Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple Businesses Science

Jobs Responds to Greenpeace FUD 531

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the apple-huggers dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jobs Responds to Greenpeace FUD

Comments Filter:
  • by soft_guy (534437) * on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:20PM (#18962237)
    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.
  • by jdbartlett (941012) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:27PM (#18962351)

    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.
  • by iamacat (583406) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:30PM (#18962391)
    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.
  • by andphi (899406) <phillipsam@gmail. c o m> on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:30PM (#18962393) Journal
    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]
  • by wmeyer (17620) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:54PM (#18962851)
    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 useful to you. I contend that at present, the greenest disposal of a computer is to donate it for use by a charity, thus extending its life, rather than consigning it to a recycling heap.

    Another point always avoided by the recycling police is that some of the things -- many, in fact -- that are recycled make little sense, as the cost in real dollars and in chemical waste is often worse than the original manufacture.

    But when your cause is "just", reality needn't be considered. Just ask Al Gore.
  • Re:FUD or "FUD"? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Achromatic1978 (916097) <robert@@@chromablue...net> on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:10PM (#18963157)
    Wow. Because Greenpeace marketing is lying, or misleading, but whatever Apple's marketing dept comes out with (not Jobs, do you think /he/ sat there all night doing the little graphs in Keynote?) is GOSPEL TRUTH?

    Man, there are so many issues with this it's not funny. Someone raises concerns, Apple responds, and it's evil, evil Greenpeace - not "hmmm, was there any merit, or just marketing spin", no no, the Apple fanboy machine goes into overdrive.

    Surprise surprise, welcome to Slashdot. Or Apple fanboys, in general.

  • by DCheesi (150068) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:21PM (#18963335) Homepage
    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.
  • by Reziac (43301) * on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:21PM (#18963337) Homepage Journal
    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:Extinct (Score:3, Informative)

    by ceoyoyo (59147) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:21PM (#18963341)
    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 gone too far off the deep end." Same for certain other organizations you speak of.
  • 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.
  • by sl3xd (111641) * on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:47PM (#18963823) Journal
    Well, according to "The Hitch Hiker's Guide", (otherwise known as Wikipedia), while some use arsenic, others do not.

    aluminium gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) - red and infrared
    aluminium gallium phosphide (AlGaP) - green
    aluminium gallium indium phosphide (AlGaInP) - high-brightness orange-red, orange, yellow, and green
    gallium arsenide phosphide (GaAsP) - red, orange-red, orange, and yellow
    gallium phosphide (GaP) - red, yellow and green
    gallium nitride (GaN) - green, pure green (or emerald green), and blue also white (if it has an AlGaN Quantum Barrier)
    indium gallium nitride (InGaN) - near ultraviolet, bluish-green and blue
    silicon carbide (SiC) as substrate blue
    silicon (Si) as substrate blue (under development)
    sapphire (Al2O3) as substrate blue
    zinc selenide (ZnSe) - blue
    diamond (C) - ultraviolet
    aluminium nitride (AlN), aluminium gallium nitride (AlGaN) - near to far ultraviolet (down to 210 nm[4])


    Which means that you can get red & green using gallium phosphate, and silicon carbide for blue. That gives you white light.

    Or, you could use gallium nitride with the AlGaN Quantum Barrier, which also has no arsenic.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:58PM (#18964005)
    Do you have suggestions for better altneratives? Maybe entrusting your $500 flat screen monitor to the delivery driver in a paper bag?

    The packaging of most computers allows for very efficient handling. Furthermore, more of it is recyclible than you realize. Styrofoam is (but it may be hard to find a center equipped to deal with it). It's also not really that bad for the environment. It's just a plastic. The concern over styrofoam in that 80's was that producing it requires bubbling a mostly inert gas through it. The gasses most easily used were ozone depleting and seldom contained. Most manufacturers use much more friendlier gasses now. It's also is pretty visible as litter, but just sitting around doesn't do much harm unless a bird happens to ingest it (birds don't pass plastics, so they sit in their stomach and make them feel full until they die of starvation), which doesn't happen if it's disposed of responsibly.
  • Re:FUD or "FUD"? (Score:4, Informative)

    by jdbartlett (941012) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:04PM (#18964117)

    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.

  • by Card (30431) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:41PM (#18964547) Homepage

    I can understand why they oppose nuclear power. What I don't understand is their opposition to fusion power research.

    In their own words [greenpeace.org]:

    Fusion energy - if it would ever operate - would create a serious waste problem, would emit large amounts of radioactive material and could be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons. A whole new set of nuclear risks would thus be created.
  • Re:FUD or "FUD"? (Score:3, Informative)

    by jdbartlett (941012) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @06:03PM (#18964821)
    The Greenpeace Greener Electronics Guide was an editorialized review based on improper research and the assumption that companies are up to no good when no relevant information is within five clicks of their homepage. Whether or not it's FUD (and it is) isn't just relevant, it's the topic at hand.
  • Re:Extinct (Score:2, Informative)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @06:04PM (#18964837) Homepage Journal
    really?
    they supposrt fire bombing, killing people in favor of animals, and making animals be like humans.

    Yes, making animals be like humans, because the animal sure doesn't know the difference.

    The want humans to die for animals.
    The fact that the vide president of PETA is not only alive because of animal testing, but continue to use animal tested products to stay alive. Fucking Hypocritical Bitch.

    DHS should consider them a terrorist support orginization.
  • by dr.badass (25287) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @06:27PM (#18965073) Homepage
    One suspects they'd consider Apple more "green" should Apple provide them with an infusion of cash.

    Nice theory, but Greenpeace doesn't accept funding from corporations or governments. Your own link supports this. Greenpeace is looking for funding, of course, but not from Apple. They pick attention-getting fights and stage public displays of annoyance so as to keep the name a household one.
  • Re:Extinct (Score:3, Informative)

    by WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) * <sexwithanimals@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @08:58PM (#18966633) Homepage
    I'll bold my original statement, because you must have sneezed and missed it the first time:

    "Watch the BullShit! episode about recycling and do some of your own research"

    L2read
  • Re:Extinct (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, 2007 @05:26AM (#18969973)

    the single best thing you can do is stop eating meat. It's a very, very inefficient way to produce food, and wastes enormous amounts of water. We would have 2-5 times more food available if we stopped producing meat.


    I live in the Scottish highlands. We have nothing but steep hills. The only thing that grows on them is grass and scrub. We can't eat grass. We're not adapted to getting every last drop of energy out of the grass, like sheep or cows are. We can't easily harvest from the hills. So we send sheep up the hills. They love it. They eat all the grass, then we eat the sheep mutton. It's very efficient, more efficient than trying to grow directly consumable grains or vegetables.

    We don't need any more food available. There's already more produced than the world can eat. Starvation is primarily due to that food not getting to the right people, whether through local crop failure, or corruption in the supply chain.

    In your calculations, which just happen to forcibly convert the entire homo sapiens species to beome herbivores for the first time in their history, did you include all land or just arable land? Or is your calculation based on the decline of our species due to malnutrition?

    Tell me, where does all that wasted water go? Will we ever get it back?
  • by dylan_- (1661) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @08:42AM (#18971547) Homepage

    Rachel Carson managed to get millions of people killed with junk science
    It's difficult to believe there are people who just blindly accept whatever propaganda they're fed, without checking to see if there's a different view. Here [timlambert.org]. A game for you.
  • by Cedric Tsui (890887) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @02:49PM (#18977799)
    Howdy. I'm a grad student in the fusion reactor field.

    "emitting large amounts of radioactive materials."
    This statement is false. A fusion powerplant won't 'emit' anything (in terms of gasses, or any kind of bulk material). There won't be anything transported away from the reactor. The 'waste' problem with a fusion reactor is it produces more neutrons than a fission reactor by a few times per kilowatt. So the reactor vessel and the building to a lesser extent (much less with the advent of low activation concrete) will transmute and become radioactive. Now the reactor vessel weighs a few tonnes in itself, so you have a few tonnes of low level radioactive waste. But it is only dangerous for ~ 100 years as opposed to ~100 generations.

    Unfortunately, all these neutrons means we wouldn't be able to hand over a fusion powerplant to Iran. Neutrons can be used to breed weapons grade uranium and plutonium. Tritium is also bred, which can be used in an H-bomb after they figure out the fission bomb.

    "A properly-operating reactor isn't going to emit any significant radioactive material into the environment. Maybe they're thinking about accidental Deuterium and He3 releases, which don't represent any kind of threat to the environment."
    That's right. In fact, Deuterium and He3 are harmless. They're natural isotopes that aren't radioactive. You could drink deuterated water and you'd never know.

    Ok, that's not totally true. If say... half of your water intake was heavy water (!expensive) then when the deuterated water was incorporated into proteins by your body, it would have a small chance due to the extra weight to make the protein fold into a funny shape, and then your body would have to discard that protein. So if you drank enough heavy water, you'd starve to death. :D

Money is the root of all wealth.

Working...