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.
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.
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?
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
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
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.
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"
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.
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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?
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.
Maybe not
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Anarchists never rule
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.
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
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."
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?
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.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?