[MW Forums]

Two environmental proposals will be on the agenda at this year’s annual Apple shareholder meeting. Environmental group, Greenpeace, is rallying support for the proposals, while Apple’s Board of Directors is recommending shareholders vote against the proposals. more

[daneb]

Way to hold your own against the Tree-Huggers Apple! Before we know it, all these environmental policies and standards are going to backfire on us and blow up the whole planet! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[hexor]

Instead you'll just wonder where that cancer came from.. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[runswithsizzers]

I'm wondering why Apple hasn't already done The Right Thing without needing Greenpeace to goad them into action?
This is a classic case of the Tragedy of the Commons, and it exposes the ever-present Dark Side of capitalism in general, and the stock market in particular. As long as shareholders care only about short term profits the money machine will be stuck in high gear until the planet is all used up.
I am a avid supporter of Apple and most of their products, but when the choice is whether to foul my own nest or not, I have to choose for the planet. Vote with your dollars, folks, and keep Apple's feet to the fire until they are as Green as possible, and do the same for every product you buy.

[runswithsizzers]

Please tell us what twisted logic you used to arrive at your opinion.

[Anondson]

How much credit for "greenness" does Apple get for creating a computer ecosystem where the average replacement lifespan is 4-5 years versus PCs-running-Windows' lifespan of an average of 2-3 years. Compared to Macs, the pollution footprint for a single PC running windows should count doubly worse since over the life of a single Mac two PCs will have been purchased. Double the materials, double the toxins, double the energy... and THEN compare it with Apple's Macs.
But just like market analysts ignore the installed base numbers when calculating PC market percentages, folks harassing Apple about green policy don't give Apple its proper dues for creating a computer ecosystem with a remarkable usable lifespan.

[MacTechAspen]

Quote:

---

I'm wondering why Apple hasn't already done The Right Thing without needing Greenpeace to goad them into action?

---

Quote:

---

duplicative of existing [Apple] policies

---

Apple has done The Right Thing in many ways.

Greenpeace is a money raising organism. They use FUD to raise money, and while they may or may not have a point, it is well obscured by their actions of the past few years.

Don't take my word for it see what Greenpeace founder Dr. Patrick Moore has to say.

[VeggieBeefcake]

Quote:

---

How much credit for "greenness" does Apple get for creating a computer ecosystem where the average replacement lifespan is 4-5 years versus PCs-running-Windows' lifespan of an average of 2-3 years. Compared to Macs, the pollution footprint for a single PC running windows should count doubly worse since over the life of a single Mac two PCs will have been purchased. Double the materials, double the toxins, double the energy... and THEN compare it with Apple's Macs.
But just like market analysts ignore the installed base numbers when calculating PC market percentages, folks harassing Apple about green policy don't give Apple its proper dues for creating a computer ecosystem with a remarkable usable lifespan.

---

If you're going to use his argument and almost his language verbatim, you might as well cite RoughlyDrafted.com. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[runswithsizzers]

I am all for giving credit where it is due - and I agree that longer product life is definitely Green, and that Apple excels by that criteria.
But there is a difference in doing something and doing enough. The issues named in the Greenpeace article were: 1. phase-out of toxic chemicals, including polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs), and 2. adopt a stronger e-waste take-back and recycling program. These seem like reasonable goals to me, and two Good Ideas.
And it's not just Greenpeace pointing fingers in Apple's direction:
http://www.computertakeback.com/badapple/badapplebiz.cfm

http://www.siliconbe...ies/2006/...ughstance.html
According to their website, Apple IS concerned about it's effect on the environment:
http://www.apple.com/environment/

. . . and DOES have a pretty decent recycling program:
http://www.apple.com...ervices/us.html
. . . IF you buy directly from Apple. I am fortunate to have a local recycling business in my home town where I can get my Apple 17" CRT Studio Display recycled for $10, because for me to use Apple as the recycler would cost me $30.

[whitedog]

I think this issue puts Al Gore squarely on the spot - he should either put up or shut up. Either he's serious about cleaning up the environment and will use his influence to improve Apple's green policies or he's just another corporate lackey talking the talk for fun and profit and walking nowhere.
Just because Greenpeace does a good job raising money doesn't mean their message is wrong. Shooting the messenger is a time-tested method of counterattacking when you have no substantive arguments to make. It is as it always was - mean-spirited and wrong-headed.
In a similar vein, that Apple's hardware lasts longer than the competition's doesn't make it any less toxic. Most of it still ends up in a landfill somewhere. There's no way that's not bad news for the environment. The "everybody's doing it" excuse is every bit as bogus as shooting the messenger.

[MacTechAspen]

Quote:

---

Just because Greenpeace does a good job raising money doesn't mean their message is wrong.

---

No, but the fact is that they frequently prevaricate if not fabricate their message. They use fear tactics and baseless claims. Again, I cite this reference.

I have no idea about the veracity of Greenpeace's charges, but for me, Greenpeace's claim hold less weight because I doubt their credibility.

Weve been in meetings with Apple for three years now, said [Greenpeace representative] Alhajj . We have asked for a commitment, but Apple said we dont give commitments, we do things. We havent seen any commitments, so far.
Had they said they had not seen any action, then perhaps they would have a bone to pick. But Greenpeace told Apple to sign their pledge or else, and Apple chose or else.
Apple's web site claims: Apple has been named a Forward Green Leader, one of the top ten environmentally progressive companies recognized by the Sierra Club and its investment advisor, Forward Management.
That hardly sounds like the awful polluter Greenpeace claims, even though I am sure there is always room for improvement.

[AppleTango]

Let's be serious folks, who wants toxic chemicals in thier homes, especially toxic chemicals that get heated up inside something as hot as a Macbook Pro (for example). We have forever said "it's too expensive" to be as green as possible. Now we are learning it's going to be too expensive not to be green. We need leaders in this area. Al Gore has led and led well. Apple has to lead in this area too. They should be an example that we can point to when discussing other companies.

[kbohnert]

I might be missing something, but how is PVC a hazardous material when it is used in the water lines supplying and in most homes in the US.

[jmincey]

Whitedog, very well written post. Good points. I second them.