Slashdot Log In
Greenpeace Admits Targeting Apple Grabs Headlines
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Oct 22, 2007 08:25 PM
from the green-but-not-so-much-for-peace dept.
from the green-but-not-so-much-for-peace dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Gizmodo published this morning allegations by the bromine industry claiming that Greenpeace's report on the iPhone was inaccurate and alarmist. They got an official rebuttal to the bromine industry by Greenpeace, but the most interesting part is their acknowledgment that their targeting of Apple, even while they have similar reports on every manufacturer, is a deliberate attempt to grab headlines. While it's logical and not surprising, I find it quite shocking to see them be so cavalier, and even hypocritical, about it."
Related Stories
Submission: Greenpeace Admits Targeting Apple Grabs Headlines by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Games: Greenpeace Down on Games Industry, Logic Flawed? 138 comments
Earlier this week Greenpeace went after the games industry a bit, coming down on hardware manufacturers for poor environmental practices. Nintendo and Microsoft in particular got poor scores from the organization. Ars Technica's Opposable Thumbs blog notes, though, that their methodology is a bit odd. It's not so much that Nintendo's environmental policies (say) are all that bad - they're just not readily available on a website. "The research in general appears lazy. Nintendo's failing grade appears to be based entirely on this entry in the corporate FAQ, which briefly summarizes some of the steps the company has taken to protect the environment. Anything that's not covered there is simply rated "No Information." Similarly, all of the information on Microsoft originates from press materials and corporate statements on the company's web site. Clearly, Greenpeace did not perform an exhaustive evaluation of chemical use through the manufacturing pipeline."
[+]
Greenpeace Slams Apple For Environmental Record 271 comments
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Time for (Score:5, Funny)
Re:how brave of you! (Score:4, Insightful)
the French underground was instrumental in defeating Hitler.
Wrong. While there were some very brave resistance fighters in France, even after the Normandy invasion in 1944 it was little more than a token operation. The SOE (British intelligence agency tasked with things like operations in occupied Europe) only supported the resistance for its morale boosting and propaganda value - most actions in occupied France were carried out by British operatives. De Gaulle acknowledged how unimportant the resistance was, and quipped that if all the people who claimed to have been resitance fighters had been then the Germans would never have been able to occupy France in the first place. The high profile of the resistance in post war France was an attempt to disguise the level of collabaration with the German occupiers by most of the French populace - a classic case of the victors writing the history to favour themselves.
Poland bravely met the Nazis in open battle, and got wiped out.
As did the French in 1940. Had the French and British used similar tactics to the Germans (concentrated armoured attacks, units authorised to operate in a semi-autonomous manner rather than requesting orders from above at critical moments) then it is debatable whether German victory could be assured. It was the piece meal use of French armour (technically on a par with the Panzers of the Low Countries campaign) rather than in massed defensive actions and counter attacks, along with ineffective leadership from the high command that enabled the Germans to win such a stunning victory. It is clear that the Western Allies had learnt nothing from the Polish experience of Blitzkreig at this point.
Parent
the media is lazy (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's the double-edged sword of having the "hot" product in any market. I'm sure if they had done a similar report on the XBOX 360, the media would have been all over it in a similar manner.
Re:the media is lazy (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's the double-edged sword of having the "hot" product in any market
Sure, that's the Nike woosh has become an icon for the NoBrand movement, even though all the other major sportsgoods manufacturers indulge in the same practices blamed on Nike.
The submitters moral indignation is a bit hard to stomach. How can it be "logical" and "not surprising" while at the same time being "cavalier" and even "hypocritical." What's hypocritical about stating the obvious truth? They are only being frank and declaring the truth that they are a pro-environmental publicity company.
Parent
Re:the media is lazy (Score:5, Insightful)
However, they have to get attention, and so they do stuff like this, which is not necessarily targeting Apple because they have a vendetta against apple, but targeting Apple because they know the media is lazy and sensationalist, and will carry any story that will sell newspapers and commercial airtime.
Parent
Re:the media is lazy (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:the media is lazy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:the media is lazy (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the attention is the means to the end. The end they seek is getting money they didn't earn.
-jcr
Parent
Re:the media is lazy (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the media is lazy (Score:4, Insightful)
having nothing in common with either anything green, other than the color of money, nor peace
Parent
No blackmail (Score:5, Informative)
Does this count as slander, or is it simply FUD?
Greenpeace is funded by private citizens, and doesn't even accept funding from governments, corporations, or other organisations that might compromise their independence. The only way in which companies are requested to "pay up" is by reducing their damage to the environment. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it.
Parent
Re:the media is lazy (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:the media is lazy (Score:4, Informative)
I guess you didn't notice, but that "dirty hippie" had been photoshopped with Steve Jobs' face, along with the words "It's not easy... being green...", and a green apple on the ground in front of him. The reference is Steve Jobs' "A Greener Apple" statement from some months back.
I won't deny, however, that Gizmondo has no love for Greenpeace, yet I do think in this case they have a point. Apple has stated that they will eliminate all PVCs and BFRs from their products sometime in 2008, which puts them above average among computer and mobile phone makers:
Dell: BFRs already eliminated, PVCs By 2009
Nokia: PVCs already eliminated, no date for complete elimination of BFRs
Toshiba: By 2009
Lenovo: PVC By 2009, no date for complete elimination of BFRs
Sony: Sometime in 2010
HP: No date for complete elimination of either
Motorola: No date for complete elimination of either
So it seems ridiculous for Greenpeace to keep singling Apple out for PVC/BFR elimination instead of, say, HP or Motorola. Well, except for the fact that (a) any headline with "Apple" in it gets tons of media attention right now, and (b) there are so many pro- and anti-Apple fanboys that any new controversy will whip both sides into a frenzy.
Kudos to Greenpeace for social engineering, shame on them for demagoguery.
(Oh, and you can't argue that Greenpeace doesn't single out Apple. Try going to greenpeace.org/sony, greenpeace.org/hp or greenpeace.org/motorola. Didn't think so.)
Parent
Re:the media is lazy (Score:4, Interesting)
Another odd note... From Greenpeace's rebuttal:
The other inaccuracies:
1. Electronics Industry Analyst Group Dismisses Greenpeace Claims on iPhone?
This is inaccurate. BSEF is the international organisation of the bromine chemical industry. The title of the article would more accurately be: "Chemical Industry Group Dismisses Greenpeace Claims on iPhone."
and Gizmodo's response below that
Editor's note: actually, the "analyst" was corrected and replaced to "group" when this was pointed out this morning...
They go on to state how wonderful they are for disclosing errors. Except they only changed part of the text - 'analyst' to 'group'. They appear to have overlooked that Greenpeace's correction was 'Electronics Industry analyst' to 'Chemical Industry group' - a much, much larger difference.
I'm with you; Gizmodo looks bad on this one.
Parent
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless if you agree with their goals or not, they left credibility behind a long time ago.
Riding the hype (Score:5, Interesting)
What Greenpeace does is to ride the hype wave and nobody but Apple has recently released any majorly hyped, or hype-worthy, electronic products.
Greenpeace rides the hype wave in other areas too (ie. not just electronics). This is a very effective way of operating since it relies on the fact that people are already tuned in to the subject and Greenpeace can tack on an environmental angle with far less resources.
Parent
Re:Riding the hype (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Riding the hype (Score:5, Insightful)
And how did Greenpeace "bend the truth"? Apparently (the OP does not contain a link to the original story) Greenpeace claims iPhones contain brominated compounds and PVC. As near as I can tell from the (industry) articles, neither Apple nor the industry disputes that. The defense is 1) everybody does it, 2) the compounds are approved by government agencies so they're ok, 3) there are no alternative materials, and 4) (which seems at odds with #1-3) Apple is in the process of stopping using those compounds. That these industry claims may (or may not) be true does not mean that Greenpeace's claim that the iPhone contains bromine compounds is "bending the truth".
Greenpeace has clearly picked the target that they will get the most media attention from (if they'd targeted Kyocera, who would have paid any attention?) but they didn't say everybody else (except Apple) was fine.
BTW, why are the links in the OP anonymized? I value my tinfoil hat as much as the next guy, but why in the world would even Little Dick Cheney or Mad King George care if I'm reading an article in Gizmodo? Is Gizmodo the new terrorist chic?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Corrected.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How about Greenpeace gives back to average hard working Joes the money its little stock-panicing publicity stunts suck out of retirement accounts?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see that you've taken the lead in that.
Can you point to Greenpeace taking any of the communist governments to task for their appalling environmental record? How about any peep of protest when Saddam Hussein ordered the burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields?
Just like PETA and Scientology, Greenpeace exists to 1) make money, and 2) to make more money.
They only target big corporations, because corporations will usually pay them to fuck off. Governments won
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(1) the mishandling of lead, solvents, beryllium, and other substances used in the manufacture of electronic devices is not a serious environmental problem which has led to death, disease, and birth defects in this country and others,
(2) genetically modifying crops so that they can survive massive doses of herbicides (such as Roundup) which eventually run off into our waterways cannot possibly cause serious environmental problems i
Hypocritical of Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I don't really care, because we're all in it to make or raise money. PETA says and does offensive things to grab headlines, the WWE does, and 90% of the articles on CNN and even Digg are sensationalist headlines designed to get you to "click through".
Who cares?
even Digg? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Hypocritical of Slashdot? (Score:5, Informative)
Finally, in the last sentence of the article, I read "While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it doesn't mean that we are not focusing on all manufacturers to remove toxic chemicals from their products."
THAT'S IT!??
Come off it. Apple is the poster child for high-tech consumerism right now, and has invested heavily to reach that status - so they get the brunt of the criticism as well. BFD.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But when GP bitched about the MacBook, they complained about a relatively benign substance when they let other makers off for using more toxic substances. They praised Dell & HP for promising to get rid of a certain substance from new computers at a certain date while ignoring that Apple had already stopped using it.
The type of compounds that they complain about that are sealed i
links (Score:5, Informative)
What's this with anonymouse? (Score:4, Informative)
Why are the URLs hidden behind anonymouse? If I want to browse anonymously, I'm going to use Tor, I don't need some stupid anonymizing site that pops up little boxes over what I'm looking at.
The real url to the store is this: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/apple/electronics-industry-analyst-group-dismisses-greenpeace-claims-on-iphone-313411.php [gizmodo.com]. I suspect the submitter of doing this one purpose.
not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
I will say that I witnessed procedures and practices that bothered me and probably affected the overall industry in the end. However, the crap Green Peace used was totally fabricated and didn't have any basis in truth.
I quit fishing in 98', started using macs in 02' and now the fuckers are attacking something I like and profit from again. I didn't know 10 years ago that I would be working in IT with macs, but I feel like the fuckers are following me.
What's even more ironic is that all the tree-hugging hippies I have known over the years, even those from Green Peace, have been Apple users!
Yup (Score:5, Informative)
They also promoted the idea that a harbor project for the large (largest in the world, actually) salt mine down under in Baja was a risk to the gray whales, so that the harbor project was stopped. The pier was projected so big, that a damned whale coud pass under it from ANY possition.... SIDEWAYS. That time they were paid by competing Australian salt miners.
I, for one, have never ever believed anything coming out of greanpeace. They are nothing but a rent-a-hoolingan shop.
No surprise here (Score:5, Insightful)
I love animals and believe we need to clean up the earth and all that, but every time I hear about Greenpeace and one of their stunts, I want to go kill a baby seal and wear its fur. Just like every time PETA does some of their bullshit I go eat lunch at KFC.
Re:No surprise here (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a hugely important insight. Groups that are on the extreme in the environmental movement such as Greenpeace have unfortunately come to be the image that the general public thinks of when they think of environmentalism, despite the fact that many environmental groups are much more moderate; just one example (among many) is the Nature Conservancy [nature.org], which makes a point of partnering with hunters, fisherman, loggers, ranchers and other groups that are typically viewed as "enemies" by the more extreme elements in the environmental movement.
Unfortunately the habit of stereotyping a group by its most extreme elements is common today. When people think of Republicans they think of Dick Cheney and John Boehner, not the Governator [ca.gov] or John Warner; when they think of Democrats they think of Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi, not Jim Webb or Joe Biden.
Extremist make it much easier to discredit an entire movement, but just because a group like Greenpeace is making a huge racket about Apple as a publicity stunt (and that's what this is) doesn't mean that groups arguing for clean air, clean water, and open space are all fringe whackos. The same applies to politics, business, etc - despite the occasional extremist, on the whole the world contains much more of a nuanced mix than most people acknowledge, and taking the time to look past the fringe and towards the center can go a long way towards helping us all find some common ground.
Parent
Greenpeace is not an environmental organization (Score:5, Interesting)
"Environmental extremism arose in the mid-1980s. It arose because the majority of people accepted all of the reasonable points in the environmental agenda, and the only way to remain adversarial and confrontational and anti-everything was to adopt even more extreme positions - eventually abandoning all science and logic altogether."
~ Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace.
Not just about headlines (Score:4, Insightful)
You can certainly criticize Greenpeace for the particulars of this campaign, but criticizing them as "hypocritical" for going after the highest-profile target most likely to achieve success for their campaign? Cry me a river.
News flash: Advocacy groups use marketing! (Score:4, Insightful)
Greenpeace is an advocacy group. It uses the same marketing techniques as politicians, for-profit companies, and everyone else. They go for the big target. I think they're being honest in admitting it.
Totally works too! (Score:5, Funny)
Now, how long until this recursion dies with out of memory error...
Welcome to the new demoracy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Solution: Brands are already signifiers of complex emotional meanings. Marketers would love to define these meanings for us, but the meaning of a brand is a contested space. Holding high-value brands accountable for the sustainability of their actions becomes a powerful tool, but ONLY when those brands defy the values of their customers. Turns out many customers don't like toxics leaking out their landfills and so on. They never did. But now that marketeering has taught us that brands have deep things to say about who we as customers are, well gosh, suddenly brands that represent poisoned water tables are in deep shit. Because branding is about feeling, and poison-water feels bad.
Think about it: Greenpeace's only action was to release information. Not exactly threatening, unless that information drives customers. If Greenpeace doesn't share the values/ethics of the people who shop at Apple, there's absolutely no effect. But they do. Greenpeace picks targets that have value-added brands, brands with emotional resonance. It's hardball tactics and it's completely fair because what they said about Apple is true. Generic companies are also bad, but those companies don't have fanboys and big brand-name markups. Apple makes all kinds of promises to its customers wrapped into "Think Different". Turns out the customers want that to means something.
The interesting thing about this is that far from destroying brands, it actually makes them more powerful. Suddenly brands go beyond marketing language to become signifiers of real corporate ethics, where a value-added brand is even more desireable, because we customers know that a company that claims to "Think Different" but isn't will get crucified. Outing liars increases trust. Good for everyone: markets are more efficient with more information.
Greenpeace doesn't care about the environment (Score:5, Interesting)
Just do this exercize. Watch some Sunday TV and look at what the preachers are doing... yamming up about some horrific topic and threatening the wrath of God, if you don't give them money. Then, turn on the likes of PBS or the Discovery or Science channel, and, if you happen to find a good environmental documentary, you'll find some jackass yamming up about some horrific topic and threatening the wrath of mother nature, if you don't give them money. While I doubt it it would be politically possible, but I bet if you could have switched Jerry Falwell and the head of Greenpeace and made them do each other's jobs for a year, they wouldn't have missed a beat, because they are all doing the same thing.
Please don't get all hot and bothered about some nonsense that says: "yeah, but they do such good work." These people are con artists, 99% of the time, and what they sell is entertainment. It's entertainment, that's all it is. Just like in Christianity, if you want to save someone, so it is in the environment. If you want to save the world, start with your own life first.
Summary Incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
However, Greenpeace did not admit that is what they are doing. The summary is incorrect.
If you think we just protest against Apple then look out for soon a report covering a wide range of manufacturers as we have done in 2006. While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it doesn't mean that we are not focusing on all manufacturers to remove toxic chemicals from their products.
What Greenpeace said is the opposite of what the summary claims they said. Greenpeace said that they recognize that their report on the iPhone did capture more headlines, but that they do, and have done, the same thing with other phones. Greenpeace is claiming that they did not focus on the iPhone in order to capture headlines, that it happened because the media is more interested in news relating to the iPhone. Which also makes perfect sense, because that is what their readers want to read about (not whether it's right or wrong for them to report what the people want to hear, but that is the way it is).
So again, I agree that Greenpeace almost certainly did focus on the issue in order to attract attention to the issue, and that that is their standard operating procedure, it is clearly false that they admitted to it.
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? Show a me a group or individual publicly campaigning for a cause that isn't cavalier and, in some cases, downright hypocritical. Both conservative and liberal groups and individuals do this all the time and I'm tired of it. Right wing "pro life" advocates who seem to have no problem supporting a war in which innocent people are dieing every day spring to mind. As does Al Gore and the host of other leftist celebrities who try and bring attention to global warming by traveling the world in private energy wasting jets and then get from event to event via SUV once they've landed.
I'm sick and tired of the "do as I say, not as I do crowd". Shut the hell up you shameless self promoters.
Re:Seriously man, are you a pussy? (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW, when calling another a pussy, it helps not to have the name "coward".
Parent
Re:Life Meets Art (Score:4, Informative)
An anti-science fiction writer advising the US senate on climate science [realclimate.org], what could possibly go wrong?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Life Meets Art (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Greenpeace is despicable these days. (Score:4, Insightful)
That happens to other organizations as well... look at MADD.
Nephilium
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When I used to work for a solar module manufacturing firm in Italy, I would have to represent the firm with others at trade conferences and talk about the benefits -- and costs -- of the product. Most people were great.
However, with Greenpeace, I would get accosted outside of their booths simply because I would be wearing a suit. I was selling out the environmental movement. And I'd have to listen to this shit from a coddled undergraduate who'd never done a
Re:hit them where it hurts (Score:4, Funny)
We're talking about Greenpeace here. Hitting them where it hurts means pulling Phish from iTunes.
Parent