Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Earth Apple News

Greenpeace Slams Apple For Environmental Record 271

Posted by Soulskill
from the green-apple-get-it dept.
nandemoari writes "According to a recent advertisement airing on American TV, Apple's new Macbooks (well-received by most technology critics) are 'the world's greenest family of notebooks.' It seems an indication that the Cupertino-based company is increasingly aware of a consumer base that demands green electronics. However, Greenpeace is less than enthused with Apple's overall green performance. In their report (PDF), the environmentalists argue that Apple 'needs to commit to phasing out additional substances with timelines, improve its policy on chemicals and its reporting on chemicals management.'" Ars Technica points out that Greenpeace's research isn't quite up-to-snuff, and it's also worth noting that Greenpeace admitted to targeting Apple for the publicity in the past.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Greenpeace Slams Apple For Environmental Record

Comments Filter:
  • Greenpeace? (Score:5, Informative)

    by BigBadBus (653823) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @12:18AM (#25921953) Homepage
    The same twonks behind this story? [theregister.co.uk]. I might have considered giving money to them at some point, but now, the answer is a definite no.
  • by arthurpaliden (939626) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @12:24AM (#25921989)
    Greenpeace is nothing but an organization of eco-terrorists trying to gain attention and money from the ignorant masses. To use their name and 'research' is oxymoronic at is best.
  • by bornwaysouth (1138751) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @03:02AM (#25922771) Homepage

    But milk and honey are truly the only foods that you could truly say can be obtained from the plant and animal kingdom without harming a plant or animal or impinging on its reproduction.

    I was once a nice young lad too. Life is ugly.

    Reproduction...
    To get a cow into lactation nicely, the process is to get it into calf. On birth of calf, send it off to the slaughter (Called bobby calves. Don't know why. Premium veal for US market.) Then milk cow like crazy. Also, breed cows to have more milk than needed for a calf.

    And from a wider *green* perspective... I live in a New Zealand. Here, milk production is a mainstay of the economy, and the methane that cows belch and fart is a really serious part of our greenhouse emissions. Methane is 14 times as nasty as carbon dioxide.

    So cross milk off the list too.

    As for honey. Well, you are ripping the hive off its store of winter food, for the sole benefit of having designer apartments supplied. That is parasitism. On balance, I will concede that it is ok to eat honey. Just honey. A diet of 99% sugar and water has much to recommend it. Call it the Coca-Cola diet. It must have a really good Darwin rating.

  • by canadian_right (410687) <alexander.russell@telus.net> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @04:32AM (#25923269) Homepage

    Greenpeace lost [highnorth.no] its way a long time ago. Even one of its founders couldn't stomach [nationmaster.com] its new direction.

    There is no [209.85.173.132] "Great Bear Rain-Forest". I live where it is supposed to be and they just made that up for publicity. There is a rain forest, and it has bears, but no one outside of Greenpeace calls it that.

    They used to do good. Now they are just fear mongers.

  • Re:Flawed study (Score:5, Informative)

    by beelsebob (529313) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @04:47AM (#25923337)

    The problem is that Apple can't provide the information that Greenpeace want. Last time greenpeace did this study, apple got marked down for having no schedule for removing PVC from their packaging. The reason apple had no such schedule was that they hadn't used PVC in their packaging since 1990.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29, 2008 @06:06AM (#25923623)

    I used to know some vegans who would eat eggs "as long as they were free-range". Otherwise was unacceptable.

    As for milk, I could be wrong, but if I recall correctly, unlike humans, who have the potential to lactate for years after the initial birth, cows only lactate for about a year after they calve. In order to keep the cow producing milk, you've got to keep her having calves. Even if all of the female calves grew up to be milk cows (hint: they don't), there would still be a large number of male calves. And since bulls don't give milk, and very few are needed to inseminate the cows, most bull calves become meat.

    So by drinking milk, you're essentially encouraging the production of veal.

    Honey would depend on how you feel about smoking bees. I'd probably not have a problem with it, but I don't think people who have qualms abut killing plants for food would like most methods used to tranquilize bees.

    I'd say that it'd probably make sense to okay eating true annual and biennial plants that are near or at the end of their life cycle; this would put lettuce, watercress, carrots, beets, celery, and cauliflower back on the okay list, if you grew them yourself. However, I'm not an extreme vegan; there may be some other rationale there.

  • by batura (651273) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @06:17AM (#25923673)
    This kind of garbage is why Patrick Moore [wikipedia.org], one of the Greenpeace founders, left the movement. "By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism. I became aware of the emerging concept of sustainable development: balancing environmental, social and economic priorities. Converted to the idea that win-win solutions could be found by bringing all interests together, I made the move from confrontation to consensus."
  • Re:Greenpeace? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Lars T. (470328) <Lars.Traeger@goo ... m ['lem' in gap]> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @07:16AM (#25923909) Journal
    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance [greenpeace.org]

    Nuclear fusion reactor project in France: an expensive and senseless nuclear stupidity
    "Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today"

  • by Wizard Drongo (712526) <wizard_drongo@ya ... AWuk minus berry> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @08:22AM (#25924141)

    Actually a lot of vegans won't eat dairy products because the dairy farming system regularly produces a lot of male calves that are then slaughtered and sold on dirt cheap. If you drink milk, you're supporting a very unpleasant life/death cycle for them.

    I'm a meat-eater and I'm not sure I like the dairy system, ethically speaking. I highly doubt vegans being any less ethical.

    That then leaves them veggies (which they WILL eat), fruit, fungus and nuts. And maybe eggs. Some won't eat eggs tough, since it's still supporting chicken farming...
    I don't mind them. As long as they don't stop me eating what I want I won't stop them eating what they want.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29, 2008 @09:00AM (#25924271)

    Why stand by as some European nonces shit in our back yard?

    Given that Mururoa is 4700 km away from Auckland, which is more than the distance between Miami and Seattle, you kiwis for sure have quite a big backyard, or a completely messed up sense of distances

  • by Reziac (43301) * on Saturday November 29, 2008 @05:20PM (#25927739) Homepage Journal

    I agree with you -- Greenpeace today is nothing but a vigilante extortion business (and so are nearly all the once-useful activist groups). See http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/131 [activistcash.com]

    Minus the environmentalist rhetoric, they'd be recognised as the thugs they are, little different from any other protection racket.

You can do this in a number of ways. IBM chose to do all of them. Why do you find that funny? -- D. Taylor, Computer Science 350

Working...