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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Extinct (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Major Blud (789630) * on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:20PM (#18962225) Homepage
    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.
  • by eln (21727) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:20PM (#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.

  • Re:Extinct (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:25PM (#18962313)
    "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 times. I might have well given my money to the RNC because it would have caused just as much damage to the same people they all claim to be protecting.
  • by penp (1072374) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:27PM (#18962337)
    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 product than the one they already own.

    Am I completely missing the point here?
  • FUD or "FUD"? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Threni (635302) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:27PM (#18962353)
    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.
  • by brennanw (5761) * on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:27PM (#18962355) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:30PM (#18962399)

    Either Apple has implemented environmentally friendlier policies like Lenovo and others, or they have not. And they have not.


    Lenovo, et al., have not implemented enviro-friendly policies. They have announced that someday they *intend* to implement... stuff.

    Apple, OTOH, has implemented enviro-friendly policies.
  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:32PM (#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.

  • Uhm... (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:33PM (#18962465)

    On the other, it looks like Apple is agreeing to do most of what Greenpeace has been demanding.
    Actually, it looks like Apple has already done "most of what Greenpeace has been demanding"... far moreso than their competitors. And I'm sure they had already planned to do the rest long before Greenpeace started their FUD campaign.
  • by Dr. Eggman (932300) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:36PM (#18962505)
    As I understand it, the Greenpeace fud was about how Apple was terribly bad for the environment, not that they just had room for improvement. The EPA results showed that Apple is no worse that the rest of the machines, as many of their products recieved silver and none of any company recieved higher. The fud was in Greenpeace's hyperbole, as usual.

    That is to say, it's like saying Al Gore is worse for the environment than anybody else just because his home is inefficient and doesn't use solar. Because Al Gore later had the upgrades done and solar installed, does not mean he is or was worse than most other people for the environment; just that he, like apple, had (has) room for improvement.
  • Re:Extinct (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wall0159 (881759) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:39PM (#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.
  • by WillAffleckUW (858324) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:39PM (#18962553) Homepage Journal
    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 consumption - and on this score, the Mac Mini with a flat LCD monitor is pretty good.

    Another thing is less packaging - or making it recylable.

    Yet another idea is to do what they already do and take back old Apple products and recycle them.
  • Green peace (Score:3, Insightful)

    by king-manic (409855) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:40PM (#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.
  • Re:FUD or "FUD"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jdbartlett (941012) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:40PM (#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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:41PM (#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 je ne sais quoi (987177) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:42PM (#18962595)
    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 what the company says it's going to rather than what it is doing smells terrible. On the other hand, There [bbc.co.uk] have [wired.com] been [slashdot.org] concerns [slashdot.org] about if Apple really does think different or not. I think what is necessary here is an unbiased source to evaluate how environmentally responsible these companies really are... hmmm, perhaps some government agency that is responsible for monitoring the environmental impact of various activities in society? An agency for environmental protection maybe? ... One can only dream that we'd have one of those. :)
  • by iamacat (583406) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:42PM (#18962601)
    So do you personally have the skills to disassemble a MacBook and find an appropriate recycler for each material? Who do you think is most likely to be able to manage it?
  • Re:Extinct (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xappax (876447) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:44PM (#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:2, Insightful)

    by node 3 (115640) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:50PM (#18962725)

    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.
    One might say that the anti-environmentalists actually *will* lead us closer to that end.

    I don't, however, know of any significant environmental organization, environmental advocate, or environmentalism leader that promotes the extinction of the human species.

    Mischaracterizations such as yours are much more of a problem than the few insignificant idiots that you are basing your impression on.
  • Re:Extinct (Score:4, Insightful)

    by e2d2 (115622) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:50PM (#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 ...

  • by powerlord (28156) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:56PM (#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.
  • by Jeremy_Bee (1064620) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:57PM (#18962903)
    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 grandstanding behaviour. I am as left-wing as it gets, (to me Barak Obama is a little too conservative), but even I don't buy into that crap they have been spewing lately.

    What's worse, is that Greenpeace's campaign against Apple seems personally and selfishly motivated instead of a campaign in support of the cause of environmentalism. If they published such lies and misinformation because they were foolish or mis-informed, that would be one thing, but it seems that their only motivation was to force Apple to knuckle under to their way of doing and reporting things.

    GreenPeace was fully aware that Apple was not in fact the worst polluter, fully aware that it had rather a good record both overall and relative to companies that GreenPeace had conversely rated very highly. Yet because Apple refused to play their game, they put them at the top of a list of companies with bad environmental records? That is classic FUD.
  • by towsonu2003 (928663) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @03:59PM (#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.

  • Re:Extinct (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Entropius (188861) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:00PM (#18962981)
    I lost all respect for Greenpeace when they came out opposing nuclear power.
  • Re:FUD or "FUD"? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Threni (635302) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:06PM (#18963099)
    "FUD seems a fair description."

    Yeah, you might think that, but what you think is irrelevant. I'm talking about how you present a news story to a readership, not whether or not a criticism of an organization is valid. You've noticed that I've not stated whether or not it's FUD. That's because what I think is irrelevant.

    Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?

  • Re:Extinct (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vought (160908) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:10PM (#18963161)
    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 Jobs. The company is famously "liberal" (one of the first to extend same-sex benefits, has offered mass transit shuttles for over 20 years, offers extensive telecommute benefits, etc.) in it's political stance and benefits package.

    To pretend Apple was some sort of mercury-spewing, lead-laced monster was just blackmail on Greepeace's part. Apple is merely high-visibility and Macs are used by a higher percentage of people sensitive to Greenpeace's message. That's the only reason Apple was singled out.

    I do my part without being a jerk, like these Greenpeace people. I choose to drive a car that gets good mileage, walk to most of my destinations, take mass transit to work, recycle, and reduce my energy consumption whenever possible. My key word for living is "sustainability", not "exclusivity".
  • Re:Extinct (Score:5, Insightful)

    by monopole (44023) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:11PM (#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.
  • by ceoyoyo (59147) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:17PM (#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.
  • Re:It's ok (Score:2, Insightful)

    by king-manic (409855) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:21PM (#18963327)
    Mod parent insightful not troll. Green Peace is irrelavant. They are attention whores who try to grab headlines but do veyr little to forward true enviromentalism. all flash, no substance and hardly a braincell between them. A slightly smarter and wiser version of PETA. although thats not hard.
  • Re:Extinct (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dan828 (753380) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:34PM (#18963561)
    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.
  • by malsdavis (542216) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:34PM (#18963573)
    So even if a company appears to not give a cr@p about their heavy impact on the environment, we should go easy on them, because they might be secretly investing lots of money into reducing their environmental impact?

    I don't see how giving a 10% discount for replacing your iPod is environmentally friendly at all. Surely if they made iPods so they didn't have to be either thrown in the bin or replaced every 18 months (or less) then that would be far better, environmentally speaking.

    It has been known for years that Apple's environmental record is absolutely terrible. Of course Steve Jobs is going to say otherwise, he's not a complete idiot, but that doesn't mean what he is saying is in anyway true.
  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:39PM (#18963659)

    First off, Greenpeace has not just singled out Apple. It has raised this issue with some other computer suppliers, some of whom rated better.

    Greenpeace talked to other companies and published a report including them. They spent a pile of money and organized protests only against Apple. Now ask yourself, how did the other companies rate better? Are they using fewer toxins? Nope, most of the companies that got better scores than Apple use more toxins. They got better ratings because they promised certain improvements, many of which Apple has long since accomplished (as Jobs points out). In fact, Apple seems to have been singled out because they did not provide specific future plans especially in regard to one substance of very questionable environmental danger and which even the EU's new strict guidelines conclude is not a proven risk in the levels it is used.

    Greenpeace is not working against these companies, it is really working with them to help reduce the environmental mess.

    Really. On the points in the article did Greenpeace give Apple better or worse publicity because of being ahead of the others, or did it make up a lower score in an attempt to get press for themselves at the cost of the environment?

    Highlighting environmental responsibility via the ipod sends a very strong message because the ipod is used by so many people.

    Yup they created a lot of awareness, most of which was misleading. They also provided direct motivation for companies like the one I work for to ignore a comprehensive policy of improving the environmental friendliness of our products, but instead to concentrate on publishing promises since that results in more good press than actually making better products and procedures.

    Perhaps in a while people will be prepared to pay a premium (??$5?? per ipod, ??$20?? per laptop etc) for proper environmental handling.

    People in general won't even know what "proper handling" is. People are going to buy a product and they're going to compare features and prices. "environmental friendliness" is a feature, but only one of perception. If greenpeace publishes FUD that inaccurately portrays the relative friendliness of products, then people's buying power will result in less environmentally friendly purchases and hurt the environment. That is what they have accomplished with their campaign.

  • Re:Extinct (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ceoyoyo (59147) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:42PM (#18963715)
    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 part to reduce carbon in the air.
  • by Afecks (899057) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:47PM (#18963811)
    They're just changing their policy regarding how much they talk about it. The sad part is, Greenpeace made Apple look better, not worse.
  • by SplatMan_DK (1035528) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:47PM (#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 mdsolar (1045926) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:50PM (#18963867) Homepage Journal
    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-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
  • Re:Extinct (Score:4, Insightful)

    by node 3 (115640) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:56PM (#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:Extinct (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cheater512 (783349) <nick@nickstallman.net> on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:58PM (#18963997) Homepage
    The implied conclusion was 'ignore Greenpeace' not 'ignore the environment'.
  • by geekoid (135745) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `dnaltropnidad'> on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:15PM (#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.

  • by dfghjk (711126) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:17PM (#18964269)
    "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."

    Wrong. From Apple's statement:

    "Unfortunately this policy has left our customers, shareholders, employees and the industry in the dark about Apple's desires and plans to become greener...So today we're changing our policy. ...

    Today is the first time we have openly discussed our plans to become a greener Apple."

    Yes, Apple is saying that it is changing its policy regarding communication, but it is also promising to become greener. There is nothing in the document that supports your claim that all their current and future environmental plans are unchanged. We don't know, but we should expect Apple to spin to story to their maximum advantage and we should expect Greenpeace to do the same. Both clearly have.

    "If Greenpeace wants to stay credible, they should not be taking quotes out of context."

    And you should read and think more critically.
  • Re:Extinct (Score:4, Insightful)

    by killjoe (766577) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:27PM (#18964369)
    Sounds like a perfectly sensible thing to me. Why not live a full rich life free from the burden of raising children?
  • by Aim Here (765712) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:36PM (#18964489)
    "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?
  • Re:Extinct (Score:5, Insightful)

    by falcon5768 (629591) <[Falcon5768] [at] [comcast.net]> on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:42PM (#18964565) Journal
    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.

  • by bussdriver (620565) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:43PM (#18964573)
    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 corporations who are not capitalizing on their environmental policy have something to hide (or a stupid PR firm.) When this thing has lasted over a year now.. If you don't get prompt responses, its reasonable to assume that there is a reason. The harder they resist disclosure, the worse the problem likely is.

    This also intimidates other companies who do not disclose this information (no its not terrorizing them.)

    I'm not involved with greenpeace and I don't hate them. I don't hate the ACLU either. They are trying to help us in their own way. (FYI: real democracy is WORK.)
  • by geekoid (135745) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `dnaltropnidad'> on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:45PM (#18964597) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by WillAffleckUW (858324) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:49PM (#18964639) Homepage Journal
    Again, as I explained, and any decent Econ 200 level book will, it depends on where you are in the supply demand curve.

    You said the consumer bears the full passed-thru cost. This is incorrect. Sometimes, they do. Sometimes, they don't. Sometimes they are penalized - think of gas prices where the oligopoly passes thru immeadiate costs of price signal increases, but holds off on passing thru any price signal decreases.

    All of this is dependent on quantity and status of suppliers and consumers.

    In a perfect capitalist society, we have many millions of producers and many millions of consumers. We do not live in such a market. Failure to realize the limitation of economic models is why most people laugh at Laffer Curve devotees, who seem incapable of understanding the shifting nature - non-static - of the supply and demand curves, which are impacted by time, product and supply cycles, distribution inefficiences, artificial subsidies and penalties, and so on.

    As an economic choice, having the limited number of suppliers (manufacturers) pay for recycling and disposal brings the true cost of the economic decision to the deciders, and allows the market to function at peak efficiency.

    This is why the US economy so severely underperforms during the Bush cycle - a lack of comprehension of economies of scale, of decision points, of where the market levers are focussed.

    And hence, having Apple bear the signal cost of the pollution impacts is a wise choice.

    What would be a better choice would be if all manufacturers, in all countries, did so, making a level competitive playing field, where capitalism functions at optimal efficiency.

    That is reality.
  • by PygmySurfer (442860) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:52PM (#18964675)
    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?
  • Re:Extinct (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geekoid (135745) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `dnaltropnidad'> on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:56PM (#18964741) Homepage Journal
    the amount of carbon out in the air recycling paper is huge.
    Please remember that most paper, if not all, comes from forests grown specifically for making paper.

    Recycling always uses more energy then making new. The question should be:
    1) What impact does the recycling process have compared to the creating for 'scratch'.
    2) IS the loss of energy and enviromantal impact worth saving the component in its raw form.

  • Re:Extinct (Score:2, Insightful)

    by WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) * <sexwithanimals@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @06:04PM (#18964831) Homepage
    Recycling paper actually dumps more chemicals into the ground water than making new paper. Plus, recycled paper tends to be harsh and abrasive. Watch the BullShit! episode about recycling and do some of your own research, hopefully you'll stop harming the planet with your recycling. ;)
  • Re:Extinct (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @06:19PM (#18965013)
    My goodness, thousands of people harmed by nuclear power!

    Chernobyl's death toll is probably about equal to the death toll of the average coal power plant over its lifetime. And this was one horribly designed and mismanaged nuke plant, which caused an accident which will probably never be repeated.

    All technologies have their drawbacks. Unless you just want to eliminate intensive energy use altogether and go back to living in caves, nuclear is pretty much the best that's out there.

    By focusing on a single accident which all modern designs cannot duplicate and ignoring the problems that other approaches, you throw out all intellectual honesty.
  • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @06:44PM (#18965205)
    Well, in truth it probably would, nor is that necessarily bad. Radical environmentalists won't want to hear this, but industrialization has done more good for more people than anything else in all of human history. Remember, the normal state of humanity through most of that time is one of abject misery. Industrialization improved our lot and gave us hope of an even better life for our descendants.

    I see a big problem here, when it comes to activism in the United States. For any number of causes, from environmentalism to abortion to gun control, misrepresentation and outright lying have become standard operating procedure. I mean, if enough people simply aren't buying what you're selling, and yet you sincerely believe that your pattern for living is what is best for them (or your donations are down for the year) why, what's the harm in a couple of minor fibs or some manufactured statistics? After all, it's for their own good, and if your lies happen to negatively impact a major industrialist, so much the better. Right?

    Rhetorical question. Besides, telling lies in order to promote your agenda (no matter how justified you may feel in doing so) immediately alienates everyone that catches you in the lie, and is unethical at best. I have no beef with true environmentalism: combined with enlightened industrialism it is a powerful force for the betterment of Mankind. Unfortunately, the hyperbolic and technically illiterate verbiage spewn forth by many so-called environmental organizations has cost me any interest in anything they have to say, Greenpeace included.

    The problem is largely one of education, or lack of it, on the subject of nuclear power. Untold millions of people hear the words "nuclear" or "radioactive", immediately lump fission and fusion together and cower at the mention of either. Not that they would grasp the difference between chemical and thermonuclear reactions anyway. More fools they.

    It's a sorry state of affairs, it really is, and one that people on both sides of the fence are ready to exploit.
  • WHy the hell doesn't your iPod work? Hell, I have ahd my 6G mini since it came out. Still works like a champ and I've dropped it from about 4 feet a few times. hard enough to damage the case, in fact.
    Eventually the battery will stop working, and then I'll get a new battery. Which, btw, is more eco friendly thn putting 4 double As in a device every 4 months. Or was the sony walkman 6? I forget.

    "To somehow try and turn that around and pretend the process is environmentally friendly is ridiculous."
    they don't say that. They say "We will give you a dicount if you opt to let us recycle it for you."
    Som exactly home much of a discount did sony offer if you let them recycle ytour walkman for you.

    "Personally, its the fact that if iPods were released 20 years ago they would most probably be deemed "faulty" due to their pathetically short lifespan (particularly of their battery)"

    again, I don't see that at all, neither does any iof my friends, or people I know that work at the Apple store.
    If your battery has lasted less then two years, then either it is defective(not likely) or it wasn't used properly.(most likely)

    iPod is far more eco friendly then any other portable mp3 player on the market. And according to the report, it's going to get better.

  • Re:Extinct (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @07:28PM (#18965687)
    Well, we may not know; just like we may not know from the 99+% of all the other animal species that have existed on Earth and have gone extinct. It's mother nature's way of showing that every beginning has an end.
  • This is NOT "FUD" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spitzak (4019) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @07:34PM (#18965763) Homepage
    "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 buy into it". These statements could be true or false, but they are FUD in that they are trying to scare people into disliking Microsoft or doing something Microsoft does not want, by predicting bad things to happen in the future.

    Saying "Microsoft sucks" or "Linux is more than 10 times better than Windows" is NOT "FUD". It may be a false statement, but it is trying to make people choose Linux over Microsoft for positive reasons.

    Conversely if Microsoft says their software is superior or has higher up time or lower tco, that is NOT "FUD". That may be truth or lies, but it is still not FUD. It is normal advertising, saying your product is better. They certainly do a lot more FUD than anybody else, if they say Linux might subject you to patent lawsuits, or copyright violations, or force you to give all your source code away, that is FUD. It can be true or false, it does not matter, what matters is that it is a vague threat of something that might happen in the future unless you do what they want.

    I tried to make up something that Greenpeace would say that really is FUD but could not really come up with an example.

    Does anybody agree with me, or is the use of "FUD" been completely twisted to mean almost any statement about a competitor?
  • Next Story (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ClosedSource (238333) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @07:59PM (#18966035)
    Slashdot responds to FUD saying that Slashdot labels anything anti-Apple as FUD.
  • Re:Extinct (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TooMuchToDo (882796) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @08:47PM (#18966525)
    A person who gets their scientific information from a Penn and Teller show frightens me. It's entertainment. Just like Mythbusters.
  • Re:Extinct (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @10:11PM (#18967307)
    it specifically targets progressive movements


    Bingo. Progressive movement by definition requires the acceptance of change, and there are few things as effective in scaring people as change. Asking people to sacrifice any aspect of their lifestyle, whether it is to eat less meat or to drive a small car, is very threatening. And unfortunately the first reaction of a scared human is to go on the offensive, and we see this consistently on sites like Slashdot, Digg, Fark etc.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @10:37PM (#18967521)
    Talk about out of context...

    It is clear from their statements, that they are stating that they already had these plans. They are further stating that some of these plans have already been completed, some more than 5 years ago. And saying that they have already had plans to do more even before this whole thing began.

    Trying to make it appear as anything else, without some evidence of your position, is nothing more than spin control! Just like all the other political groups, blatant political spin (a.k.a. lying with flair and just enough plausibility to avoid defamation suits)!

  • Re:Extinct (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dasher42 (514179) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @07:22AM (#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!

"Why can't we ever attempt to solve a problem in this country without having a 'War' on it?" -- Rich Thomson, talk.politics.misc

Working...