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This discussion has been archived.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 Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:16PM (#18962157)
    Yes, he did, because he's Steve Jobs.
  • Wow ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:17PM (#18962181)
    That's the first Apple related story I've read in ages that didn't mention the iPhone. Is Steve feeling OK?
    • Extinct (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Major Blud (789630) *
      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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "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, I'd rather the greenies extinct us...at least the next sentient lifeform that springs up might forgive us.

        At the very same time, I can't stand Greenpeace. They've proven themselves to be as much a bunch of loonies as PETA. Sad as I've supported both at t
        • Honestly, I don't know a lot about greenpeace, and I agree with you about what PETA has become, but honestly they still have a lot of power, and still do some good with it. They've managed to force mcdonalds to make a lot of changes in how their farms are run, for instance, so that the animals are treated better.

          It is sad, though, that all PETA seems to do anymore is troll...
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            They're animals, dude. They're born for us to eat. If constant torture makes the meat taste better, I fully support it.
            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              PETA may troll, but they certainly don't measure up to their opponents yet, in that regard.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Entropius (188861)
          I lost all respect for Greenpeace when they came out opposing nuclear power.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by snoyberg (787126)

            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...
          • 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:Extinct (Score:5, Insightful)

        by wall0159 (881759) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:39PM (#18962551)

        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 (Score:4, Insightful)

          by e2d2 (115622) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:50PM (#18962743)
          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: (Score:3, Informative)

            by ceoyoyo (59147)
            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.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by dan828 (753380)
              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 entertaining than having some academic type discussing how we can reasonably and economically do X over the next few years which will achieve some desired result.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by ceoyoyo (59147)
                I wonder how many of those academic types would call themselves environmentalists.

                You're right, it happens sometimes. Sometimes you're talking to someone and they say they're an environmentalist but they think Greenpeace et al are a bit off the deep end. But it sure doesn't happen as often as you're talking to someone and they feed you the extremist-viewpoint-of-the-day line with very little thought put into it. I like to tell those people how I no longer recycle paper products because I want to do my pa
          • Re:Extinct (Score:4, Insightful)

            by node 3 (115640) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:56PM (#18963961)

            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: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Khaed (544779)
              Who? I know of no outspoken proponents of environmentalism that come off like "rambling kooks".

              You're kidding, right?

              Greenpeace.

              Greenpeace: Apple won't tell us how they're helping the environment, so we'll bitch about them.
              Jobs: We don't usually tell what we're doing because we do, not say. However, we'll change that policy and tell you.
              Greenpeace: Haha ownt! They changed their environmental policies.

              That's pretty fucking kooky to me, because they didn't change environmental policy over Greenpeace. They jus
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by stephanruby (542433)
              << Who? I know of no outspoken proponents of environmentalism that come off like "rambling kooks".>>

              The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state.
              --Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth"
              concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)

              We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us
        • Re:Extinct (Score:5, Interesting)

          by kebes (861706) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:58PM (#18962943) Journal
          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 (Score:4, Insightful)

            by killjoe (766577) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @06:27PM (#18964369)
            Sounds like a perfectly sensible thing to me. Why not live a full rich life free from the burden of raising children?
          • VHEMT (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Kidbro (80868)
            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.

            I don't know. I've been (unknowingly, for the first couple of years) "subscribing" to this "movement" since I was about fifteen years old. At that time I surely wasn't rationalizing the fact that I didn't have any kids, as it's not very uncommon, at least where I live, for fifteen year olds to be childless. And it's certainly not a joke. Well, the movement is a bit o
          • Re:Extinct (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Dasher42 (514179) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @08:22AM (#18970685)
            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 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by monopole (44023) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:11PM (#18963173)
          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 (Score:4, Insightful)

          by cheater512 (783349) <nick@nickstallman.net> on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:58PM (#18963997) Homepage
          The implied conclusion was 'ignore Greenpeace' not 'ignore the environment'.
      • Re:Extinct (Score:5, Insightful)

        by xappax (876447) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:44PM (#18962627)
        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 (Score:5, Funny)

        by e2d2 (115622) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:47PM (#18962667)
        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by vought (160908)
        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 one of these idiots. As well-intentioned as they may be, they pretty much end up pissing off everyone they try to convince.

        They hijacked Greepeace, blackmailed Apple, and tie up city governments. I find them mostly annoying, and apparently, so does Steve
  • by soft_guy (534437) * on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:20PM (#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 eln (21727) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:20PM (#18962241) Homepage
    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.

    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:32PM (#18962441)

      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.

      • by Reziac (43301) * on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:21PM (#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]

        • by Serious Callers Only (1022605) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:50PM (#18963861)

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


          Wow 1/2 a million dollars in one year from the HP foundation.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by dr.badass (25287)
          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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Yeah, that's true, my impression was that a lot of the stuff in TFA reads like Jobs didn't know about what the environmental impacts of his manufacturing processes were before the Greenpeace thing came out. If he is serious about what he says and not just giving PR lip service, it will have been useful what Greenpeace did, but I can't help but feel that if they were a little less careless in their methods that it would have better. Specifically I mean that an environmental evaluation based entirely on wha
  • Product take back A basic environmental principle is that if you make and sell a product you should be responsible for that product when it is no longer wanted. This is also a basic rule for children: you clean up your own mess.

    Since when are manufacturers responsible of how people dispose of their product? Once I buy a product, is it not then my own? There's a difference between replacing faulty hardware and being responsible for the trash that accumulates after someone decides they want a shinier pr
    • by DogDude (805747)
      In the case of iPod's, it really is Apple's fault since they make the battery impossible or expensive to replace. It's MUCH more environmentally friendly to make fixable electronic gadgets instead of disposable ones.
    • I totally agree. You bought it. Your responsible. Yesterday, half the internet was complaining that DRM limits ownership. We live in a immature society that only wants ownership for the frosting, and not the sh*t.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by wmeyer (17620)
      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 th
      • by ceoyoyo (59147) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:17PM (#18963249)
        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.
  • FUD or "FUD"? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Threni (635302)
    I know editorial standards are pretty low on Slashdot, but unless it wishes to be seen taking sides it needs to know when to quote pieces of text. You never know, one day it might make a big difference in a court case.
    • Re:FUD or "FUD"? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jdbartlett (941012) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:40PM (#18962567)
      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.
      • It was a smart issue campaign waged against Apple. They leveraged the current buzz around Apple on the issue of corporations reporting what they are doing environmentally; specifically, electronics companies (they mention issues that are in all electronics and that further educates those who look at their "FUD".) It was sensationalism put to good use for a change; although, picking a company currently in a heavy advertising campaign doesn't get you any fair media coverage.

        Its reasonable to assume corporatio
      • This is NOT "FUD" (Score:3, Insightful)

        by spitzak (4019)
        "FUD" stands for "fear, uncertainty, and doubt". Apparently somehow it has had it's meaning twisted around here to mean "lies" about any subject. FUD can be entirely truthful, just worded to make people want to take the safer course.

        I mostly see this here if anybody says anything negative about Microsoft, they are accused of "FUD". The term is wrong, except in a few cases such as when people give warnings like "DRM will destroy free speech" or that "Microsoft will bury/discontinue/etc that product, don't bu
  • From TFA: "It is generally not Apple's policy to trumpet our plans for the future; [...]"

    Holy crap, get out! No way!
  • It's ok (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bahwi (43111) <incoming.josephguhlin@com> on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:29PM (#18962385) Homepage
    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.
  • by iamacat (583406) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:30PM (#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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mdsolar (1045926)
      You're exactly right. Greenpeace has been asking for information and Apple has been refusing to provide it. Now, apparently Apple will provide information on what it is doing and what it plans to do. That was co-operative. At this point Apple can be ranked and its progress monitored so long as they keep to their new policy.
      --
      Get Solar Power with no installation cost: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user s -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
  • 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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Dachannien (617929)
      And if they accede to those demands, what's next? "Well, manufacturing iPods creates pollution in the first place, so we demand that you stop producing so many (or any at all)."

      These guys are worse than Darth Vader.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:41PM (#18962571)
      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.
      • by Rimbo (139781) <rimbosity.sbcglobal@net> on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:35PM (#18963593) Homepage Journal
        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 powerlord (28156) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:56PM (#18962867) Journal
      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.
  • Now, I don't have a particular stance on this issue - all companies could use some work on environmental friendliness, and Apple seemed to be singled out - but that title is just a tad inflammatory.
    • 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 sunk to the level of scam marketeering.

      Speaking as someone who grew up in the land where Greenpeace was founded, has been to protests they organised etc. (I even went to their first "Save the Whales" benefit event), I am shocked at their (now) cheap grandsta
  • from this truck [64.53.233.249].
  • and Apple is not the only one.

    We can either use a market system like Germany and Denmark do, where all manufacturers have to pay true costs for pollution and recycling, and in-source it, or we can pretend that PCs are pollution free.

    But, image is important. Just ask BP PLC, with their Beyond Petroleum slogan, after all the disasters with pipelines, refineries, and other ecological bad things.

    So, maybe Jobs should ask himself: "What can I do to make it better that is fairly easy."

    One thing is power consumpti
  • Green peace (Score:3, Insightful)

    by king-manic (409855) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:40PM (#18962561)
    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.
  • Yes, but has Fake Steve Jobs [blogspot.com] posted a reply yet? That'll be the one worth reading.
  • Wait a second, they're talking about RECYCLING computers? I didn't know people throws them away. Maybe I'm just too much of a geek.
  • by 4iedBandit (133211) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:49PM (#18962709) Homepage

    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]
  • by towsonu2003 (928663) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:59PM (#18962955)
    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.

  • by SplatMan_DK (1035528) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:47PM (#18963819) Homepage Journal
    Greenpeace (and most of the US) have failed to realize the obvious: vendor-based environmentalism is a mistake. It brings no profit to the vendor, only expenses. And it brings no easy disposal methods for the consumer because forcing each vendor to handle the return of the old gadgets automatically also forces the consumer to return each gadget at a different location (provided he/she can even figure out WHERE that is). And finally it is ludicrously inefficient.

    In many European countries, and in all Scandinavian countries, the vendors pay a minor environment-tax for each item sold. The money is used to finance public recycling stations where anything can be disposed. So rather than asking the consumer to return his iPod at an apple store (even though he may have bought it somewhere else), return his old PC at some HP office nobody heard about, return his old TV at a store that handles Pioneer products and return his old cell phone at the nearest ... (?) store, there is only ONE place to go: the recycling station.

    The debate about "Apples toxic products" has a wrong focus. Why demand that Apple should dispose of the old products themselves? Asking each vendor for such services is a total waste of resources. Tens of thousands of companies will have to do redundant work and incorporate extensive recycling procedures - with the only effect of forcing the consumer to return his gadgets at a gazillion different places. It simply makes no sense?

    If you are serious about recycling and practicing environmentalism, force the state into accepting the job. And fund it by adding a small tax to the toxic products themselves. Its easy, its fair, it requires only a single point of administration, and it is much easier for both the vendors and the consumers.

    How hard can it be?

  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland@ya ... m minus math_god> on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @06:15PM (#18964245) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Next Story (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ClosedSource (238333) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @08:59PM (#18966035)
    Slashdot responds to FUD saying that Slashdot labels anything anti-Apple as FUD.

"Ask not what A Group of Employees can do for you. But ask what can All Employees do for A Group of Employees." -- Mike Dennison

Working...