Greenpeace Admits Targeting Apple Grabs Headlines 394
An anonymous reader writes "Gizmodo published this morning allegations by the bromine industry claiming that Greenpeace's report on the iPhone was inaccurate and alarmist. They got an official rebuttal to the bromine industry by Greenpeace, but the most interesting part is their acknowledgment that their targeting of Apple, even while they have similar reports on every manufacturer, is a deliberate attempt to grab headlines. While it's logical and not surprising, I find it quite shocking to see them be so cavalier, and even hypocritical, about it."
not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
I will say that I witnessed procedures and practices that bothered me and probably affected the overall industry in the end. However, the crap Green Peace used was totally fabricated and didn't have any basis in truth.
I quit fishing in 98', started using macs in 02' and now the fuckers are attacking something I like and profit from again. I didn't know 10 years ago that I would be working in IT with macs, but I feel like the fuckers are following me.
What's even more ironic is that all the tree-hugging hippies I have known over the years, even those from Green Peace, have been Apple users!
hypocrisy? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm a leftist, sharing many of the ideals of groups like Greenpeace, PETA, etc.. *and* I do not agree that the tactics of groups like PETA, Greenpeace, etc.. are the most rightous or effective means of furthering their goals.
*end disclaimer*
but seriously... how exactly is it hypocritical? PETA, Greenpeace, etc.. all make very clear that they are motivated to attract attention to their cause by going after high-profile targets. They've been pulling ridiculous publicity stunts for years and years. It would be hypocritical of them if they said they *did not* engage in such behavoir. It doesn't mean they have a lack of concern for their cause in general, it's just that this is their method of supporting it.
That said, if anyone can show me exactly where Greenpeace stated or even implied that they would not selectively target companies for maximum publicity, I will retract my previous statement.
Riding the hype (Score:5, Interesting)
What Greenpeace does is to ride the hype wave and nobody but Apple has recently released any majorly hyped, or hype-worthy, electronic products.
Greenpeace rides the hype wave in other areas too (ie. not just electronics). This is a very effective way of operating since it relies on the fact that people are already tuned in to the subject and Greenpeace can tack on an environmental angle with far less resources.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
Greenpeace is one of those "environmental" organizations that uses the issue of the environment as a trojan horse for other social or political causes. The positions of the political environmentalists is often regardless of or sometimes even contrary to real environmental problems or their solutions.
I'm not excluding rational environmentalism from the discourse, I'm just of the opinion that Greenpeace has very little of it.
Greenpeace is not an environmental organization (Score:5, Interesting)
"Environmental extremism arose in the mid-1980s. It arose because the majority of people accepted all of the reasonable points in the environmental agenda, and the only way to remain adversarial and confrontational and anti-everything was to adopt even more extreme positions - eventually abandoning all science and logic altogether."
~ Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is that rational environmentalism has seemingly fallen to the wayside to be replaced by anti-globalization activists (who use the technology they decry in order to organize) and luddites who want to get rid of all technology after period X (where X equals their idea of the human ideal).
Nephilium
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
How about Greenpeace gives back to average hard working Joes the money its little stock-panicing publicity stunts suck out of retirement accounts?
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:the media is lazy (Score:2, Interesting)
Then they go on to wow at the statement "While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it doesn't mean that we are not focusing on all manufacturers." In fact, they made the whole article centered around this one sentence. Someone please explain to me what is wrong with this sentence. They say they're *going after everyone*, even if it *doesn't* make headlines. What on Earth is wrong with this? It is just the *opposite* of what they're claiming it is.
Apple or anyone else can hardly be considered guilty of anything if the laws don't tell them that what they are doing is harmful for the environment.
Yeah, tell that to the tobacco companies, the companies that hid asbestos dangers from their workers, etc.
And then, they waive off all of *their* responsibility with:
Until then, we believe Greenpeace should be clearer on their claims unless they want an industry group to easily, and successfully, cast doubts over their reports.
Yeah, you're right. Greenpeace writes a detailed report based on sound scientific methodology, an industry hit group tries to spin it (that's what they do; it's their thing), and you pick it up and try to give the industry spin as good of a run as possible. Even though it was an unfounded rebuttal, it's *Greenpeace*'s fault for not being so clear that the industry won't spin it. Great approach there.
Gizmodo has lost all respect from me.
Lest anyone forget what this is all about, BFRs are bioaccumulative persistant organic pollutants, many of which are poisonous, especially to aquatic organisms, but some also to mammals. Some are mutagenic and nephrotoxic. Most are little studied for health; however, concentrations in the environment and in humans are rapidly increasing, and this has raised a great deal of concern. While it's a whole class of chemicals, and certainly not all will ultimately prove be equally bad, they don't have a good track record so far. Here's an article on our current state of knowledge [ehponline.org] on the subject. Here's an excerpt concerning the most widely used BFR:
The majority of adverse effects of TBBPA have been found in vitro. TBBPA is toxic to primary hepatocytes, most likely by destroying mitochondria (Boecker et al. 2001). This may not be surprising because its halogenated phenolic properties would suggest that it could uncouple oxidative phosphorylation. TBBPA exposure results in membrane dysfunction in isolated liver cells and inhibits the activity of a key mixed-function oxidase, cytochrome P450 2C9 (CYP2C9) (Boecker et al. 2001). TBBPA is also highly immunotoxic in culture, which is demonstrated by its ability to specifically inhibit the expression of CD25 at concentrations as low as 3 M (Pullen et al. 2003). The expression of CD25 is essential for proliferation of activated T cells and is commonly used as a marker for T-cell activation. TBBPA's potent inhibition of this protein may have a profound effect on an organism's immunomediated defense against bacteria, viruses, and possibly cancer. This major BFR is also neurotoxic in cerebellar granule cells and rat brain synaptosomes, where it inhibits dopamine and generates free radicals (Mariussen and Fonnum 2002; Reistad et al. 2002).
Some of the most recent concerns regarding the potential for adverse effects of TBBPA focus on the possibility that TBBPA may act as an endocrine disruptor. The structural similarity of TBBPA to bisphenol A, a known weak environmental estrogen, has s
Greenpeace doesn't care about the environment (Score:5, Interesting)
Just do this exercize. Watch some Sunday TV and look at what the preachers are doing... yamming up about some horrific topic and threatening the wrath of God, if you don't give them money. Then, turn on the likes of PBS or the Discovery or Science channel, and, if you happen to find a good environmental documentary, you'll find some jackass yamming up about some horrific topic and threatening the wrath of mother nature, if you don't give them money. While I doubt it it would be politically possible, but I bet if you could have switched Jerry Falwell and the head of Greenpeace and made them do each other's jobs for a year, they wouldn't have missed a beat, because they are all doing the same thing.
Please don't get all hot and bothered about some nonsense that says: "yeah, but they do such good work." These people are con artists, 99% of the time, and what they sell is entertainment. It's entertainment, that's all it is. Just like in Christianity, if you want to save someone, so it is in the environment. If you want to save the world, start with your own life first.
Re:the media is lazy (Score:4, Interesting)
Another odd note... From Greenpeace's rebuttal:
The other inaccuracies:
1. Electronics Industry Analyst Group Dismisses Greenpeace Claims on iPhone?
This is inaccurate. BSEF is the international organisation of the bromine chemical industry. The title of the article would more accurately be: "Chemical Industry Group Dismisses Greenpeace Claims on iPhone."
and Gizmodo's response below that
Editor's note: actually, the "analyst" was corrected and replaced to "group" when this was pointed out this morning...
They go on to state how wonderful they are for disclosing errors. Except they only changed part of the text - 'analyst' to 'group'. They appear to have overlooked that Greenpeace's correction was 'Electronics Industry analyst' to 'Chemical Industry group' - a much, much larger difference.
I'm with you; Gizmodo looks bad on this one.
Re:the media is lazy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:the media is lazy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:the media is lazy (Score:3, Interesting)
Lobbyist groups like Greenpeace are made up of people who, while mostly they genuinely believe in their cause, are normal people who have careers and lives to think about. They want to build the organization so they can have people reporting to them in their department, a higher salary, and prestige in their field. They want to feel powerful. So of course they'll do unfair but publicity-grabbing showboats. It even serves their cause. More attention to Greenpeace drives funding, personnel and other organizational improvements that help them pursue their cause. More power = more attention from the press, having credibility with powerful political and business leaders, and more public awareness.
This isn't unique to Greenpeace. A great many organizations are Outrage Machines. They're the ones that decry Harry Potter, Teletubbies, the Republicans, gun companies, KFC, the Democrats, Domino's Pizza, Coors Beer, Warren Buffet, etc etc. What bothers people I think isn't the hypocrisy-- it's when Greenpeace actually comes out and admits to it. But it's behind all kinds of causes, including many that you and I believe very strongly in.
Is it ethical? Well, that's a good question. I don't have a good answer to that one, or rules that would apply more than situationally. Most lobbyists are either True Believers or very very cynical-- and I'm not sure which is worse.
Re:the media is lazy (Score:3, Interesting)
They do earn the money they get, exactly because they do their job (bringing environmental issues to attention) so well. That's why people who care about these issues give them that money in the first place. And Greenpeace is about the only NGO that can stand up to multinational corporations, so while smaller NGOs might be nicer and friendlier and more accurate and effective on a small scale, if you want to accomplish something on a large scale, you simply need something like Greenpeace.