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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • But... (Score:4, Funny)

    by isBandGeek() (1369017) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @12:15AM (#25921925)
    What could be more organic and green than apples?

    (Not even oranges measure up.)
  • Greenpeace's strategy isn't really bad. Sure, they're picking on a big company for publicity, but whatever effects are the result of greenpeace's research will trickle down into the factory floors of their component suppliers having a much larger effect.

    • by c_forq (924234) <forquerc+slash@gmail.com> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @12:24AM (#25921987)
      I think it might actually have a kind of opposite effect. By focusing on Apple worse offenders continue on under the radar. In addition it sends a message to the Dells and HPs that "if you advertise your green programs, we will rip you apart for publicity". So as a competing manufacturer, why would you take on expenses to advertise, or even clean up, your manufacturing process?
      • by flyingsquid (813711) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @01:13AM (#25922265)
        Greenpeace is just being *completely* unfair here. I mean, what next? Are they now going to go after Apple for the new sealskin covered MacBook, or the walrus ivory iPod?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by davester666 (731373)

        Actually, I don't think Dell and HP are worried about this. Greenpeace is doing this, not to tear down Apple or to change Apple's behaviour.

        These press releases (which seem to have increased in frequency) are to try boost awareness of Greenpeace. They claim all the credit for any positive changes Apple makes, while constantly changing the goalposts so that most of the time, Apple has a failing grade. They are trying to new young people to be part of their movement by targeting the company that makes the

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by theaveng (1243528)

          Right on. I'm anenvironmentalist, but I think a lot of my "colleagues" like greenpeace are frakking idiots. Apple is what? 5% of the PC market? Probably less. Even if Apple decided to quit making PCs, there improvement to the environment would be negligible.

          Greenpeace should target Microsoft and Microsoft-compatible Windows PCs. That's where they will make the maximum amount of change to improve conditions. Target the big guys and leave the small frys alone.

        • by CodeBuster (516420) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @06:10AM (#25923635)
          Greenpeace is not credible because they are not reasonable. Even some of the founding members have left the organization over the years due to the increasingly extreme nature of their positions. If Greenpeace had its way modern life as we know it would not exist, they even proposed banning all bleach (which is totally crackpot) despite the enormous benefits to mankind from continued use of this and other power disinfectant chemicals. The biggest problem with Greenpeace is Greenpeace itself and until they manage to clean their own house of extreme and uncompromising people they will continue to marginalize and render their own efforts on other more reasonable positions completely ineffective. The other posters are right, the message that other companies will take from this is, "Don't give Greenpeace any credibility by actually speaking to them, no matter what you say or do it will only cost money and be more trouble than it is worth."
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Elektroschock (659467)

          It is not so easy. Greepeace actually has a "computer waste" focus for quite some time and they developed some good pratices. All companies do now Green IT, not only APPLE.

          I would suspect that the solution to computer problems lies in the software. You can install less resource-consuming applications, for instance as a Linux user the LXDE desktop environment [lxde.org], this is organic software. These days hardware *burns* a lot of energy but responsible is also software-as-a-brake (Saab). The environmental effects of

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29, 2008 @12:49AM (#25922155)

      Does crying wolf sound familiar? If we cannot believe Greenpeace on this, what can we believe them on?

      Eventually they will be ignored - even if they are telling the truth.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Hasn't that already happened?
      • by forgoil (104808)

        What they do that is believable? Go get the facts yourself and you will find out.

    • by jellomizer (103300) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @01:00AM (#25922215)

      But you can go to far where your views are considered to radical to be possible. Thus becoming a buch of crazy nuts and go back to your way of doing things, As they will be mad at you no matter what.

      Much like extreme veganism, where you are not supposed to eat anything from a plant where you end up killing the entire plant. Because the rules are so strict very little food service places will try to follow those recommendations if they did it was purely accidental. So they realized they cannot make this group happy without a huge penalty, heck you are lucky if they will have something for normal vegetarians other then boring salads (Which are not full vegan because you need to kill the leafy greens plants for the salad and the roots for the carrots. Leaving Beans, Nuts, and Fruits as the only source for your diet)

      If you want change you need to reward baby steps. You can scold your child for not winning a marathon just as it just learned to stand.

      • by ceoyoyo (59147) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @01:36AM (#25922371)

        "Beans, Nuts, and Fruits"

        Murderous vegans, devouring the unborn plant children. I bet they don't even have the common courtesy to defecate in fertile soil, in the right climate, so the poor unborn babies at least have a fighting chance.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          "Beans, Nuts, and Fruits"

          Murderous vegans, devouring the unborn plant children. I bet they don't even have the common courtesy to defecate in fertile soil, in the right climate, so the poor unborn babies at least have a fighting chance.

          So actually strict vegans are cum eaters, because beans, nuts and fruits are the plant's equivalent of animal's semen.

          In other words, vegans swallow, don't spit.

      • by nsayer (86181) * <nsayer@kfu.COUGARcom minus cat> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @01:54AM (#25922489) Homepage

        Leaving Beans, Nuts, and Fruits as the only source for your diet

        You left out eggs. milk and honey.

        Eggs may or may not count depending on your point of view about protecting the unborn/unhatched, but I have yet to find someone both strongly anti-abortion and insanely vegan. Never mind the fact that most eggs in the store aren't fertilized anyway. But then, if eggs are out, then so are strawberries and pomegranates.

        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. It is, however, counting on the animals in question to overproduce for their own needs to supply yours. In other words, living purely on milk and honey puts you in the same category as a leech.

        No, the only meat eaters that are acceptable to militant vegans are scavengers.

        Me? I'd rather eat militant vegans. Long pig. The other white meat.

        • by ceoyoyo (59147)

          Now now, there's something to be said for scavenging. The Roadkill Cafe even has some great recipes!

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by bornwaysouth (1138751)

          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 pa

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            As for honey. Well, you are ripping the hive off its store of winter food, for the sole benefit of having designer apartments supplied.

            Yes, but you also protect the hive and ensure that it is located in an environment that maximized the produced honey. Also, to the best of my knowledge, even after the beekeepers retrieve the "extra" honey, the bees are still better off compared to a wild hive. If so, the relationship is symbiotic rather than parasitical.

        • by PitaBred (632671)

          Milk, the cows are killing the environment. They take up too many resources, and belch and fart methane into the air. Milk is worse than eating 15 entire heads of lettuce.

          That said, I'm gonna go grill me a steak.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Wizard Drongo (712526)

          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

      • But you can go to far where your views are considered to radical to be possible. Thus becoming a buch of crazy nuts and go back to your way of doing things, As they will be mad at you no matter what.

        Interesting that your sig seems to support radical positions taken by RMS.

      • by Hao Wu (652581)
        I hope Apple sues Greenpeace.
      • Much like extreme veganism, where you are not supposed to eat anything from a plant where you end up killing the entire plant

        If your nutrition consists of birch bark and you find enlightenment in that, be my guest, you're not hurting anybody. (Granted, you probably find a group of wackos taking exception because of the poor birchs)

        If however a major manufacturer uses noxious materials in the manufacturing or packaging process it hurts all of us.

    • by Gojira Shipi-Taro (465802) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @01:39AM (#25922401) Homepage

      Greenpeace are a bunch of attention whores.

      Fuck them.

      That is all.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jo_ham (604554)

      Except it just further drives rational people who share their ideals away from them and makes them look like desperate losers.

      I am an environmentalist, green, pro-recycling, green energy, save the planet, save the animals guy, but I want *nothing* to do with Greenpeace whatsoever.

      They go about their agenda in totally the wrong way. Not just this targeting of Apple (and their prior attack on Apple for being "less green" than competitors when in reality, Apple had "gone green" with the suggestions Greenpeace

      • by jcr (53032) <jcr&mac,com> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @09:17AM (#25924319) Journal

        I am an environmentalist, green, pro-recycling, green energy, save the planet, save the animals guy, but I want *nothing* to do with Greenpeace whatsoever.

        I would expect any environmentalist with a clue to shun Greenpeace.

        -jcr

    • by jcr (53032)

      Greenpeace's strategy isn't really bad.

      Yes, it is. It discredits the environmental movement. Greenpeace is a collection of publicity whores, who suck up contributions that could otherwise be doing some good in the world.

      -jcr

  • 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.
  • Flawed study (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Greenpeace's conclusion on Apple (and Nintendo) is based not on objective studies, but on the fact that neither Apple or Nintendo are releasing information on the manufacturing process to Greenpeace.

    From the Ars Technica article: "[Greenpeace] notes that these ratings are, in part, an attempt to encourage companies to publish verifiable information regarding the use of toxic chemicals in their manufacturing and supply chain."

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

      by TeacherOfHeroes (892498) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @01:00AM (#25922213)

      As I understand it, these ratings are, in large part, a way to help environmentally conscious consumers buy green products. By not disclosing that information, they make this impossible for consumers to do accurately. Reducing their scores for not cooperating is about the only means they have to pressure the companies into being more consumer-frieldny in this matter. While it may be flawed as a study, it functions correctly as a guide to buying products you know to be environmentally-friendly.

      Think if it a different way: If you showed up for a university exam or a job interview, and refused to disclose what you knew about the subject in question, wouldn't *you* expect to get low marks, too? If you in fact knew a great deal about the subject, you could claim that the exam/interview was a flawed study, but the fact of the matter is that you refused to participate, and in this case you don't get the benefit of the doubt.

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

        by jlarocco (851450) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @01:15AM (#25922271) Homepage

        The difference is that a university exam or a job interview is something you voluntarily participate in. In this case GreenPeace is demanding information and crying when Apple tells them to get lost.

        Though I do see GreenPeace's point. If you're going to brag about being "green", you should be willing to provide information backing that up.

        • 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.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Znork (31774)

            1995 according to Apple. And searching on Apple and PVC gives you a nice Apple webpage detailing these things, so it seems that Greenpeace managed to convince Apple to publish the details at least.

            That said, while I certainly don't hold Greenpeace in a particularly high regard, but as far as Apple and environmentalism is concerned, you don't need to go further than the battery replacement issue to draw your own conclusions.

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

              by carou (88501) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @08:00AM (#25924067) Homepage Journal

              Battery replacement issue?

              You mean, the one where you have to hand your iPod in for service and they replace the battery, ensuring the materials in the old one can be properly recycled - as opposed to selling people new batteries and letting the old ones contribute its toxic elements to landfill?

              • Ignore the GP...hes the type who eats up the Greenpeace garbage without thinking. He knows not how stupid what he says!
        • by unassimilatible (225662) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @04:36PM (#25927431) Journal
          Didn't Slashdot just post an article [slashdot.org] about the horrors of private, unregulated actors taking matters into their own hands?

          Shouldn't the tag "vigilantism" be used with submissions about Greenpeace?

          As I have said before, one person's social activism is another's vigilantism.
      • The first issue I have with this study is that if you're going to buy electronics products based on their waste, you're starting at a low point. E-waste in particular is nasty, and even recycling it ends up poisoning a lot of people if it's not done properly. Here's a link [cnet.com] of a cnet article talking about Chinese problems at recycling centers. The issue is the heavy metals like lead, chromium, cadmium, nickel, etc. Recycling may occur that is more damaging than putting the metals in a landfill. It's stu
  • 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.
    • I wish I had mod points for this.
    • by pipingguy (566974) * on Saturday November 29, 2008 @01:38AM (#25922379) Homepage
      Actually, it appears that Greenpeace is a political organization that plays on people's guilt in order to gain funding. Cute, furry animals that die at the hands of evil humans (whether for food or the neglect of the irresponsible west) obviously deserve more attention than ugly, bothersome ones.

      Their histrionics, hypocracy and irrationality sank them a long time ago, but you'll find the occasional brain-dead celebrity supporting their efforts.
      • Actually, it appears that Greenpeace is a political organization that plays on people's guilt in order to gain funding.

        To quote one very vocal 'greenie':
        "They played on our fears!!"
      • by Danathar (267989)

        A greenpeace cult groupie asked me what my favorite planet was when I was coming out of the Metro in D.C. (as a way to draw me in so they could recite their eco-religious speech).

        I said my favorite planet was VENUS! And that they should take their vacation there.

    • This article summary is an example of what's wrong with soundbites and their effect on responsible media.

      Here we have a sound-bite sized message: "Apple makes green laptop", followed by another sound-biter: "Greenpeace say Apple bad mojo". But then, in the interest of "full disclosure", several snippets back and forth are quoted: "Greenpeace not perfect", and "Greenpeace attacks Apple for publicity".

      The net effect comes as a custerfluck of conflicting messages leaving me with a blank stare - and I really do

    • 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.

    • by cliffski (65094)

      wow. this shit is modded informative? gimme a break. Perhaps you would like to go back to a time where asbestos and lead paint was used in school buildings and companies had carte blanche to put whatever the fuck they wanted in food. Why don't we just hunt a few species to extinction while we are about it.

      I don't see whats 'eco-terrorist' about trying to get less toxic chemicals used in making equipment that most geeks have in their homes.
      But then, in the UK it's not as common for us to hurl 'terrorist' as

  • by davmoo (63521) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @12:24AM (#25921991)

    The fact that Greenpeace comes down on Apple is a good reason for me to consider buying a new Macbook.

    • It's still Black Friday where I'm at...
    • by Greyfox (87712)
      Or go to Japan for the sole purpose of eating whale. They hate that! Anywhoo it must really suck to be a marketroid or politician in this day and age. They still think they can get away with lying but with so many people with such ready access to information, it's pretty much guaranteed that someone is going to fact check what they say.
    • The fact that Greenpeace comes down on Apple is a good reason for me to consider buying a new Macbook.

      Don't do that! Greenpeace says the percentage of recycled plastic in the weight of the MacBook is too low!

  • by Timothy Brownawell (627747) <tbrownaw@prjek.net> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @12:32AM (#25922029) Homepage Journal

    Ars Technica points out that Greenpeace's research isn't quite up-to-snuff [arstechnica.com], and it's also worth noting that Greenpeace admitted to targeting Apple for the publicity [slashdot.org] in the past.

    Why was this posted, then?

  • by girlintraining (1395911) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @12:33AM (#25922033)

    Greenpeace--Seriously? They're the PETA of the environmentalist movement. It's like how I feel having Michael Moore on Team Liberal, or Richard Simmons on Team Gay. These people are bordering on terrorist tactics; They have put concrete plugs in industrial exhaust plumes, endangering the plant workers inside and risking explosions. They've put their little boats in front of major ships in international waters, causing trade disruption. Their little protests cause a lot of economic damage, and their so-called "non-violent" stance? Please! There's press you can find online of various groups claiming to act for Greenpeace that have assaulted people. Of course, Greenpeace denies that they were acting for the cause (and they might even be right) -- but this group tends to attract the fringe and the radicals. There's a reason the FBI has them on several watchlists. :\ I mean, the French bombed their flag ship! The French -- you know, white flags France... Yeah, Greenpeace pissed them off enough that the President himself ordered their ship blown up.

    If you're an environmentalist, or a greenie, you DO NOT WANT Greenpeace on your team.

    • by Admiral Ag (829695) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @02:54AM (#25922741)

      You might want to read a bit more about that one. The problem in that case was that the French decided that it would be a good idea to test nuclear weapons in the South Pacific, which mortally pissed off pretty much everyone who lived there. If it was so safe, why couldn't they test the blasted things in France. It wasn't just Greenpeace. The New Zealand government had sent ships to the test site to protest in previous years. Why stand by as some European nonces shit in our back yard?

      European nuclear powers had a well-known history of contempt for people in the South Pacific. Britain, for example, tested nuclear weapons in Australia without bothering to inform the Aboriginals who lived near the test site that they should get out of the way. So you can guess that the French were not popular.

      New Zealand was a supposed ally of France and there are thousands of New Zealanders buried in war cemeteries in France and Belgium, which is where they died helping defend France against invasion. So to have the French security forces commit a terrorist attack and murder on New Zealand soil just because they couldn't hack a rusty old boat sailing up and down near their nuclear test site was in my opinion a bit much.

      The French officials responsible for this are lower than shit. If I had the chance, I would put a bullet in their heads. So would a lot of other people I know.

    • by cliffski (65094)

      wow.
      I mean WOW.

      The suffragettes used to chain themselves to railings. This also caused disruption. I'm sure there was some 'trade disruption' from civil rights protests in the US too.

      So fuck it. Lets take away a womans right to vote and send black people to the ghettos yes? After all, anyone protesting about stuff is just a terrorist. Especially that martin Luther King. Maybe you agree with Donald Rumsfeld, who thought Nelson mandela was a terrorist?

      And you call OTHER people whackjobs?

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @12:35AM (#25922053) Homepage

    This coming from an organization that has refused to support the growth of nuclear power as a means of providing for our electrical needs. Greenpeace has always struck me as an organization that is more concerned with protesting and grandstanding than doing the dirty work of getting serious, economically viable approaches to environmentalism out there in the spotlight.

    If I were a Greenpeace executive, instead of wasting my time with this crap, I'd order half a dozen Tesla roadsters to serve as company/lobbyist cars and be hitting the road right now to promote companies like Tesla as the alternative to bailing out gas guzzler manufacturers.

    • At $100,000 for a Tesla, I think Apteras [aptera.com] ($30,000) or Zaps [zapworld.com] ($12,000) might be more economic choice. These people don't really need a performance company car.
      • by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @01:28AM (#25922335) Homepage Journal

        Apteras and Zaps both make products that no-one wants. Tesla is at least making a product that people want, even if they can't afford it. The people who were making a product that people both wanted and could afford, took their product off the market because they were afraid it would cannibalize their other product lines.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Tubal-Cain (1289912) *
          You'd think it would cannibalize the competition's product lines, too. And that's usually a desireable thing.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by QuantumG (50515) *

            I don't think you understand what "cannibalize" means.

            • Hmmm. Wikipedia claims that in business, it 'cannibalize' is used to denote competing with yourself (more or less). I was using it in the context of 'eating members of one's own species' (auto manufacturers all being one species... but in retrospect, it might be more accurate to say they are all of the same genus or maybe even order).
    • Finding solutions is hard. It is easy to point out the bad about something. Part of the reason is because EVERYTHING has a downside. No matter what you do, there's a cost to it. Thus it's easy to figure out what that cost is and say "Oh look at the downside of this! Man that's a bad idea!" Of course it is much harder to weigh the positives and negatives of something, weigh that versus alternatives, and try to figure out what has the least negatives and most positives.

      So instead you get people like Greenpeac

    • by cliffski (65094)

      If you think greenpeace spend money on luxury cars for their 'executives' I don't think you have ANY idea how they work.

  • hey greenpeace (Score:5, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @12:40AM (#25922083) Homepage Journal

    support nuclear power, make an actual difference on the environment

    of course, attacking a minor environmental issue to scare rich people and make them feel guilty about their overpriced toys is better pr i guess

  • Who cares (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dachannien (617929) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @12:45AM (#25922121)

    The rainbow rafters won't be satisfied until humankind has abandoned the follies of electricity, the wheel, and fire, since all of those obviously harm the environment in some way.

    At least most of them don't burn down houses. [wikipedia.org] I guess that's something positive, if you're willing to set the bar that low.

  • Greenpeace (Score:2, Insightful)

    by moniker127 (1290002)
    These people are retards. Wind power is not a replacement for science. Fusion reactors are one of the greatest achievements we could hope to achieve, but they want to say fuck it all, lets build some fans. Well, fuck you, hippies.
    • by pizzach (1011925)

      A lot of people who are uncomfortable with the thought of a nuclear power plant in their backyard are also the people who tend to be lenient to the idea of wind power. It doesn't help that wind power is the "in" thing now. This has nothing to do with "hippieness." Well, unless you are calling most of the population of the US hippies. Well, I mean, if by hippies you mean retards. Which is another word with it's own issues....

      I get the feeling that people who attempt to force specific words to have profa

  • Greenpeace = Media Whores There's a million other companies they could be dragging thru the mud but they'll pick the one that will get the most media attention despite Apple's green efforts.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29, 2008 @12:55AM (#25922185)

    How much money does greenpiece want to go away?

    "That's a nice technology company you got there, Steve. It'd be a shame if something bad happened to it"

  • Apple's new Macbooks (well-received by most technology critics) are 'the world's greenest family of notebooks.'

    Because only 95.4% of them end up in land fills, according to Steve Jobs Sponsored Studies, which are held in the Realm of High Regard, Arrrghh (RHRA).

  • Ars Technica's article is from last year while Green Peace's report is dated Dec 2008. While AT's complaints may still be valid, at the very least the summary should not imply (as it currently does) it deals with the current report.

    • Since Greenpeace already said [gizmodo.com] that they were targeting Apple not because Apple was worse than any other manufacturer, but because they get the most headlines when they slam Apple, I don't see why we should pay any attention to them at all.
      • by Luthair (847766)

        Why does it matter? If Apple is doing something wrong, then they should be called on it.

        In an ideal world we would force everyone to own up to their actions. Unfortunately the world isn't ideal, and we (society) can only push companies who care about their image to action.

        • by jo_ham (604554)

          But that was the point. Apple wasn't doing anything wrong.

          Greenpeace slammed Apple for (for example) not saying anything about the use of certain nasty chemicals and so on in their products, and heaping praise (relatively) on companies like HP for saying "we'll make a plan on how to stop using these chemicals next year".

          As it turned out, Apple had stopped using most of the chemicals many years before, and those that were still in use were being phased out (eg mercury, lead, other nasties), so were way ahead

  • by TheMCP (121589) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @01:38AM (#25922377) Homepage

    It's also worth noting that the founder of Greenpeace thinks they're a bunch of kooks. See the Penn & Teller's Bulls*** episode on environmentalism.

    I believe in protecting the environment, but I'd like to sanely focus on serious problems first, and do so in a logical and dignified manner, instead of just attacking companies just because they're prominent and it generates publicity.

  • A badge of honor (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DesScorp (410532) <DesScorp@NOsPAm.Gmail.com> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @02:08AM (#25922529) Homepage Journal

    Greenpeace, despite their name, is a pretty radical group, often just a notch inside that line that groups like the Animal Liberation Front often cross. Greenpeace is just Earth First with more money and better publicity. Getting attacked by Greenpeace is a lot like getting attacked by PETA... sometimes, the public sympathizes with you precisely because a radical group is targeting you.

    Is this actually going to stop anyone from buying an Apple? No, it's just free publicity for Apple. I bet every time PETA pulls one of their lamebrain stunts, steakhouse profits go up. Same thing here.

    • by jo_ham (604554)

      Damn you!

      I want a steak now!

      Maybe I should join People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.

  • by lmnfrs (829146) <`lmnfrs' `at' `gmail.com'> on Saturday November 29, 2008 @05:35AM (#25923499) Journal

    Greenpeace complains about lots of big companies' non-greenness. I heard from a co-worker who canvassed for Greenpeace long ago, for years, that they are a "greenwash".

    There was another Greenpeace complaint recently, and when the canvassers in the downtown metropolitan area I work in were informed (by me) that "Greenpeace is a marketing organization; their information is skewed." the entire group of canvassers that I recognized every day on the way to work disappeared. Almost as if they investigated what I said and agreed.

    About three weeks later new canvassers appeared. None of them were the same. One told me that my information was "wrong" but had no sources or reasoning to back that up.

    The ideas behind Greenpeace are great general points that should be kept in mind but it seems that many of their statements should be taken with a grain of salt.

  • by hessian (467078) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @05:46AM (#25923541) Homepage Journal

    1984 - The Mac is friendly, it's the future, lalalala. Reality: 128k machine with 4 pieces of known software.

    1987 - The Mac is more efficient than IBM PCs, it's the future. Reality: It's four times as expensive and people quickly learn windows.

    1995 - The Mac is a better operating system than Windows, it's the future. Reality: holding down the mouse button suspends the entire operating system.

    2000 - The Mac is superior, it uses the PowerPC family of chips and custom hardware. Reality: it's slower and Apple acquiesces to this fact a few years later, making Intel machines.

    2008 - The Mac is superior, it's "green." Reality: it's still a hunk of plastic you chuck in the landfill, and being made by the world's most neurotic computer company, it's more likely to break.

    I used to believe in Apple; eventually I saw that, like most things hyping "hope" and "change," they were marketers and not revolutionaries. They sold a lie.

    Now I prefer the world of open hardware and open source + Windows. I can buy any motherboard I want, and I assemble machines that last years longer than any Macintosh. For people who want the bulk of mainstream software, there's Win XP or Windows Vista (which many people do like), but for those with more experience, there's OpenBSD, FreeBSD and Linux.

    • Reality: it's still a hunk of plastic you chuck in the landfill, and being made by the world's most neurotic computer company, it's more likely to break.

      Poor Apple Haters, living in some fantasy universe where nothing Apple does can satisfy them.

      In real reality, the new Macbook (and Pro) are solid aluminium blocks and there's very little plastic to be found (thus the new claims at being more friendly since they reduced use of many toxic chemicals). Of course being a solid block of metal makes them sturdie

  • 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."
  • I'm no expert on greenpeace and how political they are. But even if they are, then this "troll" brings out the worst in the slashdot (Apple fanboy?) audience. I don't want to be trolled by these guys, but neither do I want to ignore everything that is inconvenient to my lifestyle at the expense of future generations. We should be careful that we don't, as a reaction to guys like these and because it's the easy solution, act the same way that caused the financial crash, which our children must also pay for.
  • Simmer Down (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cwmaxson (1068504) on Saturday November 29, 2008 @11:15AM (#25924913)
    Typical slashdot, posters arguments have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand (instead reverting to a nuclear power debate). Greenpeace isn't "slamming" apple, just pressuring them. Apple overall received high scores, they just received a few "bad" scores on the use of recycled plastics and renewable energy. Greenpeace was comparing Apple against other producers and basically saying that though Apple tries to sell themselves as uber-green, that they're not always in the lead. This is hardly an extremist point. They were actually praising Apple for some of their achievements, but saying they have more to do. I'm no fan of greenpeace, but the attacks on greenpeace in these responses have not been very legitimate. Such arguments as "I knew a guy that worked for...", and "they're just a bunch of radicals..." are lacking in the depth one would expect from reasonable human beings.
  • by mpaque (655244) on Sunday November 30, 2008 @02:38AM (#25930965)

    Apple has failed to deliver a fully compostable computer built solely with clean straw and dung from goats on a macrobiotic diet. This is particularly disappointing when one realizes that other companies have been delivering dung-based computing technology for years.

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten

Working...