Jobs Responds to Greenpeace FUD

EccentricAnomaly writes "Steve Jobs has posted a response on the Apple homepage to the Greenpeace Green My Apple campaign in which he basically makes a case for the Greenpeace campaign being a heaping pile of FUD. On one hand, you could say that Greenpeace shouldn't expect a company that has spent years battling Microsoft to just roll over. On the other, it looks like Apple is agreeing to do most of what Greenpeace has been demanding."

But did he have to club the baby seal at the end?

Yes, he did, because he's Steve Jobs.

Re:But did he have to club the baby seal at the en

Only after he dubbed it iSeal Mini.

Wow ...

That's the first Apple related story I've read in ages that didn't mention the iPhone. Is Steve feeling OK?

Re:

"but some environmentalist won't be satisfied until every single human being on this planet is extinct."

Sounds like several political leaders in the world right now...and the biggest one doesn't give a fuck about the environment.

Personally given the odds,

Re:

I lost all respect for Greenpeace when they came out opposing nuclear power.

Re:

I lost all respect for Greenpeace when they came out opposing nuclear power.

My moment of truth with them was when I found out they were against pollution...

Re:Extinct

What a ridiculous comment. Even if it's true, so what? Your implied conclusion is "therefore, don't bother with environmentalism."

How about this logical fallacy:
"Some buisness leaders are so greedy they won't be happy until we're all working down in the coal mine for nothing - therefore we should be communist."

See how stupid you sound? I'm sick of people making sweeping generalisations like this - I hear/read it all the time with regard to nuclear power, as if it's impossible to have a reasoned opposition without being a psycho-greenie.

Re:Extinct

I'm sick of people making sweeping generalisations like this - I hear/read it all the time with regard to nuclear power, as if it's impossible to have a reasoned opposition without being a psycho-greenie.

That's what happens when your most outspoken proponents come off like rambling kooks, people get stereotyped.

For instance, if i said I was Republican you would say I was ...

Re:

Which is what happens when your community doesn't do anything to control or at least disavow your most outspoken proponents.

You never seem to hear any prominent environmentalists or organizations standing up and saying "okay, person or organization X has g

Re:

BS, that happens all of the time. It's just that it rarely makes the news because the press could give a rats ass about reasoned intelligent discussion. Some screaming blowhard ranting on some random subject makes for better ratings because it's more ent

Re:Extinct

A person who gets their scientific information from a Penn and Teller show frightens me. It's entertainment. Just like Mythbusters.

Re:Extinct

That's what happens when your most outspoken proponents come off like rambling kooks, people get stereotyped.

Who? I know of no outspoken proponents of environmentalism that come off like "rambling kooks".

For instance, if i said I was Republican you would say I was ...

Why is it that the right seems to think all they have to do is say "Democrats do it too!" to justify any and all manner of abject behavior? The answer is clear--it's meant to distract from the actual matter at hand.

Let's answer your innuendo. If you said you were Republican, I would say you were... what? What exactly did you have in mind? I would stereotype you in with all the "outspoken rambling kook" Republicans? No. Just saying you were a Republican would not be enough to warrant that. And here's the difference.

It's not until you start spouting kooky notions that you'd get lumped in with the other kooks. Merely being a Republican does not mean you are against environmentalism. But once you start going on about how environmentalists want the human species extinct, or how carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, or how mercury from a single compact fluorescent bulb is a toxic travesty, but the mercury from a coal plant is A-OK, you aren't being unfairly lumped in with the kooks, you *are* a kook.

I'm not saying you promote any of those things, this was just your "what if?".

This is just like the Intelligent Design nonsense. It's not that we're oppressing their theory, they don't *have* a theory. Same with anti-environmentalism. They *are* kooks.

Re:Extinct

I'm against hyperbole as much as the next guy, but in this case things like The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement [vhemt.org] do actually exist. The idea is that humans should live rich, productive lives, but stop reproducing, because we're doing more harm than good by continuing this way (both to ourselves and the planet). The rationale is further that all the reasons for having kids are ultimately 'bad' or 'selfish' and thus it is our moral responsibility to overcome our natural tendency to have kids, and instead "do the right thing"--become extinct.

Now, most people who subscribe to this "movement" are doing it as a joke, or because they are rationalizing the fact that they don't have kids. But some of them really seem to be arguing honestly for self-extinction of the human race.

Anyways, just thought you'd be interested to know. I'm not trying to diminish your point against exaggeration.

Re:Extinct

Sounds like a perfectly sensible thing to me. Why not live a full rich life free from the burden of raising children?

Re:Extinct

I think the Voluntary Human Extinction group is an example of going so far in making a very important point that they shoot themselves down. They point out the human activities that threaten our species and others with extinction, and then say we have to die off so other species won't. Most people won't listen to this, no change actually gets made, so we're back to square one. This means that the point has to be put across all over again, in more sober terms.

Fact is, the consumption inherent in our lifestyle, including the mining, logging, transportation, and manufacture, are such that we'd need this world's resources several times over to keep on doing it. Either we make real and effective changes - and I don't just mean buying things with cute logos or driving a hybrid - or we leave a big question over our offspring. How it is responsible to have many more children when that jeopardizes [bbc.co.uk] the world they'll live in, I don't know. It's tragic, like laying them straightaway in a grave. That is the heart of the matter, I think.

There's already quite a lot of children to care for who need more than egg and sperm donors to have a fair shot at a long and healthy if not materialistic life. I think anyone who chooses to increase the next generation's hopes rather than numbers deserves to feel good about it!

Re:Extinct

Some business leaders are so greedy they won't be happy until we're all working down in the coal mine for nothing
No,as we are reminded regularly on slashdot, all business leaders are required to maximize (short term) shareholder value as their sole motivation. As a result all business leaders must see to it that we're all working down in the coal mine for nothing. Anything less would be a perversion of capitalism.

Re:Extinct

The implied conclusion was 'ignore Greenpeace' not 'ignore the environment'.

Re:Extinct

Apple can do whatever they want to turn green, but some environmentalist won't be satisfied until every single human being on this planet is extinct.

Greenpeach can do whatever it wants to present actual information about a specific way they think Apple should change, but some Slashdot pundits won't be satisfied until every single debate is characterized as a debate between their own opinion and some unrelated extremist strawman.

Re:Extinct

Sorta, but the previous poster had a major point to.

Greenpeace was already once taken to task on this issue, to the effect that real scientists and computer industry officials flat out said Greenpeace was making shit up about a lot of what Apple was doing, and that they where using Apple only because

1) Many of Greenpeaces own members are Apple users.

2) They are high profile

And even in Jobs own letter, while being very tame, takes them to task for their supposed evidence as well, by pointing out many of the Companies they considered good at environmental concerns where doing LESS than Apple was.

So you really have to wonder, are Greenpeace out to make the world actually better? Or have they grown so big as to be a perpetual money machine for its own officials, which need to keep themselves in the news to continue to make more money.

Remember the Environmental industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, just the same as the NRA, or PETA, or any other concerns groups.

Re:Extinct

Is it too much to ask for products to be made of safe materials?

Like soylent green for example. It doesn't get any more "green" than soylent green.

I demand that my PCs be made of biodegradable environmentalists!

Re:

Key words being "some environmentalists".

In my experience, these folks are almost always trustafarians rebelling at their rich parents. You can't throw a satchel of patchouli in Santa Cruz or the more bohemian neighborhoods of San Francisco without hitting

Re:Extinct

I'd know a few for whom the idea gets an ominous smile after a few beers (if you bring it up).

Jobs correctly pointed out that Apple has got an unfair rap. For example they confirmed the rumour that their screens will have LED backlights (something I heard about in January). Just making the announcement is all that's important to how Greenpeace assessed Apple's environmental record. Apple aren't a more environmentally friendly company they just changed their longstanding policy on product pre-announcements to shut up some Greenpeace trolls who should have known better.

Also, Apple pointed out that they stopped using PVC in their packaging 12 years ago. But Greenpeace gave HP a better environmental score, in part because they are "promising" to remove PVC from their packaging. I've always been bemused by Greenpeace's campaign against Apple because it's complete dishonesty undermines everything else they say.

For example, looking at a figure like weight percentage of product recycled doesn't reflect the inherent differences between product weight. If Apple produce a computer that weighs half as much as a rival then the rival would need to recycle at least 50% just to catch up with Apple (assuming identical environmental impacts per unit weight, obviously).

This is pretty much what we knew before

If you were following this, you would have known that Greenpeace scored Apple really low due to other companies having given commitments to reduce this or that whereas Apple had not given such commitments. Basically Apple was being secretive and GP didn't like that. Apple likes to do stuff, not say stuff. And that serves them pretty well when it comes to the market because they get a lot of free publicity that way.

In this case, I think Apple doesn't really give much away in terms of new products while still being able to publish a timeline for reducing harmful substances used in their products.

I didn't realize I could get a 10% discount on a new iPod by trading in my old one. If my current one ever breaks, I will keep that in mind.

Re:This is pretty much what we knew before

I don't see how giving a 10% discount for replacing your iPod is environmentally friendly at all.

The 10% discount is so you'll bring the iPod in to Apple, who can properly recycle it, instead of tossing it in the trash, where it ends up in a landfill. I'd say that's environmentally friendly.

It has been known for years that Apple's environmental record is absolutely terrible.

Got any facts other than Greenpeace's flawed studies to prove it?

Just what Greenpeace wanted?

Is it not possible that Greenpeace started this campaign to pressure Apple to become more green precisely because they figured Apple would be the computer company most likely to respond? If so, it seems like Apple has done precisely what Greenpeace hoped they would do: they publicized their environmental impact to date, and promised to publicize further efforts to improve that impact in the future. In this way, Apple now becomes a valuable part of Greenpeace's efforts to get all computer manufacturers to become more green.

Re:Just what Greenpeace wanted?

Is it not possible that Greenpeace started this campaign to pressure Apple to become more green precisely because they figured Apple would be the computer company most likely to respond?

It is possible, but it doesn't actually help anything with regard to achieving Greenpeace's stated goals or benefitting the environment.

If so, it seems like Apple has done precisely what Greenpeace hoped they would do: they publicized their environmental impact to date, and promised to publicize further efforts to improve that impact in the future.

Yeah, we are all pretty well educated by Greenpeace now. All they care about is talk. You have to publish crap, or they'll come after you with incredibly misleading statements and by spending large amounts of money and manpower protesting you for only being way better than your competitors, but not publishing a bunch of marketing nonsense about it.

In this way, Apple now becomes a valuable part of Greenpeace's efforts to get all computer manufacturers to become more green.

How do you figure. They managed to generate a lot bad press for one company who was doing relatively well with regard to environmentalism, while not doing the same for companies that do poorly but publish promises that they're working on being better and in 10 years may meet the same goals Apple already has. If anything they've discouraged companies from being green, in favor of making empty, marketing promises. Seriously, as a businessman, that is the message they delivered to me loud and clear. Who cares if we just shipped a pile of environmentally unfriendly boxes overseas to avoid their environmental protection laws about to come into force. If Greenpeace calls about it, we can just publish a paper promising we'll stop that practice, while moving on with business as usual. It sure is cheaper and more effective from a marketing perspective than actually reducing the toxic chemicals in our products and packaging like Apple did.

Re:Just what Greenpeace wanted?

One suspects they'd consider Apple more "green" should Apple provide them with an infusion of cash.

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_financial s.cfm/oid/131 [activistcash.com]

Re:Just what Greenpeace wanted?

David & Lucile Packard Foundation $450,000.00 2000 - 2000

Wow 1/2 a million dollars in one year from the HP foundation.

It's ok

I'm a crazy neo-hippie vegetarian and even I don't listen to greenpeace(or were aware they were still around). Yeah, polluters are bad, but greenpeace doesn't help.

Steve Jobs is not saying it's FUD

He simply explains that Apple doesn't usually advertise its future plans in regards to environment but, since there have been much concern, he is going to go ahead and outline them.

Greenpeace responds to Steve responding

Interestingly, Greenpeace has responded already, demanding more action, specifically, the products being green from the outset. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/tastygreenapple [greenpeace.org]

Re:Greenpeace responds to Steve responding

Greenpeace quotes Steve Jobs out of context with ...Steve Jobs saying, "Today we're changing our policy." You're the consumers of Apple's products, and you've proven you make a real difference. You convinced one of the world's most cutting edge companies to peel the toxic ingredients out of the products they sell.

Jobs is saying Apple is changing the policy of communicating its environmental policy in response to Greenpeace and others, not changing it's environmental policies. If Greenpeace wants to stay credible, they should not be taking quotes out of context.

Re:Greenpeace responds to Steve responding

Greenpeace has not been a credible pro-environment organization for a long time. In fact, a lot of the pro-environment organizations have been known to oversell their cases. Rush Limbaugh exploited this in the late 80's/early 90's to gain credibility in his rise to fame.

By overselling their cases, they helped establish the political landscape we have today, where proof of environmental destruction is a tough sell, and the habit of lying even to themselves about the true state of things leads to nutjobs like the Earth Liberation Front [cdfe.org], who destroy the environment in order to save it.

The best thing for the environment remains to be considerate of what things you consume and dispose of and where they come from and go to. And doing so almost always ends up saving you money as well.

You Spin Me Right Round Baby Right Round ...

Greenpeace may have responded to Steve Jobs' response but they failed reading comprehension:

From Apples Release:

It is generally not Apple's policy to trumpet our plans for the future; we tend to talk about the things we have just accomplished. Unfortunately this policy has left our customers, shareholders, employees and the industry in the dark about Apple's desires and plans to become greener. Our stakeholders deserve and expect more from us, and they're right to do so. They want us to be a leader in this area, just as we are in the other areas of our business. So today we're changing our policy.

From the Greenpeace response:

Today we saw something we've all been waiting for: the words "A Greener Apple" on the front page of Apple's site, with a message from Steve Jobs saying, "Today we're changing our policy."

You're the consumers of Apple's products, and you've proven you make a real difference. You convinced one of the world's most cutting edge companies to peel the toxic ingredients out of the products they sell.

Umm ... Greenpeace, I hate to say it, but the policy you "forced" Apple to change was the "It is generally not Apple's policy to trumpet our plans for the future; we tend to talk about the things we have just accomplished."

Way to go making it seem like you're important, having an impact, and therefore worthy of large $$$ donations.

Re:You Spin Me Right Round Baby Right Round ...

More importantly, they have shown that their copy editor doesn't know how to hyphenate an adjective phrase. Damn, if the good people at Greenpeace haven't completed fifth grade, how can I trust their policy initiatives? I guess I can't.

Green peace

Green peaces relavance has always been questionable. Most academic enviromental scientist despise them and groups like them because they target high profile but ussually unimportant causes. Diverting attention from real problems. For instance you could kill every spotted owl in existsance and it would not effect the basic ecology of the area. Other species will take up the niche the spotted. Almost all north american endangered species have a more successful cousin. Their loss isnt' significant. But more obscure causes like land preservation efforts in the amazon don't get the same headlines. Similiar groups like PETA also actively impede preservation efforts liek culling of certain animals to avoid a population crash. Enviromental Stewardship involves more then hugging fury things which a lot of activist organization don't acknowlege.

Nuclear energy and research which reduces the amount of damage energy generation causes is protested byt hese groups too. There are arguements against nuclear but they are more valid for the US. In canada our nuclear energy policies tend to be saner. But there is still a stigma about nuclear energy and it's mostly due to misinformation form media and groups like green peace.

For nuclear, it's not about IF we us eit it's abotu When and for how long.

They are a target because the iPod is popular.

And no other reason.

I know it's a stretch for the average Slashdotter, and the comments already posted reinforce that notion, but RTFA.

Apple has met or exceeded environmental standards in just about every respect. They've been doing it for years. Longer than most tech companies.

So what are they really guilty of? What got Greenpeace's panties in a twist? Two things:

First, Apple didn't publicize their work. They pulled a Nike and "Just did it" instead of talking about it. For this Greenpeace ranked Apple lower than other companies that just talk about doing it. Because Apple had the audacity to implement things without talking about it, they've been marked.

Second, Apple has become amazingly successful thanks in no small part to the success of iPod/iTunes and Steve Jobs. I personally hate that they killed the Newton, but I love the price of my Apple stock. This makes Apple the "publicity target." If you want publicity, mention something really negative about Apple.

Greenpeace is media whore mongering. Plain and simple.

I for one am glad that Apple has responded, perhaps not directly to Greenpeace but in a round about way they bitch slapped them. Greenpeace deserves it. The organization should either do real work, or disappear. This attempt to keep themselves relevant is a joke. Greenpeace made no attempt to measure or show in any statistically sound way the real efforts by the companies they ranked.

Lead by example. Apple's got a history of that.

What's Greenpeace got? A bunch of nut cases who signed a petition against dihydrogen-monoxide?

http://video.google.com/url?docid=-387819886586014 3812&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=bull+shit+dihydrogen+monoxide &vidurl=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dyi3erdg VVTw&usg=AL29H22JoKRpAVSY4tPfXFwAGoCVaoW6Xw [google.com]

Story submitter confused?

The title says "Jobs responds to Greanpeace FUD", which means (in English) that the arguments by Greanpeace are FUD. The summary itself goes on to say that it is Jobs who is arguing that Greanpeace is FUD'ing. But the summary finishes with "Apple is agreeing with Greanpeace demands", which means (in English) that there was no FUD in Greanpeace's claims. If there was, Apple wouldn't do what Greanpeace asked them to do.

So I'd like to ask the submitter to gather around her or his thoughts and decide whether:

1. Greenpeace arguments are FUD, or

2. Jobs thinks Greanpeace arguments are FUD, or

3. Greenpeace is telling the truth (and Apple is indeed using hazardous materials, intentionally harming its workers' health abroad and the environment).

Which one is it? I know what Apple is (a corporation [wikipedia.org] after profit, just like Microsoft ), so I pretty much know who's telling the truth in this case.

Green peace is the shit

im sorry, I mean 'a shit'. Greanpeace is A shit. My bad.

Of course the go after Apple without bothering to check their facts. Apple is in the news a lot, so by attacking them Greanpeace gets publicity.

Greenpeace lost it's way years ago. Gone from Finding ways to improve the enviroment, to we hate all corporations.

Bunch of bastards lyingh to people about what they do and who they are so som,e people at the top can have their damn 'power'.

Bunch of terrorists only marginally better then PETA.

Re:So Greenpeace was right?

RTA. Throughout, Jobs makes comparisons to other companies in the Greenpeace Electronics Guide [greenpeace.org]. He then writes:

Dell, HP and Lenovo all scored higher than Apple because of their plans (or "plans for releasing plans" in the case of HP). In reality, Apple is ahead of all of these companies in eliminating toxic chemicals from its products.

It's a bit more accurate to say

that Apple isn't yet where Greenpeace wants them to be, but they're much farther ahead than Greenpeace claims they *were* -- and furthermore, are much farther ahead than most other companies in the industry are *now*.

I'd consider that at least partial FUD on the part of Greenpeace.

Re:So Greenpeace was right?

and if you read the greenpeace update, you will notice that they take credit for these 'changes'. Ignoring the fact that the happened many years ago.

bastards.

Re:FUD or "FUD"?

It would be an undue compliment to call Greenpeace's report even barely researched. It was presumptive, snide, misleading, and obviously flawed. FUD seems a fair description.

This isn't a case of "he says, she says". This is a case of "Greenpeace assumed, without any facts, that Apple doesn't care about the environment, and told everyone that this is the objective truth". Greenpeace went on to waste probably quite a bit of money on a campaign and website [greenmyapple.org] to "change" Apple, all based on their flawed report.

Currently the Green My Apple campaign site is posting a headline suggesting that Jobs's explanation of Apple's actually-quite-greenness is some sort of policy change, rather than what it is: the good news Greenpeace had previously assumed was bad.

Re:FUD or "FUD"?

I don't agree with the moderator who marked your comment Flamebait. I don't think that's how you intended it, anyway.

Yes, I believe Jobs is telling the truth about Apple's current manufacturing standards. I'm sure you have read in full the Greenpeace report [greenpeace.org] that stirred this storm in a teacup, and therefore realize that Greenpeace assumed Apple's manufacturing standards weren't up to snuff simply because Apple hadn't explained in brightly colored crayons what friendly, earth-loving folk they are. Greenpeace's "scoring" of Apple and the other electronics companies reviewed was based solely on PR information available from company websites. Greenpeace had no reason to doubt the information published on Lenovo's, Nokia's, or Sony's websites, and neither they nor I have any reason to doubt the information now posted on Apple's.

Sorry if I made Greenpeace sound evil to you. Their actions were executed with trademark thoughtlessness and irrationality, but I'm sure their intentions were honorable. Their review was flawed, but not biased, and I'm sure Apple will be properly represented in the next Greenpeace Electronics Guide.

Re:

You're not missing the point. Greenpeace is a fundamentally a socialist organization, therefore property is to them, meaningless.

The reality is that when you buy a product, you take on responsibility for the disposal of that product when it is no longer us

Re:from the My Green Apple website:

Perhaps the biggest point missed by the recycling police is that recycling is the LEAST desirable of the three Rs. Reduce, reuse, recycle -- they are in order. Consuming less in the first place is best, reusing is next and recycling is last. I had a roommate who used to harp about recycling but she ate so much packaged food she generated FAR more waste than I do.

As you say, the best place for many recyclable materials is in a landfill, waiting for the day when we can recycle them economically, ie using less resources than it would take to start from scratch.

Actually ... Classic Scaremongering

Judging by what Greenpeace has been saying about Apple lately and how it has all turned out to be false, I think the title is rather tame actually. Some of Greenpeace's statements have been borderline libelous. How sad that such a once noble group has su

Re:

Actually LEDs are less efficient than most fluorescents for a given amount of light output. Unless the current backlights are unusually inefficient, the LEDs may actually hinder battery life.

Re:Apples arent green because...

Green peace doesn't care about people. They just use them as props because they know you care about people. They care about the environment.

Take it for what it is worth, But I have never read anything from green peace talking about the health of humans unless it is prefaced with the environment and something to do with it.

Re:Apples arent green because...

"But I have never read anything from green peace talking about the health of humans unless it is prefaced with the environment and something to do with it"

You mean to say that an environmentalist group doesn't talk about the health of humans, unless it's got something to do with the environment? Never! Next you'll be telling me that the Free Software Foundation doesn't care enough about Darfur, except insofar as regards the Sudanese software industry. And Human Rights Watch is conspicuously silent on the Ivory Trade, unless there's a human rights angle. And the Campaign Against the Arms Trade has conspicuously failed to denounce the bastards who dropped their rubbish in my back garden last Wednesday week! Stinking hypocrites, the lot of them!

What is the world coming to, when single-issue pressure groups just stick to whatever single issue it is they were set up to campaign on?