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This discussion has been archived.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 Jarn_Firebrand (845277) <eurus103&gmail,com> on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:23PM (#18962287)
    The poster doesn't say "Jobs says Greenpeace is FUD" or anything like that. No, he says "Job Responds to Greenpeace FUD". Could a title GET any more biased than that?
  • It's ok (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bahwi (43111) <[incoming] [at] [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 Orig_Club_Soda (983823) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:39PM (#18962539) Journal
    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.
  • by Dachannien (617929) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:39PM (#18962543)
    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 @04:45PM (#18962639)
    Greenpeace, unfortunately, and like many other "social responsibility" organizations, traded credibility for attention-seeking to get more media coverage in order to further their goals. It's ok to misinterpret and misinform so long as they achieve their goals. A case of "the end justifies the means", if ever there was one.

    It would be nice to return to the "reason before passion" line of thinking.
  • 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]
  • Re:Extinct (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Major Blud (789630) * on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:51PM (#18962771) Homepage
    You're right, it was a sweeping generalisation about ALL environmentalist (which is why I said "some"). Did I say that we shouldn't care about environmentalism? No, that was your implied conclusion, not mine. Anyways it was supposed to be funny, sorry I caused you to blow your wad all over it.
  • 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.
  • by sumdumass (711423) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @05:27PM (#18963449) Journal
    Green peace doesn't care about people. They just use them as props because they know you care about people. They care about the environment.

    Take it for what it is worth, But I have never read anything from green peace talking about the health of humans unless it is prefaced with the environment and something to do with it.
  • 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:Extinct (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Khaed (544779) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @06:10PM (#18964175)
    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 just decided to tell Greenpeace what they were doing to shut them up. And misrepresenting what Jobs said means either:

    A. They're lying kooks.
    B. They're stupid kooks.

    And what about the ELF? They're not kooky to you? What about PeTA and all their insane ads? That's not a little bit kooky to you? I agree with a lot of what they say, but the motherfuckers are crazy. And it strikes most people as really screwed up when someone like Gore running around with a bunch of SUVs in his entourage, jetting back and forth on a private jet, and otherwise pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate far more than the average person, is out there talking about the environment. Carbon offsets my foot; if we all lived like Gore, there wouldn't be enough planet for all the necessary carbon offsets.

    He's alienating people by appearing to be a hypocrite, and the average person would probably use "rambling kook" to describe Al Gore.

    And before some anon replies yapping about Bush or something, I'm not posting from a left vs. right, Dem vs. Rep standpoint. I'm pointing out that there are some crazy sumbitches in the environmentalist movement.
  • by norminator (784674) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @06:12PM (#18964191)
    If you'd read the article, you'd see that Apple has already taken a lot of steps others haven't:

    They've been reducing PVC usage for 12 years (not planning to, but actually reducing).
    They've been reducing BFRs since 2001. And according to the article, they are closing to eliminating PVC and BFRs completely.
    They were RoHS compliant "years before" RoHS took effect.
    They completely stopped selling CRTs last year. The average CRT uses 3 pounds of lead. The last CRT-based iMac had 484 grams of lead (about 1 pound). Those are now gone.
    As of the posting of Jobs' article, they are planning on eliminating flourescent backlights on their LCD displays, which would eliminate mercury, and that rollout begins this year.
    Their first arsenic-free glass for LCDs will roll out this year.

    Obviously, they have been implementing solutions for quite some time. Other plans they have are well underway, not just plans on someone's whiteboard or in their PR statements. In your analogy, it's more like Apple has 75% of their homework done with %30 percent of the time left, and plan to be done before the deadline, while the others are saying "We'll get around to it on the last day."
  • by towsonu2003 (928663) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @06:42PM (#18964559)

    But Greenpeace is a 501c4, not a 501c3. They are not inherently doing anything "good" themselves, but rather spend their money fueling their ships for publicity and lobbying.
    This argument just doesn't make sense. 501c4's difference is that they're allowed to do lobbying... Greenpeace still operates for the promotion of social welfare, which is "good" by its nature...

    If Greenpeace really cared about the environment, they'd dock their fleet.
    Among many others, whalers, seal hunters, and oil companies (that use oil platforms) would just love that idea...

    In reality, they thrive purely on the controversy they imaginatively create.
    But which imaginary controversy do you refer to?

    a. Forest depletion and destruction of anything and anyone related to depleted forests,
    b. Destruction of ocean life
    c. Global warming
    d. Toxic wastes
    e. Volatility of nuclear waste
    f. Degradation of food supplies thru genetic engineering

    Wow, they've created [greenpeace.org] so many myths...
    PS. I guess you're from the US, so I listed those issues that you'd rather think are myths created by Greenpeace in order to ...
    ???

  • by ThePCJedi (107372) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @06:57PM (#18964749)
    However, if they were to actually acknowledge that their actions have done nothing but made Apple write up a nice looking document pointing out their current and future practices, then it would make Greenpeace look like they haven't actually done anything productive.

    So instead, let's tell all the people who worship Greenpeace that we have defeated the mighty Apple, and made them change their environmentally-poisoning ways, so it looks like we "won" something.
  • by malsdavis (542216) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @07:21PM (#18965019)
    "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."

    The point is that continually replacing and recycling (on the other side of the world it should be noted) a product which could quite easily be made to last many times its current average lifespan is not environmentally friendly or ethical in any way, shape or form.

    Unlike the electronic products of old (I still have a Sony Walkmam from the 80's which works, unlike my iPod from last year) the iPod is designed to last a pathetically small amount of time, regardless of the inevitable environmental damage caused, because Apple can then get $200 every couple of years (or less) rather than just once. To somehow try and turn that around and pretend the process is environmentally friendly is ridiculous.

    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) that annoys me even more than the environmental concerns, but it all adds up to show how unethical a product the iPod really is (and that's not even considering the sweatshops that they are manufactured in with reports of $50 a month wages for daily 15 hr shifts etc http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=14 915 [macworld.co.uk]).
  • Re:Extinct (Score:3, Interesting)

    by feed_me_cereal (452042) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @07:44PM (#18965207)
    Actually, one of the measures is in how they slaughter them. It's still somewhat violent, but instant and painless (a hydraulic piston to the back of the head). There were many other improvements as well, especially in their quality of living.

    By the way, looking at the responses to my post where *I* assert that PETA trolls is extremely ironic. I'm not even supporting them, and yet I get these ridiculous trolls. It's funny, I actually quite appreciate it in a way, since I'm doing research on the effects of trolling, and one of my major assertions is that it specifically targets progressive movements. I think it's mostly because the points of these movements necessarily require careful reflection to understand, and mindless limbaugh-esque retorts, so incorperated in trolling, are honestly an effective means of washing over such subtle arguments to your average schlub.

    Seriously, dude, do you have to try this hard to insult or anger me over... not supporting PETA? Are you surprised that PETA has become what it is when they constantly have to deal with assholes like you? Are you that afraid of "hippies"? Or do you just get off on trolling?
  • VHEMT (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kidbro (80868) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @08:24PM (#18965639)
    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 of a joke - all movements are - but the idea is not. I've never spoken to any "subscriber" who seemed to think it a joke, even though some go more or less far (not everybody thinks extinction is strictly necessary). As for how large part of the movement is rationalizing being childless, I honestly can't say. It would probably take trained psychologists to answer that.

    But some of them really seem to be arguing honestly for self-extinction of the human race.

    Aye. Most of us, I'd say. Me included.
    I'm not going to start ranting about why it's a good idea to stop reproducing - this isn't the forum for it. I just wanted to point out that yes, the movement does, as you say, exists, and while we might be "kooks" from someone's point of view, we're definitely thinking rationally about concept.

    Thank you for not putting us down :)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @08:58PM (#18966023)
    "On one hand, you could say that Greenpeace shouldn't expect a company that has spent years battling Microsoft to just roll over"

    So competing with Microsoft, somehow afford Apple exemption from being pressured to go green? Is this because it's Apple? If Greenpeace was targeting Microsoft, would Microsoft be the villain here instead of Greenpeace? That's the impression I get.

    I'm not a militant-type ecoactivist or anything, I don't much like Greenpeace, either, but bloody hell, if you live on this planet, you damn well have an obligation to not shit all over it, You have a duty to keep it clean, and you have a duty to your species to keep its habitat habitable. It doesn't matter who you are, no excuses.

    Giving Microsoft a hard time doesn't justify breaking those obligations. Or are we so caught up in this little, relatively insignificant jihad against Microsoft, and this also comparatively insignificant OSS militantism, that we just don't care about the real problems anymore?

    News flash, environmentalism has a much higher priority than weather or not a company is able to compete with Microsoft. I can live with Microsoft being a monopoly, but I (literally) can't live without an environment. This is just absurd.
  • by dr.badass (25287) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @11:04PM (#18967259) Homepage
    Do you like work for Apple or something?

    No, and it's telling that your knee-jerk reaction is to imply that I do. God forbid anybody but an Apple employee would think you're full of shit.

    It is common knowledge that iPods batteries loose their ability to power the device in an extremely short amount of time if regularly used. Many studies have consistently shown how quick the iPod breaks (some models at almost 30% within 1 year!!!!) and the fact that very few remain of the 1st generation is empirical proof of their numerous design flaws.

    Four exclamation points and zero sources. Waving your hands and saying "Wikipedia" doesn't fly, either. An example of the "many good sources" you linked to:

    Citation 44 is a fluff piece of quotes that only makes reference to the inconclusive MacInTouch survey below.

    Citation 45 is an interview about a book that only refers to the iPod in passing.

    Citation 46 is the MacInTouch survey which begins with a note that "The results are interesting, but comments we collected indicate that the true iPod failure rate may be lower than it appears.", and goes on to say "Many readers acknowledged damage or accident as the cause of failure.", and "Many readers reported their original 5 GB, first-generation iPods are still running strong -- some with battery replacements, some with original batteries that still last several hours.", and so on. It also represents and extremely small sample of self-selected participants.

    Citation 47 is a description of how to replace the hard disk.

    Citations 48, 49, 50 are all about iPod nano screen scratches.

    So, which of these were you referring to when you linked to that section? Or were you just too lazy to link to the "Battery Issues [wikipedia.org]" section, which also doesn't support your statements?

    I want to know about this "common knowledge" and "multiple studies" and "empirical proof". All you've provided is exclamation points.
  • Re:Extinct (Score:2, Interesting)

    by JobyKSU (1071830) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @11:11PM (#18967311)
    Seriously, comparing capitalists to Nazis? My comment was tongue-in-cheek, but I said it so I'll clarify. For economic exchange to take place, there must be things that people with some sort of wealth want. My comment comes from an old economics argument. The maximum amount of labor a capitalist could employ (given population = n) is (n/2)-1.
    Briefly:
    Conceptually, you need at least two people to trade, and both must want what the other has. The relative scarcity of the goods provided determines the price. Over time, the scarcity (and increase in value) of the product that has the lowest work force drives drives demand for additional workers up. The equilibrium becomes half of the population, minus the capitalist driving it.

    It is, obviously, an overly simplistic scenario. However, other than the assumption that the two products are both necessary and sufficient for survival, it is theoretically feasible.
  • by nonmaskable (452595) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @03:51AM (#18969259)
    "First of all the posting of this document is a huge, huge, huge win for Greenpeace. I think it's hard to overemphasize the extent to which this is a victory."

    I'm not very tuned into environmental issues, although I donate periodically to the Sierra Club and Nature Conservancy. Before this, all I knew about Greenpeace was that they are a recognizable leader in the movement. But after reading this set of documents (the Greenpeace site, the Ars analysis, and Apple's response), I've realized that Greenpeace is a bunch of not-to-be-trusted liars.

    Now my default reaction to the claims of _any_ environmental group will be suspicion. I don't think thats a "huge, huge, huge win". Assuming your definition ("exaggeration, hyperbole, heck even making stuff up") is correct, "Edge activism" looks to me like the way immature idiots rationalize irresponsible behavior.
  • Re:Extinct (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stephanruby (542433) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @04:54AM (#18969549)
    << 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 into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion--guilt-free at last!
    --Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue).

    Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process.... Capitalism is destroying the earth.
    --Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

    We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects.... We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.
    --David Foreman, Earth First!

    Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.
    --Pentti Linkola

    If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.
    --Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth-Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p.22

    The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world.
    --John Shuttleworth

    What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.
    --Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

    I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.
    --John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

    Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.
    --John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

    The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing....This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.
    --Economist editorial

    We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity's sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.
    --David Foreman, Earth First!

    Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.
    --Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

    If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS
    --Earth First! Newsletter

    Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets...Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
    --David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

    The collective nee

"Don't discount flying pigs before you have good air defense." -- jvh@clinet.FI

Working...