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.
What could be more organic and green than apples?
(Not even oranges measure up.)
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.
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.
My web domain.
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."
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.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
The fact that Greenpeace comes down on Apple is a good reason for me to consider buying a new Macbook.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
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
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.
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.
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.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
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.
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.
Futurist Traditionalism
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."
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
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.