Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
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."
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?
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.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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.
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
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 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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
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.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley