Jobs Responds to Greenpeace FUD 531
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."
But did he have to club the baby seal at the end? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, Apple's business model depends on its control of the hardware architecture. Hence, "Warranty void if seal is broken!"
Re:But did he have to club the baby seal at the en (Score:4, Funny)
Wow ... (Score:4, Funny)
Extinct (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
It is sad, though, that all PETA seems to do anymore is troll...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Greenpeace is also nuts. They're just trust fund kids who are trying to stick it to 'the man' (AKA their father) who provides everything they have. It used to stand for something, but now... not so much.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Greenpeace opposes fusion research (Score:3, Informative)
I can understand why they oppose nuclear power. What I don't understand is their opposition to fusion power research.
In their own words [greenpeace.org]:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I see a big problem here, when it comes to activism in the United States. For any number of causes, from envi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"emitting large amounts of radioactive materials."
This statement is false. A fusion powerplant won't 'emit' anything (in terms of gasses, or any kind of bulk material). There won't be anything transported away from the reactor. The 'waste' problem with a fusion reactor is it produces more neutrons than a fission reactor by a few times per kilowatt. So the reactor vessel and the building to a lesser extent (much less with the advent of low activation conc
Re:Extinct (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Extinct (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You never seem to hear any prominent environmentalists or organizations standing up and saying "okay, person or organization X has gone too far off the deep end." Same for certain other organizations you speak of.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 pa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Watch the BullShit! episode about recycling and do some of your own research"
L2read
A public information announcement (Score:3, Funny)
Brought to you by the department of the bloody obvious.
Re:Extinct (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 jus
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Extinct (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Extinct (Score:4, Insightful)
VHEMT (Score:3, Interesting)
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 o
Re:Extinct (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re:Extinct (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Extinct (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Extinct (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Extinct (Score:5, Funny)
Like soylent green for example. It doesn't get any more "green" than soylent green.
I demand that my PCs be made of biodegradable environmentalists!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Extinct (Score:4, Funny)
Jobs correctly pointed out that Apple has got an unfair rap. For example they confirmed the rumour that their screens will have LED backlights (something I heard about in January). Just making the announcement is all that's important to how Greenpeace assessed Apple's environmental record. Apple aren't a more environmentally friendly company they just changed their longstanding policy on product pre-announcements to shut up some Greenpeace trolls who should have known better.
Also, Apple pointed out that they stopped using PVC in their packaging 12 years ago. But Greenpeace gave HP a better environmental score, in part because they are "promising" to remove PVC from their packaging. I've always been bemused by Greenpeace's campaign against Apple because it's complete dishonesty undermines everything else they say.
For example, looking at a figure like weight percentage of product recycled doesn't reflect the inherent differences between product weight. If Apple produce a computer that weighs half as much as a rival then the rival would need to recycle at least 50% just to catch up with Apple (assuming identical environmental impacts per unit weight, obviously).
This is pretty much what we knew before (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, I think Apple doesn't really give much away in terms of new products while still being able to publish a timeline for reducing harmful substances used in their products.
I didn't realize I could get a 10% discount on a new iPod by trading in my old one. If my current one ever breaks, I will keep that in mind.
Re:This is pretty much what we knew before (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 ha
Just what Greenpeace wanted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just what Greenpeace wanted? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is possible, but it doesn't actually help anything with regard to achieving Greenpeace's stated goals or benefitting the environment.
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.
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.
Re:Just what Greenpeace wanted? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_financia
Re:Just what Greenpeace wanted? (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow 1/2 a million dollars in one year from the HP foundation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nice theory, but Greenpeace doesn't accept funding from corporations or governments. Your own link supports this. Greenpeace is looking for funding, of course, but not from Apple. They pick attention-getting fights and stage public displays of annoyance so as to keep the name a household one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
from the My Green Apple website: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 pr
Re: (Score:2)
Since when are manufacturers responsible ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The reality is that when you buy a product, you take on responsibility for the disposal of that product when it is no longer useful to you. I contend that at present, the greenest disposal of a computer is to donate it for use by a charity, thus extending its life, rather than consigning it to a recycling heap.
Another point always avoided by the recycling police is that some of th
Re:from the My Green Apple website: (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
FUD or "FUD"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:FUD or "FUD"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Smart Move For Greenpeace (Score:3, Insightful)
Its reasonable to assume corporatio
This is NOT "FUD" (Score:3, Insightful)
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 bu
Re:FUD or "FUD"? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't agree with the moderator who marked your comment Flamebait. I don't think that's how you intended it, anyway.
Yes, I believe Jobs is telling the truth about Apple's current manufacturing standards. I'm sure you have read in full the Greenpeace report [greenpeace.org] that stirred this storm in a teacup, and therefore realize that Greenpeace assumed Apple's manufacturing standards weren't up to snuff simply because Apple hadn't explained in brightly colored crayons what friendly, earth-loving folk they are. Greenpeace's "scoring" of Apple and the other electronics companies reviewed was based solely on PR information available from company websites. Greenpeace had no reason to doubt the information published on Lenovo's, Nokia's, or Sony's websites, and neither they nor I have any reason to doubt the information now posted on Apple's.
Sorry if I made Greenpeace sound evil to you. Their actions were executed with trademark thoughtlessness and irrationality, but I'm sure their intentions were honorable. Their review was flawed, but not biased, and I'm sure Apple will be properly represented in the next Greenpeace Electronics Guide.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No way! (Score:2)
Holy crap, get out! No way!
It's ok (Score:3, Interesting)
Steve Jobs is not saying it's FUD (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
--
Get Solar Power with no installation cost: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user s -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
Greenpeace responds to Steve responding (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
These guys are worse than Darth Vader.
Re:Greenpeace responds to Steve responding (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Greenpeace responds to Steve responding (Score:5, Informative)
By overselling their cases, they helped establish the political landscape we have today, where proof of environmental destruction is a tough sell, and the habit of lying even to themselves about the true state of things leads to nutjobs like the Earth Liberation Front [cdfe.org], who destroy the environment in order to save it.
The best thing for the environment remains to be considerate of what things you consume and dispose of and where they come from and go to. And doing so almost always ends up saving you money as well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You Spin Me Right Round Baby Right Round ... (Score:5, Insightful)
From Apples Release:
From the Greenpeace response:
Umm
Way to go making it seem like you're important, having an impact, and therefore worthy of large $$$ donations.
The toxic waste is staying in Apple products... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You Spin Me Right Round Baby Right Round ... (Score:4, Funny)
Nothing like a neutral title and blurb (Score:2)
Actually ... Classic Scaremongering (Score:3, Insightful)
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 grandsta
Looks like they just got in a shipment (Score:2, Funny)
This has always been true of most PCs (Score:2, Insightful)
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 consumpti
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 capi
Green peace (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Yes, But Has Fake Steve Posted Yet? (Score:2)
ok wait a second (Score:2)
They are a target because the iPod is popular. (Score:5, Interesting)
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=-38781988658601Story submitter confused? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Among many others, whalers, seal hunters, and oil companies (that u
The problem with vendor-based environmentalism (Score:3, Insightful)
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
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?
Green peace is the shit (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Next Story (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So Greenpeace was right? (Score:5, Informative)
RTA. Throughout, Jobs makes comparisons to other companies in the Greenpeace Electronics Guide [greenpeace.org]. He then writes:
It's a bit more accurate to say (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd consider that at least partial FUD on the part of Greenpeace.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 Go
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (ab
Re:So Greenpeace was right? (Score:4, Insightful)
bastards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apples arent green because... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Apples arent green because... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
aluminium gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) - red and infrared
aluminium gallium phosphide (AlGaP) - green
aluminium gallium indium phosphide (AlGaInP) - high-brightness orange-red, orange, yellow, and green
gallium arsenide phosphide (GaAsP) - red, orange-red, orange, and yellow
gallium phosphide (GaP) - red, yellow and green
gallium nitride (GaN) - green, pure green (or emerald green), and blue also whit
Re: (Score:3, Funny)