Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Greenpeace Hates Apple.

"The Greenpeace report does not scientifically compare the environmental qualities of the products of the different companies, merely the companies' published policies"

So Greenpeace is basing it's list on company PR (the published policies) and NOT on what the company's actual practices are? Makes sense to me. :rolleyes:


Lethal
 
Once again the Apple apologists come out waving their pitch-forks and blazing torches in the air, ready to fight away the 'big-bad-anybody-who-dares-criticise-Apple', be it an environmental pressure group, the EU, or a .


zap2 said:
Not to mention we already have a thread about this...why not just put this in there?
Click to expand...


Sorry, I searched and couldn't find anything. Feel free to merge them.


EDIT: Thanks WildCowboy for merging the two threads.
 
welshandrew said:
Once again the Apple apologists come out waving their pitch-forks and blazing torches in the air, ready to fight away the 'big-bad-anybody-who-dares-criticise-Apple'
Click to expand...

No, I am not an Apple apologist. I object to slanted 'jornalism' and poor logic though, no matter what the subject.

The title of the post is both inaccurate and inflammatory, and the conclusion of the post "Yet it looks like Apple still isn't taking seriously the damage that all our new Macs and iPods are doing to the environment." is supportable only if you accept Greenpeace's methodology without question and ignore Apple's response.
 
welshandrew said:
Once again the Apple apologists come out waving their pitch-forks and blazing torches in the air, ready to fight away the 'big-bad-anybody-who-dares-criticise-Apple', be it an environmental pressure group, the EU, or a .

:rolleyes:
.
Click to expand...


Come on..."The Greenpeace report does not scientifically compare the environmental qualities of the products of the different companies, merely the companies' published policies"...their not even basing it on the truth! I'm all for a good planet, but people like these guys just go to far! And then they get credit for helping the planet. People need to look at thing like


"The Greenpeace report does not scientifically compare the environmental qualities of the products of the different companies, merely the companies' published policies"


And open their eyes to whats is really happening. Everyone hurt the planet..basing who does it the worst on what they PR say, in place of what the company does it foolish.
 
 
There is a feud between Greenpeace and Apple, which apparently started when Apple decided not to donate money to Greenpeace. Then last year Greenpeace rated various companies on promises for the future, and Apple didn't look very good (a promise to reduce pollution in the future apparently counted more than having a low-pollution product right now), and somehow their relation went downhill...

So Apple coming last in a Greenpeace chart doesn't surprise anyone.
 
I'm not defending Apple because I haven't seen all the facts, but I wonder what makes Lenovo so great. This BBC quote has me wondering:
"Top of the table Lenovo, which bought IBM's consumer electronics division in 2005, got 8 out of 10 for offering takeback services in all the nations where its products are sold. This means it will recycle any broken or obsolete own-brand product returned to it."

What does it do with the "takeback" products? How does it "recycle" them. I'll bet that they just test returned parts then resell them as "new" even though they're used. I once (briefly) worked for a PC manufacturing company that had thousands and thousands of returns and repairs (the area I worked in) and their policy was to do a simple test on the defective part, then if tested OK (even though it was probably still defective in some way), send the part to the assembly of NEW computers! On average, most "new" computers probably contained 10-20% used parts. Scary.

I think a big part of this e-waste problem should be blamed on home consumers who keep buying new computer systems every year or two. I can understand business users needing the latest, but for the people who just browse the internet and do email, a computer could comfortably last at least 5 years. I'm typing this on a 20-year old Amiga. I've never thrown a computer away.
 
Apple also has a take back program. They even used to advertise the iPod one because you could get a credit towards a new one for bringing back an old one whether it works or not. But they don't disclose the details, so they're penalized, whereas a company that talks a lot about a program they are in the process of maybe someday actually possibly using will get good marks.
 
ghall said:
While I agree with their cause, they aren't helping anything, they're just pissing people off. Plus, there's so many other companies that are just as bad, or worse, for the environment than Apple. Shouldn't they be focusing more on the big picture, instead of a tiny piece?
Click to expand...

And what exactly is there cause. Due to their lack of focus, they do little more than make noise. Greenpeace has become a non-issue. If they had a focus, a package-able goal, they might actually get something done.
 
MovieCutter said:
Yeah, is the Greenpeace that used a gas generator to power those green spotlights of theirs? They're attacking a computer company with 5% marketshare because of their popularity instead of HP or Dell with thei 20-30% marketshare? This seems idiotic.
Click to expand...

HEHE, This it so true....
 
And I hate Greenpeace, and the EU for that matter. Why the hell can't they just leave Apple alone. A volcano erupting makes more pollution than all computer manufacturers together. Global warming is a big lie anyway. The earth has gone through many ice ages, climate changes etc., and humans have very little to do with the climate change that may be occuring now, IMO.
 
Turkish said:
Interesting?

How do they choose which 12 companies they are going to pick on?

Interesting would be seeing their ranking on every major company out there.
Click to expand...

According to Greenpeace's formula, if two companies with comparable products offer the identical "recycling" program, and company A's products last longer than company B, then company A would be "less green" than B, because company A's recycle volume would be relatively smaller.

They put together a formula based on what was easy to measure, whether it made sense or not.
 
After G said:
Those pictures of iMac keyboards are Greenpeace being disingenuous ... I mean look at all the PC keyboards underneath.

But people need to learn that keyboards can be cleaned ... sheesh. Throwing away a USB keyboard is inexcusable unless it's broken.
Click to expand...

I don't get why people would throw away computers :\ I still have the original 286, the first computer I ever used(in the exact location I'm sitting in typing 15 years later).
 
iJawn108 said:
I don't get why people would throw away computers :\ I still have the original 286, the first computer I ever used(in the exact location I'm sitting in typing 15 years later).
Click to expand...

What's the point of hanging on to them?? A 15 year old computer is basically worthless.
 
dextertangocci said:
Global warming is a big lie anyway.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think pouring billions of tons of smoke into the sky isn't doing any damage? If you had read the reports that are out there that aren't funded by the oil companies, you will see we are doing some harm to our environment. This is not a debate anymore, it's happening. We just don't know what to do about it.
 
Cassie said:
Uh, how about saving the environment? Plus a 15 year old computer is not worthless.

*Points to Mr.Amiega500's post.
Click to expand...

I would much rather throw it out than have it laying around the house. How is a 15 year old computer worth anything other than setimental value or a paper weight.

If I am not actively using something is gets tossed, or sold on eBay. Seems like there is always some bozo that will pay decent $$ for garbage.
 
dsnort said:
No matter how much you believe in the worthiness of Greenpeaces motives, no organization involved in political activism can ever be above examination and question. The posters here seem to have raised some cogent and reasonable questions to this article, and "labelling" them as "Apple apologists" in no way invalidates their questions, or answers them.
Click to expand...

Are you reading another thread?

If we look past Greenpeace how about expecting apple to be the leader in environmentalism in the computer sector. And that refers to offering recycling of their computers wherever they can sell the, phasing out toxins from their products lineup and offering a program like Dells´s plant a tree. Is there anyone here that seriously would be turned off from apple if they did this?

And as much as I like apple (bought two mac´s in 18 months and have directly and indirectly influenced 4-5 purhcases of mac´s in the same timeframe) I for the life of me cant see how apple is much more high profile than nokia and sony-ericson.

As for the hippy comments how about remembering how the founders of apple are.

If there are questions about Greenpeace´s report how about sending them an email and asking them?
 
numlock said:
And that refers to offering recycling of their computers wherever they can sell the, phasing out toxins from their products lineup and offering a program like Dells´s plant a tree.
Click to expand...

They're doing those already... except for that tree thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back