It looks like all of Greenpeace’s needling of Apple over the past few years has paid off, as the house that Jobs built is about to announce its successes in becoming a more green company. Think carbon emissions data,all that jazz. Even though Apple is trying plenty hard to assuage the Green Brigade, it thinks it’s being treated rather unfairly.
So yeah, Apple is expected to release, I think any minute now, a whole bunch of data that proves that it’s a green company. How much carbon it uses, how many PVCs and BFRs can be found in its products, etc. Things, I’m going to guess, is not on the minds of too many of you. I look at it like this, and rather selfishly I might add: are Apple’s products green? Meh, that’s not really a concern of mine. Do the products work well, that’s my main issue.
Be that as it may, Apple, as you might expect, doesn’t exactly enjoy having to genuflect to the likes of Greenpeace. Who died and made those guys king? More specifically, Apple doesn’t like how Greenpeace will award good ratings to companies based only on promises of, say, cutting carbon emissions. Companies can pump out a press release saying they’re slashing their carbon emissions, and Greenpeace will clap clap clap. Meanwhile, Apple is over here trying to figure out what’s the “friendliest” materials it can mine to put in its products; what’s the safest way to generate electricity to power its plants, etc. None of that is recognized by Greenpeace, so Apple is all, “Oh, so we’re not green according to your measurements, well that’s just great.”
i think the line ‘who died and made those guys king’ reflects my opinion of environmentalist agency’s
Though you are spot-on about Apple’s frustrations with a “greenie” group who value PR over substantial change – who have used Apple as their stalking horse for much bigger targets (HP, IBM, etc.), I find the who part about not caring about the real environmental record as having nothing to do with you to be the biggest problem today.
It’s not that environmentalists cause trouble. If people just cared a little bit, and we all were reasonable about caring about the environment, then the radical groups out there like Greenpeace and much more dangerous demagogic organizations like Earth First, would have no fertile ground to plow with their radical agenda.
It DOES effect you, and everyone else, and the sooner you begin to care just a little bit, the sooner Greenpeace has no place in this world.
How is Greenpeace a radical group? Is wanting to address climate change radical? Is putting pressure on companies to green their products radical?
I think what’s radical is pretending like we can just degrade the environment forever with no consequences in the name of “progress”.
The reports they issue are based on direct study of the products themselves are based on use of hazardous substances in products, energy use of products, degree to which the products can be recycled, and the quality of environmental information put out by the product makers. This is one of their electronics reports:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press-center/reports4/green-electronics-the-search.pdf
“I look at it like this, and rather selfishly I might add: are Apple’s products green? Meh, that’s not really a concern of mine.”
Very short sighted view, in my opinion. Are you concerned at all, for instance, how much toxic lead might be passed to your kids (nephew/niece, whatever) if they put your ipod in their mouth? Or whether you yourself are exposed to toxic chemicals from those earbuds you bury deep in your ear canal?
I think many people growing up today don’t realize or appreciate the need for environmental protection because they see it as a minor issue. Greenpeace and other organizations fought very hard for many, many years to curb all kinds of environmental destruction that was common in the 50’s through the 80’s; clear-cutting of forests, toxic waste dumped in to aquifers, pollutants pumped into the air causing acid rain… all of these things were common decades ago, and are less common now because of the efforts of groups like Greenpeace. And without their continued attention we’re still going to have the same issues; it may not be your kid or niece, but it’ll be someone’s kid somewhere, and that should concern all of us.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you really think Greenpeace just applauds companies who make vague promises about reducing emissions but don’t actually care about the toxic content of their products?
How terrible that a group is looking out for not just the health of the planet, but for the health of people like you and me. What jerks, spending their time and energy making sure big companies don’t screw us all over just to make a buck.
The real question is, why does Apple need a “toxic babysitter,” so to speak? Why aren’t they taking care of it themselves?
“How is Greenpeace a radical group? Is wanting to address climate change radical? Is putting pressure on companies to green their products radical?”
@DJB: YES, they are; and YES, it is!
You ask that question as though Radical is a bad thing to be. Think different!
Ask Steve Jobs if he thinks Apple, Inc. is a radical corporation.