While everybody in the media was gushing over the newly announced iPhone, Greenpeace thought it would be a good idea to remind the world that Apple products don't come in green (not even the green iPod Nano):
The Macworld conference is in full swing in San Francisco. Yesterday Steve Jobs made his keynote address to announce the new iPhone, but not even a slide about a greener apple. We are there at Macworld to spread the word for a green apple but also online with our own green keynote address.
On their GreenMyApple website, Greenpeace says the campaign "is not about bruising Apple's image, Apple should be an environmental leader. We want Apple to be at the forefront of green technology, and to clearly show other companies how to do it the right way." Apple ranks as one of the lowest scoring mobile and PC manufacturers for eliminating harmful chemicals from their product line and taking responsibility for their products once they are discarded.
Personally I solve my e-waste problem by leaving old computers in my parents' loft, but a lot of electronic waste ends up in China, India, Africa and other developing-world countries. There the junk is dismantled for parts, exposing workers to a dangerous toxic material that threatens their health and the environment. Governments are slowly working to help matters; we've already seen consequences of European legislation on e-waste disposal in the RISC OS marketplace - from the no-hardware policy at the Wakefield charity stall, to Castle's creative business management allowing it to sell Iyonix PCs that failed to meet the latest regulations.
As the amount of waste rises each year, so does the need for effective solutions to the problem. Greenpeace wants Apple to take the initiative in this but it would be fantastic to see RISC OS hardware manufacturers taking the credit for being first. The benefits of the ARM/RISC OS combination already include power efficiency and hardware longevity - I'd love ethics and the environment make the list too. It might even tempt new yoghurt knitting eco-users into the fold...
Message #96979, posted by Chris at 22:04, 10/1/2007, in reply to message #96969
There have been more RISC OS articles since the re-launch than before. I don't mind articles on other stuff as long as there's something RISC OS-y to read now and again. TBH, there's not much enormously exciting to report at the moment in any case. Bring on the Iyonix II!
In reality, Greenpeace has been suffering a wave of criticism after starting its campaign denouncing Apple's environmental record. Unfortunately, for Greenpeace, the lobby group's claims are contradicted in its own research and by America's Environmental Protection Agency, which rates Apple laptops as the most environmentally friendly on the market. The EPA rates Apple desktops as more eco-friendly than ones from HP, Dell or Lenovo (formerly IBM). And the company is recognised as an "environmentally responsible company" by the the Forward Green Leaders programme of the Sierra Club, a prominent US environmentalist group.
Yet Greenpeace ignores the empirical evidence and chooses to attack Apple's environmental record not because of what it actually does. Instead, it ranks Apple's environmental record as rock bottom because it doesn't publish on its web site what it is going to do in the future and also ranks the company down because it only gives figures for the quantity of Apple products eventually recycled by weight not percentage of sales. Dell, conversely, is highly rated because it has published what it is going to do in the future and because it has a "strong definition of the precautionary principle". In essence, Greenpeace's ranking is based on what a company says rather than want it does - indeed one of Greenpeace's complaints is that Apple does not link to its environmental policy from its home page.
Greenpeace's criteria are so bizarre that they could almost of have been drawn up simply to get the result of bashing Apple. Whatever was going through the Greenpeace lobbyists' minds when they were working on this campaign, the end product was shameful. If the result of this is to encourage people to buy products that are more highly ranked according to Greenpeace, the result will be to do more damage to the environment, not less. It's no wonder that Greenpeace co-founder and former Director Patrick Moore has described the organisation as having evolved "into a band of scientific illiterates who use Gestapo tactics". Greenpeace: not as progressive as you might think.
Message #96996, posted by guestx at 11:03, 11/1/2007, in reply to message #96985
Apple are evil.
Perhaps, but not for the reasons you're giving. I'd mention patents on ideas, DRM, harassing journalists and individuals, collaborating with various organisations in intimidation (http://p2pnet.net/story/677), as well as their environmental record, of course.
Simple to see: Compare the amount of cash Microsoft and its chief techy donate to charity every year compared to Apple and their entire payroll.
Well, Gates has certainly used some nasty tricks to accumulate that big pile of cash (backdating stock options presumably not being one of them, however), and there are concerns about some of the organisations he chooses to donate to. Still, if it's the thought that counts then some credit is due.
Looks like a timeline of Apple being forced into compliance by regulators with big sticks and the relentless march of technology. That's some claim to leadership - complying with legislation as it's introduced - when the alternative is probably a stiff fine or some regulatory action.
What with the duff iPod battery fiasco, the iPhone's non-replaceable battery, and the general shiny factor around Apple and its most enthusiastic punters, I guess the environmental impact of buying new kit as an upgrade roadmap is also lost on these people.
The "we recycle stuff, so that's OK!" attitude doesn't cut the mustard, especially when the recycling was probably mandatory in those cases they've sought to highlight, and especially coming from the company famous for dumping thousands of units of one of their failed products in a landfill.