[dbutenhof]

In reply to:

---

they say that it's not really Apple but some recycling companies doing this. BUT, Apple should still be at fault for every Apple product ever made. Give me break!

---

Sure; but even worse, you can bet those "irresponsible" recyclers (really, if they're actually recycling, even if [gasp!] it involves prisoners doing useful work, who cares?) aren't keeping busy just recycling Macs. So if some worker spotted an Apple system... how many HP and Dell boxes did they spot on either side? Hmm... maybe not quite so much fun to spout those numbers, eh? Or perhaps they just can't count that high..
Oh, yeah; and "disreputable" recyclers have been seen sending Apple systems overseas. Shock. Again, there's no way they're making a business just doing this with Apple systems. And even if HP and Dell recycling programs were somehow more attractive or convenient than Apple's, you can bet they (no, no; let's get this right, THEIR CUSTOMERS) contribute far more to those recyclers than Apple's customers.
And even if it were true that a greater PERCENTAGE of Apple computers end up tossed or in unconventional recycling streams (and even if you accept the idea that the latter is somehow bad), the environment doesn't give a rat's [iPod] about percentages... what counts is raw volume. Face it: if 90% of all x86 PCs were "responsibly recycled" and we presume that means no effect at all on the environment, (both of which assumptions are ludicrous) Apple could still not hope to match the environmental damage of the other 10% even if every Apple component was tossed in the street.
But then, it's the big PR score that counts, right; not the truth, or the principles... or even trying to make an impact on the biggest target.
Then again... maybe HP and Dell just donated more money to these guys and they're afraid of offending the pocketbook.

[altivec]

In reply to:

---

I don't understand people who are happy with the status quo and who slam an environmental group for caring.
the present level of consumerism and disposability in north america is not sustainable. it is also wrong to pollute -- period and fullstop. i could care less about comparing who is worse than who, or who has a greater token tonneage of recycling than the other. living sustainably and not dumping toxic pollutants is an ethical principle from which no rationalization can or should be allowed to derogate. every company should be held to a standard that requires everything they produce to be recyclable, reusable, or biodegradable. simple as that.

---

Nobody is slamming them for caring. I am slamming them for being irresponsible. How is lying about corporations helping the environment? This discredits environmentalists and causes the reverse reaction that are wanting. People will now go around saying environmentalists are bunch of lying morons. Does this really help the cause? All I am saying is have your facts straight.
Your second paragraph is spot on, however, the corporations that they are picking on are providing a method for recycling. It is the consumer that is not following through on it. Unless you think Apple should have satellite communicators that notify them when a computer is ready for the trash. They can then send out a SWAT team to scare the owners into returning them. If I want to throw my computer into a landfill instead of bringing it to Apple's recycling center, I am the bad one, not Apple.

[Nobody]

I don't think people here are slamming an environmental group for caring, they are slamming them for uneven or even erroneous statements, and for the rash of criticism placed on Apple that's devoid of constructive criticism.
Praise a company for recycling more than Apple, but neglect to mention that Apple recycles less than them because Apple produces less waste than them in the first place? Where's the caring in that, should not the other company be criticized for needing to recycle so much. Where's the constructive criticism with "using forced labor of prisoners to recycle is bad?"
There's the enviornental mantra of reduce, reuse, renew, and recycle; which is something I see Apple doing more than their competitors, and also seems to be something ignored by this so called environmental group condemning Apple. It sounds, to me, that the critical group is more deserving of criticism than is Apple; constructive or otherwise.

[elroy]

This "environmental group" is getting more press than they deserve.
They give environmentalists a bad name. (I harass people plenty over environmental concerns, but I'd prefer to distance myself from these press-hungry wackos.)
That's all I have to say about that. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[minderbinder]

" I use lead graphite pencils for 90% of my work. And I throw that sh*t out."
"Lead" pencils contain no lead. They are, as you mention, graphite and pose no health risk.

[simtimpson]

Let's not forget the 100+ lbs. laserjet/officejet printers from HP that every office has. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[robertRoss]

In reply to:

---

If this is who we have to look after the environment, LOL!!

---

Well it's not. Sadly however, one can look at the government, many corporations, and industry and be equally unimpressed.

[Quoth_the_Raven]

On Earth Day, Remember: If Environmentalism Succeeds, It Will Make Human Life Impossible

[robertRoss]

In reply to:

---

Now tell me, my Macs stay in circulation for 10 years, while PCs only last for about 3 years. There is 3 timest he waste with PCs as far as landfills.

---

Why only 3 years? All our old systems still function, Mac and PC, but we find that the software we want doesn't so we donate them, recycle them, or museum them. Our modern systems have a desktop life of about 3 years (Mac and PC) but are put to use much longer as Linux based servers.

[robertRoss]

In reply to:

---

This discredits environmentalists and causes the reverse reaction that are wanting.

---

Why? It should only discredit these people. If people are absurd enough to discredit "environmentalists" or "priets" or "politicians" for the actions of a few environmentalists, priests, politicians, publishers, etc. we might as well give up entirely. Funny how a group like this is so easily discredited and a group, like say, certain factions within both of the dominant political parties that are linked to environmentals concerns are not so easily discredited, though they are equally ludicrous and grasping at straws.

[nek]

I think the only real point that the enviro group made was about the iPods containing lead, except for their suggestion that people would just toss them in the trash. When you consider the huge numbers of iPods that Apple sells, having lead in them is not a good thing. As for recycling computers, obviously a lot of people recycle them through organisation other than Apple, so its hard to say how many get recycled.
That fact that this group didn't bother trying to back up all of their claims gives them little credibility. And their rationalization of most of their claims pathetic. I believe in protecting the environment and I'm sure that Apple could make improvements, but if you are going to go after them you should know what you are talking about.

[macslut]

The SVTC is clearly doing more harm than good. They are extremely misguided, misinformed, and made up of deeply passionate, yet retarded, individuals.
Being inspired by Earth Day, I've decided to open a global iPod recycling center.
I don't want to spam this forum with my address, but feel free to message me for details on where to send any iPods you want to dispose of.
No need to toss that iPod in the trash or pay huge recycling fees! I will, for free, take any iPods sent to me from anywhere in the world! You don't even have to wipe the device of your music collection, I will accept your music for free too!
(I'll also take PowerMac G5s, cash, Mac minis, and year 2000 or greater Mercedes driven to me)
If we all do a little something, together we can save this planet!

[samrod]

The group's method of gathering data is unreliable. For example, they gauge Apple's recycling program by tonage? Apparently they're forgetting to factor in marketshare.
They're also accusing Apple of using prison labor and cheap foreign labor because Apple products have been spotted in these facilities? Aren't they aware that there are a number of other avenues to recycle computers besides Apple? And that Apple's products can end up in these facilities any number of ways?!
Also, what on Earth is wrong with prison labor? Hello? Should we all stop driving cars because our plates were stamped by prison laborers?
They're also not factoring in the longer average usable lifetime of Macs compared to PC's. That would also have significant effects on their numbers.
And finally, they're blaming Apple for consumers choosing not to take advantage of Apple's iPod replacement program? And that's Apple's fault how?
They're obviously taking advantage of Apple's iconic cultural status with this strategy. On one hand, it's always good to keep companies on their toes. But on the other, this is just sickening.

[Nobody]

In reply to:

---

I think the only real point that the enviro group made was about the iPods containing lead

---

I puzzled by this, as I agree zero lead contamination is in everybody's interests, but I wonder....
Doesn't lead occur naturally? If so, then it is only the concentration of it in landfills (or old paint) that poses health and environment risks. Yes?
Are not the iPod batteries the source of the lead, and are not cell phones using the same kind of batteries? If so, then what are the chances a free phone's dead battery will wind up in the landfill as opposed to an iPod having it's battery properly recycled?
I don't know (and I'm not trying to provoke or disagree with your post). It's just curious, and actually pertains to the huge tech recycling cost our company just went thru - guess which computer maker devices made up the majority of our recycling....
But, of course, none of that was iPod equipment. That's a consumer issue, really, and I'm kind of on the fence about the lead in the iPod case and what might be the best solution; or even, if there is a need for a solution.
I agree. The claim that someone would throw an iPod into the landfill when it dies is ludicrous. Perhaps that is why they are designed with a lead battery that's hard to swap out on your own - viola! Instant incentive to recycle rather than throw away.
Still.... Dunno. Depends on whether or not I'm right about my assumption that the iPod lead is only about its battery.