workers inside and risking explosions. They've put their little boats in front of major ships in international waters, causing trade disruption. Their little protests cause a lot of economic damage, and their so-called "non-violent" stance? Please! There's press you can find online of various groups claiming to act for Greenpeace that have assaulted people. Of course, Greenpeace denies that they were acting for the cause (and they might even be right) -- but this group tends to attract the fringe and the radicals. There's a reason the FBI has them on several watchlists. :\ I mean, the French bombed their flag ship! The French -- you know, white flags France... Yeah, Greenpeace pissed them off enough that the President himself ordered their ship blown up.

If you're an environmentalist, or a greenie, you DO NOT WANT Greenpeace on your team.

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel

[girlintraining]

... Heh, figures. Truth hurts.

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel

[Admiral Ag]

You might want to read a bit more about that one. The problem in that case was that the French decided that it would be a good idea to test nuclear weapons in the South Pacific, which mortally pissed off pretty much everyone who lived there. If it was so safe, why couldn't they test the blasted things in France. It wasn't just Greenpeace. The New Zealand government had sent ships to the test site to protest in previous years. Why stand by as some European nonces shit in our back yard?

European nuclear powers had a well-known history of contempt for people in the South Pacific. Britain, for example, tested nuclear weapons in Australia without bothering to inform the Aboriginals who lived near the test site that they should get out of the way. So you can guess that the French were not popular.

New Zealand was a supposed ally of France and there are thousands of New Zealanders buried in war cemeteries in France and Belgium, which is where they died helping defend France against invasion. So to have the French security forces commit a terrorist attack and murder on New Zealand soil just because they couldn't hack a rusty old boat sailing up and down near their nuclear test site was in my opinion a bit much.

The French officials responsible for this are lower than shit. If I had the chance, I would put a bullet in their heads. So would a lot of other people I know.

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel

[DNS-and-BIND]

If I had the chance, I would put a bullet in their heads

Ah, it's good to see the "Che Guevara" spirit back in leftism these days. I thought we were all going soft, after that debacle at the RNC.

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel

[cliffski]

wow.
I mean WOW.

The suffragettes used to chain themselves to railings. This also caused disruption. I'm sure there was some 'trade disruption' from civil rights protests in the US too.

So fuck it. Lets take away a womans right to vote and send black people to the ghettos yes? After all, anyone protesting about stuff is just a terrorist. Especially that martin Luther King. Maybe you agree with Donald Rumsfeld, who thought Nelson mandela was a terrorist?

And you call OTHER people whackjobs?

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel

[Anonymous Coward]

the French bombed their flag ship!

One of the best things the French Republic ever did.

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel

[Anonymous Coward]

Why stand by as some European nonces shit in our back yard?

Given that Mururoa is 4700 km away from Auckland, which is more than the distance between Miami and Seattle, you kiwis for sure have quite a big backyard, or a completely messed up sense of distances

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel

[Anonymous Coward]

Yer whatever... coons are subhuman and back then were classified as fauna, so who gives a fuck if some dumb cavemen got nuked? And the underground nuke tests by the frogs were thousands of kilometres away from kiwiland. We should all aspire to be like the french... fine food, nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Fucking greenpeace dirty hippy beatniks got what they deserved and greenpeace should be outlawed as a terrorist organisation much like sea shepherd should be as well.

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

They've put their little boats in front of major ships in international waters, causing trade disruption. Their little protests cause a lot of economic damage,

Heaven forbid that they make it less profitable to abuse the environment!
Don't they know that protests only belong within designated free speech zones?

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel

[girlintraining]

I was aware of the background. But no other environmental groups sent ships into a nuclear test area. France has just as might right as every other country to develop these weapons, as horrible as they are. And the United States also did testing in the middle of the ocean, as well as Russia, and India too will probably do testing unless they get cooperation from western countries to develop the technology without needing to do so. Greenpeace was interfering with the national sovereignty of France. It'd be the same if they sailed in front of a air craft carrier launching from the Seattle shipyards, or interfered with Navy operations; They'd be boarded and arrested. In international waters, every military vessel has that right.

Do I agree with their course of action? No, and let's make that clear. But Greenpeace crossed a line and the normally reserved French were incensed enough about it to sink their ship. That speaks to something.

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel

[Anonymous Coward]

These people are bordering on terrorist tactics

Little do people know that George Bush not only has an account, but posts to slashdot on a regular basis.

Yes, we know, George. The ter'rists are still out to get us.

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel

[Admiral Ag]

Right, so if the ship had been legally docked at the Port of Los Angeles and had been attacked and sunk there by the French Secret Service, killing a crew member, the US government and US citizens would not be angry about it because the ship's owners had been annoying the French government?

Yeah right. Pull the other one.

The French had every right to arrest the protesters in French territorial waters if they chose to do so. They had no right to commit a terrorist murder in New Zealand, a country which was supposedly an ally. I'm not the only one who wouldn't mind taking a shot or two at those responsible.

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel

[Anonymous Coward]

Greenpeace was interfering with the national sovereignty of France

France doesn't have sovereignty over the South Pacific. Gonna have to come up with another excuse.

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel

[girlintraining]

Countries do this all the time. The United States' CIA has ordered assassinations in the past on drug cartel leaders, insurgents, terrorists, and even country leaders in the name of national security. They were going to sail to a French island and attempt to disrupt the nuclear testing there. It doesn't get any more "national security" than interfering in nuclear operations. I didn't say it was right; I said they had the right.

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel

[rhizome]

I didn't say it was right; I said they had the right.

Since you bring up the CIA, how do you square this statement with Executive Order 12333?

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel

[GaryPatterson]

The French had the right to ask for the activists to be detained, or to stop them as soon as they entered French territory. They never had the right to plant a bomb in another country. No-one has ever argued they had this right (until now, oddly enough), and there's no law on Earth that allows for this.

And the whole "countries do this all the time" bit doesn't make it any less of a crime. Those countries are just as culpable and just as stupid for executing foreign nationals without trial. In some ways, those actions greatly helped make the world a more dangerous place.

I can't believe we're in 2008 and people still argue over these things.

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel

[Rakarra]

As a quick note, not that this in any way excuses what they did, but the bombing was supposed to have zero casualties, as a way of forcing the ship to stay in dock for repairs while the French government ran their tests. No one was supposed to be killed, because as much as some might like to believe it 'sent a message,' such messages don't work, it only escalates. No one wants to create a martyr.

In Other News

[loupgarou21]

[pseudo-environmentalist, anti-corporatist organization] slams [large, popular company] for [environmental / slaughter of innocent animals] record (as a way of seeking free publicity.)

Fuck off, Greenpeace

[MikeRT]

This coming from an organization that has refused to support the growth of nuclear power as a means of providing for our electrical needs. Greenpeace has always struck me as an organization that is more concerned with protesting and grandstanding than doing the dirty work of getting serious, economically viable approaches to environmentalism out there in the spotlight.

If I were a Greenpeace executive, instead of wasting my time with this crap, I'd order half a dozen Tesla roadsters to serve as company/lobbyist cars and be hitting the road right now to promote companies like Tesla as the alternative to bailing out gas guzzler manufacturers.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace

[Tubal-Cain]

At $100,000 for a Tesla, I think Apteras ($30,000) or Zaps ($12,000) might be more economic choice. These people don't really need a performance company car.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace

[QuantumG]

Apteras and Zaps both make products that no-one wants. Tesla is at least making a product that people want, even if they can't afford it. The people who were making a product that people both wanted and could afford, took their product off the market because they were afraid it would cannibalize their other product lines.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace

[Tubal-Cain]

You'd think it would cannibalize the competition's product lines, too. And that's usually a desireable thing.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace

[QuantumG]

I don't think you understand what "cannibalize" means.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace

[DNS-and-BIND]

You mean an environmental organization refuses to accept nuclear power? What a surprise! All those protests must have just been for show. We don't need nuclear power, we need to use less power. And guess what, you get more volunteers when you do a little grandstanding. There are people who will join just for the fun, and who does that hurt, exactly?

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

Greenpeace has always struck me as an organization that is more concerned with protesting and grandstanding than doing the dirty work of getting serious, economically viable approaches to environmentalism out there in the spotlight.

Not so! They have a detailed report on how to save the planet. Sample quote:

"renewables: no emissions,
no fuel costs, no problem."

Lol.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

Apteras and Zaps both make products that no-one wants.

Here's one anecdote.
I really want an Aptera. Not only does it look awesome, but I actually have a chance to afford it. If I could get the Tesla roadster for $30K, I would do that instead.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace

[Tubal-Cain]

Hmmm. Wikipedia claims that in business, it 'cannibalize' is used to denote competing with yourself (more or less). I was using it in the context of 'eating members of one's own species' (auto manufacturers all being one species... but in retrospect, it might be more accurate to say they are all of the same genus or maybe even order).

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace

[cliffski]

If you think greenpeace spend money on luxury cars for their 'executives' I don't think you have ANY idea how they work.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace

[sFurbo]

You'd think it would cannibalize the competition's product lines, too. And that's usually a desireable thing.

Yes, but where's the conspiracy in this? No fun. You can't just post sane counterarguments against conspiracies, people would have to actually think critically about their views, and can't just spew "Corporations BAAAD". And we can't have that, now can we.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You'd think it would cannibalize the competition's product lines, too. And that's usually a desireable thing.

Not if you and your competition are an effective oligopoly.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace

[ascari]

When you charge your Tesla, what guarantee do you have that the energy is green? It can be argued that electric cars just a way to shift pollution from the road to the power station in most cases as long as coal is our dominant source of electricity. Same argument could be used against the Tesla if you dislike nuke power plants I suppose. Thus it makes no sense for GP execs to buy Teslas or any other electric vehicle.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace

[drinkypoo]

The people who were making a product that people both wanted and could afford, took their product off the market because they were afraid it would cannibalize their other product lines.

They took it off the market because it threatened service revenues, not because of anything to do with other product lines. Tesla Motors has proven that it is possible to make a performance electric, after all. As I recall, the plan is to make a luxury sedan next, and then move on to a normally-priced sedan. Time will tell, I guess?

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace

[QuantumG]

service revenues of other product lines? But thanks for making me read that insanely boring link.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace

[drinkypoo]

service revenues of other product lines? But thanks for making me read that insanely boring link.

Pretending that you were insufficiently pedantic instead of just wrong doesn't win you any points.

"Threatened other product lines" means that it threatened sales of their other vehicles. This wasn't really true, because people who want EVs don't buy their other vehicles. They buy more alternative vehicles which don't come from the big three. It "Threatened service revenues".

HTH, HAND. If you want more English lessons I shall have to charge you.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace

[QuantumG]

You're a slashtard, why would I want anything from you?

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace

[Rakarra]

I wish I hadn't already posted in this discussion. I have mod points and your snippet deserves an upmod. :(

"Recyclable" don't mean green

[Moof123]

The energy it takes to melt that aluminum case down is more than the energy content of the equivalent plastic case. Just because the aluminum is "recyclable" is green washing.

That said, piss off green peace.

Re:"Recyclable" don't mean green

[Tubal-Cain]

I would prefer aluminum anyways. It is more durable and (imho) it looks better.

Re:"Recyclable" don't mean green

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah? What's the specific energy required to melt aluminum vs. polycarbonate? Some plastics are thermosets and can't be recast.

Way to criticize someone's baseless claims by making baseless claims of your own.

Re:"Recyclable" don't mean green

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think GP was claiming that the plastic cases require less energy to recycle -- just that they require less energy to produce.

Re:"Recyclable" don't mean green

[Moof123]

Yep, just saying it takes more energy (usually from fossil fuels) to make and machine an aluminum case than the total energy required and petroleum content contained in the plastic case.

I still think the aluminum cases are cool, and lust for one. BUT, calling them green is hogwash (well, green wash).

Re:"Recyclable" don't mean green

[Anonymous Coward]

"The energy it takes to melt that aluminum case down is more than the energy content of the equivalent plastic case. Just because the aluminum is "recyclable" is green washing."

I don't know anything about materials. While researching the subject, I stumbled on world-aluminium.org.

http://www.world-aluminium.org/Sustainability/Recycling

"Aluminium can be recycled again and again without any loss of its inherent properties, since its atomic structure is not altered during melting. Therefore, the life cycle of an aluminium product is not the traditional 'cradle-to-grave' sequence, but rather a renewable 'cradle-to-cradle'."

"Recycling of aluminium products needs only 5% of the energy needed for primary aluminium production. In addition, recycling of aluminium products only emits 5% of the greenhouse gas emitted in primary aluminium production."

Summary: The energy it takes to produce aluminium may be high, but it can be recycled over and over and thus it has an incredibly long life cycle. Is there any truth to this? What about plastics?

hey greenpeace

[circletimessquare]

support nuclear power, make an actual difference on the environment

of course, attacking a minor environmental issue to scare rich people and make them feel guilty about their overpriced toys is better pr i guess

Re:hey greenpeace

[MrPloppy]

Ok as long as its next to your house and no where near mine I am ok with it.

Re:hey greenpeace

[Reziac]

More to the point, rich people make more donations. See my post above, subject line "Follow the money".

(I'm reminded of the old tagline: "Eat the rich. The poor are tough and stringy.")

Re:hey greenpeace

[Rakarra]

Yes, I am totally fine living close to a nuclear power plant. Far safer than living near a coal plant or fossil fuel plant.

Re:hey greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

How can that be a troll post ? Are people seriously OK living next to nuclear power plants? I am not.

Who died

[Anonymous Coward]

and made Greenpeace God? Who are they to decide what the standards are? Why does anybody with half a brain even listen to those freaks? Fuck Greenpeace!

Re:Who died

[Mystra_x64]

I am.

Who cares

[Dachannien]

The rainbow rafters won't be satisfied until humankind has abandoned the follies of electricity, the wheel, and fire, since all of those obviously harm the environment in some way.

At least most of them don't burn down houses. I guess that's something positive, if you're willing to set the bar that low.

Re:Who cares

[PitaBred]

Yeah, but Greenpeace doesn't do anything bad itself other than news stunts. They just fund others to do it.

Missing the point? Greenpeace & Apple are fine

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes sense that Greenpeace would target Apple. Apple is a big, high-profile company, and as with most eco-organizations, Greenpeace must always do more with less (I haven't recently heard of any environmental organizations rolling in the green, pardon the pun).

Why target Apple, besides for the headlines? Because Apple might actually listen, care and respond. They market themselves as a 21st century "conscious" company, and they want to maintain that image. And Steve Jobs did used to be a hippie in his younger days, so...there you go.

Disclaimer: yes - I am writing this from my MacBook Pro, which I love most dearly in the whole wide universe. Fanboys FTW. :P

Greenpeace

[moniker127]

These people are retards. Wind power is not a replacement for science. Fusion reactors are one of the greatest achievements we could hope to achieve, but they want to say fuck it all, lets build some fans. Well, fuck you, hippies.

Re:Greenpeace

[pizzach]

A lot of people who are uncomfortable with the thought of a nuclear power plant in their backyard are also the people who tend to be lenient to the idea of wind power. It doesn't help that wind power is the "in" thing now. This has nothing to do with "hippieness." Well, unless you are calling most of the population of the US hippies. Well, I mean, if by hippies you mean retards. Which is another word with it's own issues....

I get the feeling that people who attempt to force specific words to have profanity like meanings tend to also be the people who are trying to shoot themselves in the foot by using the word in the wrong context.

A past example of this kind of word morphing is "dumb", which means "destitute of the power of speech." An example of creative usage of this word is "those dumb brutes." It's creative because it makes you imagine brutes who speak in grunts instead of words. While this may also hint at intelligence issues the brutes have, that is not the meaning of the word "dumb".

"Hippie" tends to apply better to Richard Stallman articles in my opinion. The meaning of hippie is "someone who rejects the established culture, dresses casually, and advocates extreme liberalism in politics and lifestyle." As I said in the beginning of this post, wind power is the "in" thing right now. That means people who support wind power are pretty much the opposite of being hippies.

*Disclaimer: I looked up the meanings of these words in gnome-dictionary. Your results may be different.

Re:Greenpeace

[cliffski]

So this shit is insightful?

Official : slashdot is no home to the truly fucking ignorant, and nobody else.

Re:Greenpeace

[SolusSD]

i have to agree-- i watched some show where some greenpeace moron thought that fusion power is just as dangerous and dirty as fission nuclear plants. Obviously he just doesn't get it. There is simply no risk of a core meltdown as the reaction would cease as soon as the reactor was shut off.

Re:Greenpeace

[An Onerous Coward]

You, sir, are further proof that Slashdot should have stopped accepting registrations when it reached the 200000 user mark.

Greenpeace = Media Whores

[m509272]

Greenpeace = Media Whores There's a million other companies they could be dragging thru the mud but they'll pick the one that will get the most media attention despite Apple's green efforts.

How much do they want?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much money does greenpiece want to go away?

"That's a nice technology company you got there, Steve. It'd be a shame if something bad happened to it"

Re:How much do they want?

[alexibu]

Are you suggesting greenpeace is doing this to get an effective bribe out of apple ?
History would not support your accusation, as they obviously havent been succesfully bribedby the nuclear/coal/oil or any one of hundreds of large companies with much more money than apple, whose interests have been damaged by amounts much greater than this will damage apple.

Re:How much do they want?

[Reziac]

According to http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/131, $360 MILLION dollars does not suffice -- they still want more donations. So I'd guess their extortion fee to Apple would be in the half a billion range.

(No, this *isn't* meant as a joke, sad to say.)

More interesting...

[Daemonax]

More interesting is the advert on the side "Happy Birthday, Turing's Universal Machine".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/18/alan_turing_anniversary/
It's a shame that Greenpeace have let go of logic and reason. Too many stupid emotional people. It's become like a religion, and indeed it tries to use fear to keep people inline. I really used to like them. Not now.

Haha, Where's the Funny?

[monxrtr]

Apple's new Macbooks (well-received by most technology critics) are 'the world's greenest family of notebooks.'

Because only 95.4% of them end up in land fills, according to Steve Jobs Sponsored Studies, which are held in the Realm of High Regard, Arrrghh (RHRA).

Re:Mod up

[Macrat]

I wish I had mod points for this.

Fuck Greenpeace

[nettdata]

Fuck Greenpeace.

What a bunch of arrogant pricks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to spite these bastards I'm going to club every baby seal I come across, drive my car around the block a few more times on the way home from work, and keep drinking imported Swiss water.

Bad Summary

[Luthair]

Ars Technica's article is from last year while Green Peace's report is dated Dec 2008. While AT's complaints may still be valid, at the very least the summary should not imply (as it currently does) it deals with the current report.

Re:Bad Summary

[Geoffrey.landis]

Since Greenpeace already said that they were targeting Apple not because Apple was worse than any other manufacturer, but because they get the most headlines when they slam Apple, I don't see why we should pay any attention to them at all.

Re:Bad Summary

[Luthair]

Why does it matter? If Apple is doing something wrong, then they should be called on it.

In an ideal world we would force everyone to own up to their actions. Unfortunately the world isn't ideal, and we (society) can only push companies who care about their image to action.

Re:Bad Summary

[jo_ham]

But that was the point. Apple wasn't doing anything wrong.

Greenpeace slammed Apple for (for example) not saying anything about the use of certain nasty chemicals and so on in their products, and heaping praise (relatively) on companies like HP for saying "we'll make a plan on how to stop using these chemicals next year".

As it turned out, Apple had stopped using most of the chemicals many years before, and those that were still in use were being phased out (eg mercury, lead, other nasties), so were way ahead of companies like HP and Dell.

So, Greenpeace was calling Apple out for not doing things it had already done years ago and giving them shit for it.

It did succeed in waking the dragon, so to speak, but anyone with a brain who was reading Apple's statement understands what a huge backfire it turned out to be for Greenpeace, so they quickly repositioned their attacks as "oh, well we just wanted them to tell us what they were doing so the consumer would be better informed". Bullshit. They are back tracking spectacularly because they didn't expect Apple to say "oh yeah, BFS - haven't used them for 12 years. Lead? Used to use 1kg per machine, now down to 2 grams, Mercury? Yeah, we know it;s bad and are already phasing in mercury free backlights on all LCD computers. Polystyrene packaging? Yeah, we cut usage of that by $large_percentage many years ago...."

If I accuse you of something, hoping to get you negative publicity, and it turns out that I'm lying out of my ass, the shit will hit the fan, as it did here.

Re:Bad Summary

[Luthair]

Actually, none of the articles state that Apple wasn't doing anything wrong. The only claim was that they aren't doing anything different from anyone else, so see my original.

BFS? Do you BFRs? Again no one denied Apple was using them, just that Green Peace was unable to determine exactly which Bromide compound used apparently its impossible, which according to the BSEF is a 'flawed methodology'. The BSEF, the 'electronics industry group' defending Apple on the old Gizmodo is actually the 'Bromide Science Environmental Forum', the group selling bromide and supporting its use. They couldn't possibly have any ulterior motive to misdirect attention, could they?

As for mercury, I doubt Apple (and everyone else) was doing anything before the EU rules on toxic materials came into effect.

Re:Bad Summary

[jo_ham]

Well, it depends if you believe Apple's environmental statements (which go into some depth) on their website - they state that they were well ahead of several others in the industry, and ahead of the EU regulations for things like Lead. All of their products (according to Apple's site) complied with the new EU laws 2 years before the law came into effect.

As for BFS, yes that was a typo, I meant to type BFRs - Apple also has a statement that they are eliminating all BFRs and PVC (and in fact as much bromine and chlorine in general) from their products.

I'm just going by statements made by Apple themselves, on their own website - not a third party article or "bromide science forum" special interest. They have stated publicly that they will remove all bromine from their products in fact - so much for cozying up to ulterior motives.

Greenpeace moaned that Apple "weren't doing anything" (when in fact they were, and have been for some time) yet on the other hand praised HP for "promising to make a plan about how to deal with, for example BFRs, in the future". This has nothing to do with their attempts to work out what Apple's hardware contains and everything to do with expecting Apple to get a bloody nose and then backpedalling and changing their intent because Apple punched back - Greenpeace were not expecting Apple to have done anything, and the sudden release of exactly what they have been doing (industry leading in fact, assuming you believe Apple's own website), so now Greenpeace are repositioning it as a "well, we're scrabbling around for something else to make them look bad since our initial PR assault backfired".

Not that I think Apple is a perfect company by any means, or that they haven't done some crappy things in the past, but it's strongly evident that they have been at the forefront of recycling, energy management, environmental issues and environmental impact in the industry, long before it became good PR, or before Greenpeace got on their back to "go green".

Re:Bad Summary

[Swift2001]

Who cares? In a few weeks, there will be another article showing what tards Greenpeace are, and it'll be clearer. For the moment, they've got enough institutional weaknesses that they owe us a lot more to have us take them seriously again.

Greenpeace is full of it.

[TheMCP]

It's also worth noting that the founder of Greenpeace thinks they're a bunch of kooks. See the Penn & Teller's Bulls*** episode on environmentalism.

I believe in protecting the environment, but I'd like to sanely focus on serious problems first, and do so in a logical and dignified manner, instead of just attacking companies just because they're prominent and it generates publicity.

Re:Mod up

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Me too.

Greenpeace doing a great job

[alexibu]

Yes they are unfairly targeting Apple because :
Apple is a company that will actually care about its greenness because of the demographics of it's customers
Apple is vertically integrated therefore in a better position to do something
Apple is upmarket - bigger margins - can afford to do something
Apple's products are not just commodities like other PC makers - again bigger margins
So Greenpeace are just trying to pull on the place with the most leverage to get the best result for their effort.

Greenpeace serves an essential service in todays world where governments are continually lobbied by powerfull anti envoronment interests, who have the money to employ full time lobyists.
For lazy citizens like me supporting greenpeace saves me having to spend as much of my time and effort writing to politicians going on protests etc.

Like it or not there are actually some people out there that want to live on a sustainable planet. Don't shoot greenpeace for delivering that message.

I really find it interesting that people can be so offended by greenpeace suggesting ways forward in the world that will benefit us all, when so many other more powerful lobby groups are trying to do things that only benefit their own interests.
Why don't nuclear / coal / oil / forest destruction supporters get out on the streets and protest against the envorinonment movement ? After all in the next few years - it will necesarily be taking over public policy
The answer is because they won't get off their arses unless someone will pay them to do it.

The environment movement is not trying to spoil your party. They are just trying to change it into a party where your kids can enjoy the same party, the neighbours won't throw a brick though the window because they are missing out. - If you think 911 was bad wait until the third world finds out that the first world has been knowingly flooding large areas of river deltas, and stopping essential glacial melt river flow, in poor countries so that they could save a few bucks by buying coal fired electricity instead of renewables, so that they could run a plasma television and a SUV, while the poor people in the river deltas had negligable carbon emissions.
Alex

Re:Greenpeace doing a great job

[jo_ham]

But Greenpeace goes about the message of environmentalism (which I agree with) in the same way the tobacco industry went about trying to show that cigarettes were healthy.

They use no science, they arbitrarily dismiss technologies because they don;t understand them (or wilfully misunderstand or misrepresent them), like nuclear power, fusion research, Apple's *actual* policy and track history on green issues and so on.

Ask a member of Greenpeace whether a coal or a nuclear power station releases more radiation into the environment and he'll say "duh, the nuclear one, obviously!". When you correct him and tell him it's the coal plant, he'll then go on about "well, if it blows up it will be like Chernobyl!!!!". When you point out that arguing modern reactors would blow up like chernobyl's reactor 4 is like trying to argue against air travel by claiming we can't afford any more Hindenburg disasters so we should stop flying now, then he'll talk about long term storage of nuclear waste.

Now that you've finally come round to one of the genuine problems with fission power, he'll wail on about pollution, and 10,000 year garbage dumps etc. I even argued with a member of Greenpeace who didn;t understand half life properly and argued *in my favour*, and even when I pointed out that the waste with a half life of 100 years wouldn't be gone in 100 years (like he said) but more like 200+ years (ie, worse than he said) just yelled at me that he knew what half life meant and that I didn;t understand it!

Yes, clearly these are the people you want driving environmental issues and public opinion on future and current technology. They can't even get simple concepts right about the stuff they are so against, even when it's pointed out to them *in their favour*.

For the record, I am both pro-nuclear and pro-environmental - the two are not mutually exclusive as Greenpeace would have you believe. The more you see of them though, the more you realise they they just want us all to live caves and eat fruit.

If Greenpeace had been around when man first discovered fire, they would have told him it was dangerous and that we shouldn't use it to cook food because it destroys the environment and look at all that black stuff left behind! All that nutrient-rich, fertilising, plant-growth-promoting black stuff! It's all black and sooty and doesn't look like green fields and trees - it must be bad!

Ok, hyperbole, but you see my point. It's just hyperbole in the opposite direction of Greenpeace mixed with parody and satire.

Re:Greenpeace doing a great job

[alexibu]

I had a look at the reports on greenpeaces website about nuclear, and they all look quite well researched and informed.

I've never quite understood the reasons for defence of nuclear power, other than a vague nostalgia for what was a sort of golden age of physics and engineering ,which I can relate to being an engineer.
Greens say : fossil fuel is killing the planet.
Response : "Aha but you don't like nuclear
Greens : WTF ?

Nuclear can't solve climate crisis:
Skills shortage - nuclear technicians all in nursing homes
Fuel shortage - not enough to last 40 years at current consumption
Takes 3-4 years just to pay back carbon used in concrete to construct reactor
Can't be installed quickly enough.
Life cycle cost close to infinite. Employ monitoring and security gaurd for 10,000 years to monitor/gaurd waste. Calculate net present value of wages. Forget it. The only way to get this economical is to get government to make tax payers of future pay cost.
Insurance. Policy must cover accidents in waste storage for 10,000 years. Prohibitively expensive in todays dollars. Forget it.

Terrorist target.

Renewables only answer. Logical, cost effective, no government enforced borrowing from future generations.
Wind and Solar - No legacy once superceded - available now with storage (solar thermal) - can take advantage of mass production unlike CCS and nuclear

Nuclear - WHY ?

Re:Greenpeace doing a great job

[jo_ham]

Their latest film promoting renewables over nuclear no longer mentions the "no more chernobyls" line, at least, the new one on the UK greenpeace site is well made ad refrains from sensationalism more than usual, but they are very quick to dismiss nuclear and promote their agenda without telling you about the costs of it.

A comment on the greenpeace site sums up my feelings pretty succinctly. I don;t want to just cut and paste it in, but it is worth a read as to why nuclear is still a necessary part of the energy generating system of the future, along with other renewable sources too.

Total reliance on the methods they propose in the video is not the solution - they infer that using CHP, tidal and wind all together will neatly wrap up the whole of the UK's electricity generating needs when it just isn't that simple.

Nuclear may be expensive, but it is a proven technology moving into the fourth generation of its life cycle that can produce large amounts of power in small amounts of space with almost no CO2 emission after construction. It is reliable, scalable, high-density, and small footprint - a single power plant can provide 1500MW, equivalent to (being generous) 1000 wind turbines, which is a logistical nightmare - if you site them offshore you need to move the power to land, if you build them on land you need space.

The comment I think sums it up nicely is by a guy near the bottom of this page called dcoughlan.

I'm not trying to replace renewable energy with nuclear power, but at the present time, while we work towards green solutions, nuclear is one of the cleanest, most reliable, high-density sources of power we have.

http://www.greenpeacelies.com/

[MrMista_B]

http://www.greenpeacelies.com/

I don't have the time nor energy to start and maintain it, but - we need something like http://www.greenpeacelies.com/ , to fight this deceptive sort of propaganda.

Anyone willing? It'd embarass the hell out of them, and heck, the thing could probably include a section on PETA, Scientology - all those immoral, deceitful sorts of people and groups.

A badge of honor

[DesScorp]

Greenpeace, despite their name, is a pretty radical group, often just a notch inside that line that groups like the Animal Liberation Front often cross. Greenpeace is just Earth First with more money and better publicity. Getting attacked by Greenpeace is a lot like getting attacked by PETA... sometimes, the public sympathizes with you precisely because a radical group is targeting you.

Is this actually going to stop anyone from buying an Apple? No, it's just free publicity for Apple. I bet every time PETA pulls one of their lamebrain stunts, steakhouse profits go up. Same thing here.

Re:A badge of honor

[jo_ham]

Damn you!

I want a steak now!

Maybe I should join People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.

Re:A badge of honor

[E 99]

I don't think Greenpeace is generally regarded with the same public disdain as PETA, at least at this point.

The name say it all...

[CryptoJones]

Their name is Apple. How can they NOT be environmentally friendly?

The danger of soundbites and "full disclosure ".

[mcrbids]

This article summary is an example of what's wrong with soundbites and their effect on responsible media.

Here we have a sound-bite sized message: "Apple makes green laptop", followed by another sound-biter: "Greenpeace say Apple bad mojo". But then, in the interest of "full disclosure", several snippets back and forth are quoted: "Greenpeace not perfect", and "Greenpeace attacks Apple for publicity".

The net effect comes as a custerfluck of conflicting messages leaving me with a blank stare - and I really don't care about the message.

And this is bad for responsible media - those with their own axe to grind will only soundbite the stuff they want. EG: Apple might soundbite: "Apple makes green laptop". Greenpeace soundbite: "Apple bad mojo".

See how much more palatable each message is all by itself?

But when you try to combine responsible media with soundbites, you end up just confusing the !@# out of everyone, and the special interests win.

That's because finding problems is easy

[Sycraft-fu]

Finding solutions is hard. It is easy to point out the bad about something. Part of the reason is because EVERYTHING has a downside. No matter what you do, there's a cost to it. Thus it's easy to figure out what that cost is and say "Oh look at the downside of this! Man that's a bad idea!" Of course it is much harder to weigh the positives and negatives of something, weigh that versus alternatives, and try to figure out what has the least negatives and most positives.

So instead you get people like Greenpeace that just hate on everything. They'll happily point out the bad in any solution you come up with. They aren't in it to solve problems, they are in it to find problems.

Freedoms to these guys?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets arrest first, ask questions later ;)

Doesn't quite wash

[CaptainZapp]

Much like extreme veganism, where you are not supposed to eat anything from a plant where you end up killing the entire plant

If your nutrition consists of birch bark and you find enlightenment in that, be my guest, you're not hurting anybody. (Granted, you probably find a group of wackos taking exception because of the poor birchs)

If however a major manufacturer uses noxious materials in the manufacturing or packaging process it hurts all of us.

Didn't this already occur?

[lmnfrs]

Greenpeace complains about lots of big companies' non-greenness. I heard from a co-worker who canvassed for Greenpeace long ago, for years, that they are a "greenwash".

There was another Greenpeace complaint recently, and when the canvassers in the downtown metropolitan area I work in were informed (by me) that "Greenpeace is a marketing organization; their information is skewed." the entire group of canvassers that I recognized every day on the way to work disappeared. Almost as if they investigated what I said and agreed.

About three weeks later new canvassers appeared. None of them were the same. One told me that my information was "wrong" but had no sources or reasoning to back that up.

The ideas behind Greenpeace are great general points that should be kept in mind but it seems that many of their statements should be taken with a grain of salt.

Apple has always been overhyped

[hessian]

1984 - The Mac is friendly, it's the future, lalalala. Reality: 128k machine with 4 pieces of known software.

1987 - The Mac is more efficient than IBM PCs, it's the future. Reality: It's four times as expensive and people quickly learn windows.

1995 - The Mac is a better operating system than Windows, it's the future. Reality: holding down the mouse button suspends the entire operating system.

2000 - The Mac is superior, it uses the PowerPC family of chips and custom hardware. Reality: it's slower and Apple acquiesces to this fact a few years later, making Intel machines.

2008 - The Mac is superior, it's "green." Reality: it's still a hunk of plastic you chuck in the landfill, and being made by the world's most neurotic computer company, it's more likely to break.

I used to believe in Apple; eventually I saw that, like most things hyping "hope" and "change," they were marketers and not revolutionaries. They sold a lie.

Now I prefer the world of open hardware and open source + Windows. I can buy any motherboard I want, and I assemble machines that last years longer than any Macintosh. For people who want the bulk of mainstream software, there's Win XP or Windows Vista (which many people do like), but for those with more experience, there's OpenBSD, FreeBSD and Linux.

Re:Apple has always been overhyped

[lidocaineus]

Well the whole list is a terrible generalization, but I have to at least point out that the PPC vs Intel and eventual switch to Core had only developed a lag in raw computing power near the end of the PPC line in Apple machines. The G3, G4, and G5 pretty much kept up with their Intel counterparts. The problem was that the G5 (and what would've been the G6) was unable to be squeezed into the form factors that Apple requested, namely laptops and future iMacs.

Re:Apple has always been overhyped

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck did this mindless drivel get modded as 'interesting' rather than 'flame bait'?

Re:Apple has always been overhyped

[toddestan]

That's not true. Remember back when Intel/AMD were pushing 1Ghz and Apple was still messing around back at 400-450Mhz and couldn't even ship a 500Mhz PowerMac? Apple likes to say they made multi-CPU machines mainstream, but the fact of the matter was that they had to go dual-CPU as a single G4 was way too weak to be competitive.

Re:Apple has always been overhyped

[Swift2001]

Ah, good. So, Windows = McCain, Apple = Obama?

I'll take that.

Re:Apple has always been overhyped

[Confuzzled]

2000 - The Mac is superior, it uses the PowerPC family of chips and custom hardware. Reality: it's slower and Apple acquiesces to this fact a few years later, making Intel machines

FYI, they WERE faster, they just didn't scale as well, and were too hot to put in a mobile platform. So although they were slower at the end of the lifecycle, at the beginning they were better chips. In-fact the G5 architecture, with hypertransport connecting everything, is "better" than the one used in current intel machines (at least until nehalem).

2008 - The Mac is superior, it's "green." Reality: it's still a hunk of plastic you chuck in the landfill, and being made by the world's most neurotic computer company, it's more likely to break.

I suggest you look at consumer reports, and realize you're talking out of your ass. And they manage this reliability while being greener (which is hard, as the non-green technologies just work better: eg. led solder).

I don't understand why you have to justify your choice of using windows by ranting that "apple sux". They make great hardware and operating systems. That it's not your cup of tea because they sell very few models at set price points, that you don't agree with their corporate policy, etc. is perfectly fine.

Computers are just tools, use the one that makes you happy/productive/feel good inside. Don't justify your opinions by making up random derisive "facts". Aka, don't be a politician: instead of saying why you're better, you're just going to trash the competition to make yourself look (or feel) better.

Re:Apple has always been overhyped

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really comparing frequencies across architectures? I'm not even going to dignify that with a response, but you might want to look up benchmarks on real world performance. Hint: check Photoshop bechmarks of P4s and G4s at "slower" speeds.

Why Patrick Moore left Greenpeace

[batura]

This kind of garbage is why Patrick Moore, one of the Greenpeace founders, left the movement. "By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism. I became aware of the emerging concept of sustainable development: balancing environmental, social and economic priorities. Converted to the idea that win-win solutions could be found by bringing all interests together, I made the move from confrontation to consensus."

I Challenge Apple to Stop Using Styrene Foam!

[BrendaEM]

Apparently, Apple is still using polystyrene foam in their packaging, while many other companies have learned ways to use cardboard and composite paperboard to do the same thing, Apple has not.

Styrene, the plasticizer in the foam named after such, is a known cancer causing chemical.

I challenge Apple's to change its out of the box experience to eliminate styrene foam!

greenpeace cause pollution

[cheekyboy]

1. deny/stop nuclear reactors/power.
2. demand increases.
3. sorry, nukes are hard, lets use more coal
4. wow we have just polluted a lot more due to more coal usage.

Thanks greenpeace.

If we believe the conspiracy theories and stories of hidden agendas to reduce the population, then GP are the evil incarnate.

They really are a front.

Prove it ain't so or shut up

[PietjeJantje]

I'm no expert on greenpeace and how political they are. But even if they are, then this "troll" brings out the worst in the slashdot (Apple fanboy?) audience. I don't want to be trolled by these guys, but neither do I want to ignore everything that is inconvenient to my lifestyle at the expense of future generations. We should be careful that we don't, as a reaction to guys like these and because it's the easy solution, act the same way that caused the financial crash, which our children must also pay for. We do have responsibility. However, looking at the brand love exposed in the comments, it seems many people still got their heads up their asses. Have we become this shallow here, that only the messenger is discussed, not the issue?

Science and facts now please. I don't want to hear no more about greenpeace, while avoiding the issue. It's lame. So this is the actual text from the greenpeace report:

Apple's score increases slightly to 4.3 points, but the company drops to 14th position. Apple scores well for putting products on the market whose key components are free of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and PVC vinyl plastic. Appleâ(TM)s latest iPods - the iPod Touch, Nano and Classic - are now free of both PVC and BFRs and the MacBooks, MacBook Pro and MacBook are almost free of these substances. While Apple has now positioned itself amongst the leaders in the electronics industry on phasing out toxic substances, to score more points the complete phase-out of PVC and BFRs in its iPods should be consistent across all other future product ranges. Apple also needs to commit to phasing out additional substances with timelines, improve its policy on chemicals and its reporting on chemicals management. Apple scores poorly on most e-waste criteria, except for reporting a recycling rate in 2006 of 18% as a percentage of sales 7 years ago; however, it needs to provide details on how this is calculated. It does slightly better on energy criteria for disclosing the carbon footprint of every model of product â" although not exactly what is being evaluated in the criterion. Apple scores top marks (doubled) for all desktops computers, portable PCs and displays complying with Energy Star 4.0 and their iPod and iPhone power adapters exceeding the Energy Star standard, despite making this information difficult to access.

Not too bad. Apple isn't the worst in their graph too. Ars Technica and Slashdot are putting the spotlight on them, not greenpeace, and you have been trolled by your fav IT medium.

So now the slashdot way to proceed would be to get a complete list of the toxic substances and discuss their nature and true damage to the environment, and if it's worthwhile to demand that manufacturers do better. I'm not an expert on these substances, but unlike many here, I know that, and I'm open for any real scientific info and any outcome. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. It's not like companies like Apple are saints or something, they tend to chose the cheapest option in their own short-term monkey sphere, which does not include long-term environmental effects, unless that would be bad karma in the public's eyes. See? Maybe there's a role for greenpeace after all. They may be nuts, but in a Stallman kind of way - it's sometimes good to have counter forces against other strong forces, even if you don't agree with them.

interesting...

[Jerry Beasters]

Maybe Apple should slam Greenpeace for their terrorism record.

Simmer Down

[cwmaxson]

Typical slashdot, posters arguments have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand (instead reverting to a nuclear power debate). Greenpeace isn't "slamming" apple, just pressuring them. Apple overall received high scores, they just received a few "bad" scores on the use of recycled plastics and renewable energy. Greenpeace was comparing Apple against other producers and basically saying that though Apple tries to sell themselves as uber-green, that they're not always in the lead. This is hardly an extremist point. They were actually praising Apple for some of their achievements, but saying they have more to do. I'm no fan of greenpeace, but the attacks on greenpeace in these responses have not been very legitimate. Such arguments as "I knew a guy that worked for...", and "they're just a bunch of radicals..." are lacking in the depth one would expect from reasonable human beings.

Aluminum Plastic

[Dak RIT]

Damn Apple for using recyclable aluminum, which doesn't fit in nicely to Greenpeace's spreadsheet like recyclable plastic does.

For a recap of the things Apple scored Bad (0) on:
1) Use of recycled plastic
2) Global GHG emissions reduction support (do they need to join a club? Their energy efficiency on new products got the highest possible rating, which is probably the biggest contributor to GHG with regards to Apple).
3) Own GHG emissions reduction commitment
4) Amounts of renewable energy used
5) Precautionary principle

In other words, everything Apple scored Bad (0) on has nothing to do with their products (with the exception of 'use of recyclable plastic', since they use the more recyclable aluminum).

Their Partially Bad (1+) scores were also more related to press releases and not actually to their products, ie:
1) Time for additional substance phaseout
2) Information to individual customers
3) Carbon footprint disclosure

When you look at their Partially Good (2+) and Good (3+) scores though, they are almost all related to products, ie:
1) Chemicals Management (2+)
2) PVC and BFR phaseout (3+)
3) PVC-free / BFR-free models (2+)
4) Energy Efficiency of new models (3+)

And here's some example reasoning from Greenpeace's report:
"Apple makes no reference to the precautionary principle even though its progress in eliminating hazardous substances seems to be guided by this principle of environmental policy."
Therefore, even though Apple is actually acting environmentally conscious, they get a 0 because they didn't explicitly state that's their intention. Conversely, companies that don't act as responsibly as Apple but say they intend to get rated higher.

Additionally, on commitment to reduce GHG emissions:
"Apple seeks to minimize GHG emissions by setting stringent design-related goals for material and energy efficiency. However, there are no details of these goals."
Again, good on action, but no press release, so 0.

This "research" is just utterly worthless, and does not come even close to representing what it claims to.

Re:Aluminum Plastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps even more shocking is this one:

The purchasing of renewable energy in Austin, Texas has led to the avoidance of 64 million pounds of CO2 equivalent emissions. Apple's manufacturing site in Cork, Ireland will convert to 100% local renewable sources in 2008, avoiding 4 million pounds of CO2 equivalent emissions.

Sounds pretty damn good to me. Yet, using just that explanation and nothing more, Greenpeace gave them a Bad (0) rating. That doesn't even seem to be misleading, it seems to be just simply wrong, using Greenpeace's own criteria.

Such B.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

needs to commit to phasing out additional substances...

Like popularity & profit??? I think those are the substances that offend these dipshits the most.

...whatever effects are the result of greenpeace's research...

RESEARCH??? What the hell have you been smoking???

Are we suppose to take Greenpeace seriously

[chiefted]

Are we suppose to take Greenpeace seriously anymore? Many folks have showed that there "research" or rankings of green companies is flawed. Their tactics aren't above board either. Greenpeace has outlived its usefulness and needs to die a quick, albeit not so painless death as an organization.

Battered environment

[biancmb]

How can users of Apple's equipment correctly dispose of the battery? The battery on quite a few ipods, iphones, etc. seems to be an integral part of the equipment. NOT VERY GREEN TO ME, APPLE! They are becoming worse than Big Blue used to be in the 80s..

The Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed

[Gary W. Longsine]

A random text generator could construct a better argument.

Re:The Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed

[Elektroschock]

You own the book?

Re:The Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed

[Gary W. Longsine]

I did years ago. Lost it somewhere.

Apples system line up is wasteful and the lack of

[Joe The Dragon]

Apples system line up is wasteful and the lack of head less mid tower is not helping.

AIO looks nice but you can reuse the display on new systems.

The mac pro is over kill for most uses but it's is the only way to have a good system that you can use your own display on.

The mini is way out of date and very over priced for it's hardware.

Stop giving money to these assholes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on people stop giving money to these assholes. You know who are. And those of you who have given money.

I mean these assholes are cause people to starve to death because something doesn't meet their environmental standards. The convinced African nations to turn down free corn seed because it wasn't organic and didn't meet their standards.

Its time to stop them and their excesses, lest you be the next poor SOB starving to death.

Re:Stop giving money to these assholes!

[Rakarra]

"Free" corn seed puts African farmers out of work. They can't compete with free, and it makes them dependent upon foreign aid. There are a number of reasons why "free" food aid comes with strings attached.

You could make Apples

[JohnnyGTO]

out of dirt and they'd complain about erosion FK'n hippies.

Attention-whores...

[Anonymous Freak]

I'm an ultra-liberal environmentalist. Bike commute when I can; carpool in my Prius when I can't bike; buy organic, voted for Al Gore, etc, etc, etc...

Yet I can't stand Greenpeace anymore. THey only care about attention, not about actually improving anything. Their biggest complaint about Apple a few years ago wasn't that Apple used bad chemicals, it was that Apple didn't publish their plan to get rid of bad chemicals. Even though Apple used fewer of the bad stuff than most other computer companies; and had stated that they were going to phase it all out "soon", Greenpeace still complained.

HP had a published roadmap showing that they would phase this stuff out in 10 years, so they got a good grade.

Apple says they're going to phase the same stuff out THIS YEAR, and Greenpeace goes after Apple. Why? Because Apple's more prominent, so attacking them gets more press. If they went after Acer, or Asus, or Lenovo, it just wouldn't get Greenpeace as much attention.

I'm sorry, Greenpeace, but you have lost all credibility in my eyes. All you care about it attention.

Another difference

[unassimilatible]

People voluntarily associate with business as consumers, as employees, and most importantly, as investors. Greenpeace, OTOH, injects its officious nose into businesses uninvited. As an Apple stockholder, I say, go away, who appointed you as my keeper?

The sad thing about the greenies is that they would be the first to tell the Religious Right, "stay out of my life!" on abortion or gay marriage or sex on TV or the Internet, but they are the first to tell others how to run their lives in a green way, whether anyone asked them or not.

Re:Another difference

[TapeCutter]

"The sad thing about the greenies is that they would be the first to tell the Religious Right, "stay out of my life!" on abortion or gay marriage or sex on TV or the Internet, but they are the first to tell others how to run their lives in a green way, whether anyone asked them or not."

At the age of 50 I'm certainly aware that political ideaology is no match for real life pragmatisim in a Darwinian environment. I am not Irish but for conceptually similar political reasoning I am unashamed to be "green". I ask you to please refrain from lumping all greenies (evironmentists) together under the greenpeace banner. Some of it's later day actions are a huge cringe factor to the rest of us and have been successfully used by many politicains/corporations to put rational people with genuine concerns into the political "nut-job" basket.

As a scientifically literate "greenie" I am happy to inform you that I do not want to "tell you what to do", the caveate being that whatever you ARE doing has no material affect on me. If what you are doing is offensive to me (but not directed at me) I will ignore you, if you befowl OUR planet I consider that a material affect on me and reserve the right to "interfere" by finding/pointing out what you are doing and petitioning society to find an effective solution. Even if that solution is to take your company away by force as a defensive measure.

Note - The link is an extreme example, I don't think GP self-promotion is a "defensive measure" but the jury did and that's what counts, I am compelled to begrudgingly accept the referee's decision not because I think it's justice servered but because imperfect democracy trumps a perfect free market.

Like most humans (including "greenies") enviromentalisim is only part of my world view. If you want to label my politics I would say "socially liberal, fiscally conservative, strong advocate of science based policy" - To me the science requirement would seem to automatically imply the environmentalisim, it would also reduce the influence of the creationists, the eco-warriors, the French secret service that sunk their boat, the managers of Exonn and their chief anti-scientist Fred Singer, Neo-cons at the UN, Senator Inhofe and his fans, in fact a whole bunch of cliques within large organizations who do no actual work in society other than trying to "tell you what to do" by unilateral force or deception....OTOH....Each and every one of us has a point in our worldview beyond which "telling someone what to do" is our only reasonable option.

Re:Another difference

[Strep]

While you're accurate in saying that you don't want to "tell me what to do", you're just going to have the same legislated. nice end-run.

Re:Another difference

[TapeCutter]

The alternative to legislation is anarchy. If you are not advocating anarchy then what's your point?

Isn't this "vigilantism"?

[unassimilatible]

Didn't Slashdot just post an article about the horrors of private, unregulated actors taking matters into their own hands?

Shouldn't the tag "vigilantism" be used with submissions about Greenpeace?

As I have said before, one person's social activism is another's vigilantism.

Re:Isn't this "vigilantism"?

[Reziac]

I agree with you -- Greenpeace today is nothing but a vigilante extortion business (and so are nearly all the once-useful activist groups). See http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/131

Minus the environmentalist rhetoric, they'd be recognised as the thugs they are, little different from any other protection racket.

1) Metal 2) Recycled - just another Hater

[SuperKendall]

Reality: it's still a hunk of plastic you chuck in the landfill, and being made by the world's most neurotic computer company, it's more likely to break.

Poor Apple Haters, living in some fantasy universe where nothing Apple does can satisfy them.

In real reality, the new Macbook (and Pro) are solid aluminium blocks and there's very little plastic to be found (thus the new claims at being more friendly since they reduced use of many toxic chemicals). Of course being a solid block of metal makes them sturdier and more durable as well...

And instead of ending up in landfills, Apple takes and
recycles 90% of the materials there.

But you'd rather see Apple shut down so people can keep buying cheap plastic Dell's with mercury that really do end up landfills. Apple isn't perfect, no one is. But they do try hard and it's not just marketing.

Like I said, just another Hater filled with an all-consuming desire to bring down something you dislike.

Follow the money

[Reziac]

Suggested reading:

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/131

A couple of relevant quotes from the cited page (emphasis mine):

Forbes magazine once described it as "a skillfully managed business" with full command of "the tools of direct mail and image manipulation -- and tactics that would bring instant condemnation if practiced by a for-profit corporation." But Greenpeace has escaped public censure by hiding behind the mask of its "non-profit" status and its U.S. tax exemption.

and

...its Amsterdam-based activist moguls pull the strings on what is estimated to be a $360 million global empire.

Draw your own conclusions.

Obligatory

[earlymon]

They're the PETA of the environmentalist movement.

You mean People Eating Tasty Animals?? http://www.tastyanimals.us/

See also, Jessie Jackson

[Anonymous Coward]

And his Rainbow Coalition, shakedown artists.

Fucking Activists

[Secret Rabbit]

They couldn't just chalk this up to a win. Like all activists, they have to beat you over the head with, "You aren't doing enough" no matter how much of an improvement anything is. This, incidentally, is one of the main reasons why people tend to just not listen to such nutters. They try to shove there idealism down your throat all at once instead of taking the actually smart approach of constant incremental improvements.

I draw the line!

[mbstone]

No, I won't buy a Mac made out of breast milk! Can't make me!

Parent should have been modded '+3, Funny'

[GaryPatterson]

We all know it!

Who's In Charge Here?

[Nom du Keyboard]

And since when has Greenpeace been put in charge of running Apple? Did I miss the memo?

Of course if you claim to be green (am waiting for the green plastic model iBook) you set yourself up for this crap. The truth is: You never can satisfy the environmental wackos (extremists, if you prefer). No matter how much you do it will never be enough for them because if it was they'd be out of a job.

Greenpeace expects certain minimum standards

[mpaque]

Apple has failed to deliver a fully compostable computer built solely with clean straw and dung from goats on a macrobiotic diet. This is particularly disappointing when one realizes that other companies have been delivering dung-based computing technology for years.

The trees are our friends!

[Anonymous Coward]

The trees are our friends!

Re:Aluminum Plastic

[PietjeJantje]

This "research" is just utterly worthless, and does not come even close to representing what it claims to.

No, you're a worthless, hypocrite Apple fan boy, who protects his fav brand while not even considering the message. Sad and pathetic. Shame on you! Jesus...

Volume-weighting the environmental damage stats

[retiarius]

To discern environmental damage properly, shouldn't their 0-10 scale
ratings be muliplied by the actual weight of the goods sold, including packaging?
High-volume Nintendo might still remain low, but Apple would look better
than Dell/HP/Sony due to market share. This can be tricky, e.g. Sony makes
tiny cameras but large TVs.

Regarding Apple's progress, I thought it intriguing that they are now optimizing
packaging (especially for iPods) specifically to reduce air-freight transport
costs, which could be a non-trivial fraction of COGS, at least for
the initial rollout (vs. slow boat). That's a very holistic approach.
Now that the lead is out of CRT yokes, Apple's use of LEDs vs. yucky
fluorescent tubes is another nice trend. Recyclable aluminum + glass vs. plastic
is another one. If only Greenpeace could be so creative...

Greenpeace is monitoring electronic companies

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Greenpeace website they released their monthly report on electronics and high tech companies [http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/guide-greener-electronics-november-241108].

Apple is in this report still in the "red" zone which means their reporting policy is still bad. That does not mean their products are bad in an ecological manner, however as long their policy does not improve they wil not move to the front row.

And the new aluminum-casing produces a lot of waste aluminum which has to be recyled, which costs a lot of energy. So this is not so good after all. But as you can see on the linked page, other companies are even worse.

Did Greenpeace mention...

[walter_f]

that, according to Apple, the enclosures of the new MacBooks and MacBook Pros are being produced starting with a solid piece of aluminium and then milling, sawing, grinding, drilling (whatever else) a mere 80 percent of the material away. Eighty percent.

As far as I remember, Jonathan Ive explained it in detail in San Francisco so it looks like obviously Apple is very proud of that.

I wonder how eco-friendly such a technique of manufacturing may be?

Greenpiss

[Anonymous Coward]

Greenpiss more like it.

The squalling

[Anonymous Coward]

of thousands of spoiled consumers when they don't get their toys.

O my pitiful yet sarcastic response

[haaz]

This is the sort of breaking news that I know I can only rely on /. for.

Greenpeace ... and its credibility

[golodh]

Sorry, but in my book Greenpeace has incurred a sizable credibility problem. Its word is no longer "good" for me because I can't be sure if it's speaking the truth or just spouting a load of propaganda.

I used to support Greenpeace, by and large, but ever since Greenpeace pulled the Brent Spar hoax I have distanced myself from it. Greenpeace has admitted that it knew full well that sinking the Brent Spar in deep ocean was just about the best solution from an environmental perspective, but it raised a big stink about it anyway because it was good publicity.

Sorry, but that's not the kind of environmental organization I want to be associated with. If it's too much to ask of an organization of environmental activists to behave in and honest and ethical fashion, then I'll happily do without it.

At best Greenpeace's allegations are an indication that it might be useful to have someone honest and knowledgeable investigate the issue.

Greenpeace is composed of morons

[Swift2001]

The issues they talk about are serious, but they have the minds of retarded terrorists. They've been schmucks since the baby seal campaign, more enamored of their own coolness than actually serving the issues.

Greenpeace crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the general rule is that you are probably moving in the right direction to the degree you are offending Greenpeace. Why doesn't everyone in GP just quit exhaling all that CO2 that is contaminating the air, then the could talk about ohters;^)

Wind power is science ...

[KayakFun]

with a proven track record of more than 5000 years. And it will be for another 5000 years, because it is sustainable and simple to 'harvest'.

Big industry keeps neglecting the low-hanging fruit like wind, tidal and solar energy because they are too autistic to notice they are not needed. Much in the same manner that Detroit kept making gas-guzzler SUVs and trucks.

If all the money that has been put in that nuclear black hole had been spent on clean sustainable energy, then the oil producing countries' main income source would be tourism by now.

Let the market decide which car company survives, and which energy source gets the best ROI, but do it on a level playing field.

Re:Wind power is science ...

[moniker127]

The scalability of wind power is the major factor that prevents people from using it. The cost, the situationality. Wind power is not a free all fix all solution to the worlds energy needs, and research into fusion power could very well result in a powerful, scaleable, limitless source of power.
Greenpeace may be content with what we have right now, but they have to realize that some people are not amish, some people dont want to plow their fields with rakes from now untill eternity.

Re:Wind power is science ...

[KayakFun]

Cost is not the biggest hurdle for wind power. Off-shore wind parks have difficulty getting permits, where a oilrig on the same location would get a permit the same week.

A future problem is the fluctuations between wind availability and power demand, limiting it's share in the mix to about 30%, but we are currently around 1%. And that was my point, let's first build wind parks because they are a mature technology that's simple to implement now. That will buy us time to make our oil last longer.

I also mentioned solar and tidal energy. A lot of solar has been confined to the rich 'west', while poor countries around the equator keep deforesting for cooking fires and hot water. A solar boiler is (again) mature technology that should be implemented on a much larger scale, before we start looking into exotic and expensive energy production. Solar electricity in those countries also can be scaled up massively.

When all the easy solutions have dried up (including house insulation and more energy-efficient cars), we may well have solved the problem without needing nuclear/fusion. Maybe we will need it, but as long as no-one has built an fusion reactor with a positive yield don't sit on your hands on the easily introducable alternatives.

Oil will end, and the last few drops of it will be needed for the chemical/plastics industry rather than be burned in someone's Hummer.

Re:Wind power is science ...

[Rakarra]

It's sustainable, easy to harvest, not incredibly reliable, and will generate electricity that's a drop in the bucket compared to what our society needs.

What many wind power advocates don't want to say (or don't realize) is that wind power is only a solution when paired with massive power usage cutbacks.

And expecting that society will go along with massive power cutbacks isn't realistic.

Re:Wind power is science ...

[KayakFun]

Power usage cutbacks as in trading in your bulky SUV for a smaller car? Watch the car industry today make this switch very drastically.

Or placing data centers in cold places and just go air-cooling. Or using a 4 W Atom processor in your computer to replace a 130 W CPU.

Wind power is intermittend, so should not be more than 35% of your energy mix, but that's a lot more than 'a drop in the bucket'.