backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by James Holden.. on Apr 13 at 12:26 AM


Chinese PC maker Lenovo scored top honors in Greenpeace's third report on environmental performance in the electronics industry.
Environmental group Greenpeace has named Lenovo as the most ecologically friendly electronics maker in the world, while the lowest marks went to Apple Computer for its contribution to "toxic tech"

In its just-released Guide to Greener Electronics (PDF), the activist organization rated electronics companies based on their record of eliminating hazardous substances from their products and manufacturing processes, and on their commitment to actively recycling obsolete products.

Lenovo scored eight of a possible 10 points in the report, earning praise for phasing out dangerous chemicals and for being the first to provide "global takeback and recycling services wherever its products are sold." Lenovo also got high marks for its adherence to existing environmental regulations and other relevant policies designed to protect human health and the global environment.

Of the 14 companies reviewed by Greenpeace, Apple fell to the bottom of the barrel with a dismal score of only 2.7 points. The PC and peripheral maker ran afoul of Greenpeace for inadequate recycling policies and for waffling on its timelines to phase out hazardous materials such as brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

"For a company that claims to lead on product design, it is perhaps surprising to find Apple languishing at the bottom of the scorecard," the report states. "While other laggards have moved upwards in the Guide (to Greener Electronics), Apple has made no changes to its policies or practices since the launch of the Guide in August 2006. The company scores badly on almost all criteria."

Sony, Panasonic and LG electronics were also singled out as polluters in the report. LG and Sony were even assigned "penalty points" for corporate double-speak on environmental issues. Specifically, the Greenpeace report claims that the two companies publicly espouse support for producer responsibility, which designates "that the producer -- not consumer -- should be responsible for financing the waste management of its own brand products when they are discarded."

However, Greenpeace charges that both manufacturers are also "part of a coalition that has been opposing producer responsibility and lobbying for U.S. consumers to pay an Advanced Recycling Fee (ARF)."

Greenpeace has had a bone to pick with Apple for some time.  Last year Greenpeace demonstrators were kicked out of MacExpo.  Two months later, Greenpeace released a scathing report detailing Apple as the worst environmentally friendly PC manufacturer in the world.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Saw this one coming...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 9:58:18 AM , Rating: 4
As its favorite company, Greenpeace picks one based in Communist China, one owned largely by the Chinese Government itself.

Not exactly a surprise, is it?




RE: Saw this one coming...
By djcameron on 4/5/2007 11:53:21 AM , Rating: 2
Nothing surprising at all. Also, I'll bet that most of Greenpeace's members are Mac users too. I know three of them, and they all own Macs and iPods.


RE: Saw this one coming...
By derdon on 4/5/2007 4:55:03 PM , Rating: 2
I also know some members of GP using Macs. What's the problem with this exactly? GP is an organization that adapts to the necessities of our times and neglecting it would be no benefit to their agenda or the people who support them.
If you think you can achieve any change in this world by using methods of the 18th century, I wish you luck and a lot of happiness to cope with the frustration. Besides we don't live in the 18th century, nobody can ignore computers, mobile phones and the developments that affect all of our lives whether Greenpeace nor any other institution.

"Changing the world as we know it" is the slogan of Greenpeace. We're (humanity) always at a certain place in time and development and from there we can go in a greener direction or in another. GP tries to steer in a greener direction, but we've got to deal with the situation as it is. Today Apple is the bad guy, tomorrow it's another, whoever it is Greenpeace will point it out.


RE: Saw this one coming...
By WackyDan on 4/5/2007 8:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, you should get your facts straight. Lenovo just opened it's new world HQ just outside of Raleigh, NC. That makes them US based and US corp taxed. They've been based in the US since the purchase of IBM's PC division.

They are also a publicly traded company.


RE: Saw this one coming...
By Ringold on 4/6/2007 5:46:35 PM , Rating: 1
The communist government has a 30% stake; not insignificant. The location of headquarters matters little; if the government could come up with the other 21% necessary for string-pulling, they know how to use a telephone and dial long distance.

Besides, the point, I think, was the irony, not details of voting shareholders, who pays taxes (or for their Chinese business operations, bribes), or whatever else.


I have to go off topic...
By daftrok on 4/5/2007 1:48:47 AM , Rating: 3
That is one of the funniest headline photos I've seen on DailyTech, next to the Mozilla Firefox eating the Internet Explorer icon.




RE: I have to go off topic...
By osalcido on 4/5/2007 5:17:42 AM , Rating: 3
You'd think Kristopher would have better things to do than fashioning Apples into crossbones


RE: I have to go off topic...
By dice1111 on 4/5/2007 9:16:36 AM , Rating: 2
What, like find news or spell/grammer check his articles? Bah, overrated.

Kristopher... I kid, I kid.


RE: I have to go off topic...
By nekobawt on 4/5/2007 4:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
"What's worse than finding a worm in your apple?"


does apple do business in europe?
By The Boston Dangler on 4/5/2007 12:51:09 AM , Rating: 2
if so, that would mean any hardware sold there must be rohs-compliant. would the use of the chemicals mentioned prevent rohs-compliance?
the EU pollution laws are are getting quite tough lately. the only reason we in the states have rohs equipment available is because companies find it efficient to cross-market the products, or US-destined products are produced in an all-rohs factory. otherwise, we would never get rid of the lead, mercury et cetera.




RE: does apple do business in europe?
By SiN on 4/5/2007 4:55:04 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe that's so, but its the most efficient thing to do to increase sales. Whats so bad about taking out the harmful materials anyway?

ROHS colmpliant factories would have been set up to meet EU demand. Its not just about your own shores anymore. I don't think that a US bound product would be manufactured under ROHS terms, it costs a little extra for the ROHS compliant meterials, and a corporate company would see that.

EU pollution laws are planned out on a timeline. They're not tough, they're forward thinking.

Did I mention I love the EU?


RE: does apple do business in europe?
By on 4/5/2007 1:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whats so bad about taking out the harmful materials anyway?


Most of the RoHS from an electronics device standpoint involves removing lead from solder. This is problematic because the solder then requires more tin content, which (1) needs higher heat to set and (2) has a tendency to grow tin "whiskers" as electrical pulses are sent across solder contacts, which will eventually touch each other and blow out your device(s).

The end result is more factory rejects at manufacturing, and more failures for the consumer during regular use. All this means more trash, which is never good for the environment, even if each piece is marginally "safer" once you start a cycle of throwing away dead elecronics every couple years or so.

Small devices like cell phones probably won't matter since they're replaced regularly anyway. But I hate to imagine what will happen with something like RoHS big screen HDTV's or things like backbone routers (or telephone switches) which cost more than my house and impact large numbers of people when they fail.


RE: does apple do business in europe?
By SiN on 4/5/2007 5:24:37 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe that's so, but its the most efficient thing to do to increase sales. Whats so bad about taking out the harmful materials anyway?

ROHS colmpliant factories would have been set up to meet EU demand. Its not just about your own shores anymore. I don't think that a US bound product would be manufactured under ROHS terms, it costs a little extra for the ROHS compliant meterials, and a corporate company would see that.

EU pollution laws are planned out on a timeline. They're not tough, they're forward thinking.

Did I mention I love the EU?


I Propose A Merger
By Ralph The Magician on 4/5/2007 10:38:57 AM , Rating: 5
Greenpeace should consider merging with PETA to form a new orginzation called Kill All Humans.




RE: I Propose A Merger
By derdon on 4/5/2007 5:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actually Greenpeace does condemn violence. It's members are supposed to stand off the use of violence or force. This is the #1 principle.
Rather, I find government bodies claiming peace and freedom more often in the position that kill humans.


Always nice to double-check reports..
By ElderBrE on 4/5/2007 4:58:08 AM , Rating: 2
Heh.. guess it would be nice to check another few "studies" to see where others stand..

http://www.epeat.net/
http://www.epeat.net/SearchResults.aspx?ProductTyp...

Interestingly enough, Apple is not doing so bad there..but what do I know?

Greenpeace seem fairly radical many times, or rather, be where they can make most noise instead of where priorities are.. what gives.




By rykerabel on 4/5/2007 3:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
that just shows individual products which Apple only has a few ranked silver while Dell and others have a whole lot ranked silver.

this also does not show whole enterprise wide green efforts.


upgrade
By Lazarus Dark on 4/5/2007 6:31:30 AM , Rating: 2
Well of course Apple creates the most tech waste, you have to buy a whole new computer every year and toss the old one in the garbage. No upgrades for mac-heads.

http://www.roosterteeth.com/archive/episode.php?id...




RE: upgrade
By LatinMessiah on 4/5/2007 12:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
Very good point.


Greenpeace, where's the credibility
By Flunk on 4/5/2007 11:00:52 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's prietty obvious that this is because Greenpeace was kicked out of MacWorld for harassing people attending the show.

I don't know why anyone listens to Greenpeace at all, it's a political organization that uses strongarm tactics to get what it wants no matter the cost. I think it's time that Greenpeace either evolves into a more modern environmental group by actually taking actions like cleaning up rivers, planting trees, fundraising to buy rainforest, etc.

Instead of useing scare tactics and fear mongering to try and advance their own agenda. Less talk, more action, no terrorism.




By LatinMessiah on 4/5/2007 12:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
I once saw a guy steal a large, exotic sea shell from a protected beach in California and a guy wearing a Greenpeace t-shirt just stood there and watched him stuff it into his jacket. The Greenpeace guy didn't do anything but smile.


By Wolfpup on 4/5/2007 9:41:56 AM , Rating: 3
I've been going back and forth between a Macbook Pro and a Dell, but this pushes me further towards the Dell.

Apple needs to get their act together. Especially given how expensive their hardware is, and their image. You'd think they'd be one of the FIRST to try to improve things.

Then again, this is the company that makes tons of electronics with (essentially) sealed battery systems...




Lawsuits
By stromgald on 4/5/2007 12:18:44 PM , Rating: 3
I think I smell a lawsuit coming. I'd give a 1 in 4 chance that it'll be initiated by the EU. 1 in 2 odds that it'll be a nut like the one suing MSFT for 'misleading' advertising by saying a machine is "Vista capable". Probably against Apple or Sony for the "double-speak".




And they decided this how?
By rcc on 4/5/2007 2:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
For some reason I have an image in my mind of Greenpeace evaluator with a Chinese government fact sheet in hand explaining how the cases on their products are made from recycled corn stalks.

The point being, where did the data come from on Lenovo? We've acertained that the company is controlled by the Chinese government, an organization well know for covering up information that is not in their best interests.




By Bruno Dexter on 4/5/2007 9:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
disclosure: While I have worked for Apple in the past, nothing I post should be deemed as official Apple Policy.
1st - Do yourself a favor and actually read the GP report in full (it is 38 pg PDF - almost all charts).
If you actually research the topic you will see the scoring and methodolgy used is shaky if not outright shady.
In fact, based on the ratings there is more point bias toward simply saying the right things as opposed to NOT shipping potentially hazardous material.
The two physical compounds that GP highlights are PVC and BFR. Both are used in the manufacture of electronics and computers. Either can be found in your laptop, gameboy, cell phone etc.
Hi GP ranking company Lenovo ships machines with these compounds (and probably significantly more in actual weight) as does Apple, Dell, and Sony.The use is AN INDUSTRY STANDARD. Even green company BODYSHOP ships products with these compounds.
Apple gets really dinged for NOT PAYING lipservice. It is official policy that Apple intends to phase out the use of those compounds when a suitable replacement is developed. What Apple does not do is state an official deadline.
High GP ranking companies have committed to a firm date for phase out of the material, but as there are few viable replacement materials, there is doubt as to if those deadlines can actually be met.
The other hot issue for GP is recycling. FYI, Both loser Apple and winner Lenovo use the same exact program for battery recycling. Both offer CPU recycling and Apple will recycle iPods free of charge. In short, there is very little actually seperating the winner from the loser, but you have to actually read the report and then actually research each company to make heads or tails of GP's report.
GP's methodology seems biased and several of their standards seem very ambiguous and poorly conceived. I'd like to see a third party do some fact checking on this report. Because as it stands, that report is biased and I believe was designed for public relations reasons and not for the public good.




By Sharky974 on 4/6/2007 3:21:08 AM , Rating: 2
Greanpeace=PC
Apple=PC

So great to see the sparks fly..

It'd be like if Apple and Nintendo had a war..




Let me get this straight
By James Holden on 4/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Let me get this straight
By aurareturn on 4/5/2007 12:50:30 AM , Rating: 4
Look at why they were kicked out in the first place then you make a comment on the issue.


RE: Let me get this straight
By James Holden on 4/5/2007 1:29:17 AM , Rating: 2
The official rap is that they got kicked out for photographing without permission. Priceless.


RE: Let me get this straight
By Bonrock on 4/5/2007 2:22:39 AM , Rating: 5
Greenpeace was kicked out of the Apple tradeshow because they were handing out information about Apple's poor environmental track record.

This DailyTech article makes it sounds like Greenpeace gave Apple its lowest environmental ranking in retaliation for being kicked out of the tradeshow, but that's not true at all. Greenpeace's criticism of Apple's environmental record is precisely why they were kicked out in the first place.


RE: Let me get this straight
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 10:09:28 AM , Rating: 1
Greenpeace's record is pretty clear. They target a company, make a lot of noise, then, after the company pledges to make a few changes and (most importantly) makes a fat contribution to the cause, they move on to their next victim. Apple simply refused to play ball, is all.


RE: Let me get this straight
By HilbertSpace on 4/5/2007 11:54:36 AM , Rating: 2
Greenpeace is at least attempting to be upfront about where they get funding from:

"Greenpeace does not solicit or accept funding from governments, corporations or political parties. Greenpeace neither seeks nor accepts donations that could compromise our independence, aims, objectives or integrity. Our campaigns are funded by the generosity of individuals and grant support from foundations."

that's from their website.

So unless Apple gives money to a foundation that then gives it to greenpeace - they aren't trying to get money out of Apple.

If their goal is to get Apple to give money to conservation efforts then I applaud that - and would hope that more groups would attempt to do the same thing.


RE: Let me get this straight
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 12:37:54 PM , Rating: 3
You should read one of the many interviews with Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore, who points out many of the ways the organization is today working against the environment, in support of its own radical political agenda.

Things like campaigning against nuclear power-- which keeps dirty coal plants in existence. Or the use of DDT, which has caused the deaths of millions of people worldwide due to the resurgence of malaria. Or campaigning against GE foods, though they drastically reduce the need for pesticides. Or campaigning against wood products, which lowers investment in managed forests, leading to less tree growth. Or the Alar scare, which cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars and caused many people to eat less fresh fruits and vegetables for months.


RE: Let me get this straight
By HilbertSpace on 4/5/2007 2:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, I took 15 minutes and read an article Patrick Moore wrote about the current status of the environmental movement.

I don't disagree with any of the issues you raise, but Greenpeace even in its "extremism" may at times get something right. And on this topic I think they have - namely that hazardous chemicals should be eliminated from electronic goods.

I've personally spent time with people who sort through our crap (Al Muqattam in Cairo). Anything we can do to help out should be done.


RE: Let me get this straight
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 2:36:16 PM , Rating: 3
> "namely that hazardous chemicals should be eliminated from electronic goods..."

ALL chemicals and elements- are hazardous. Even water itself, and all the other millions of chemicals found in your own body. The concentration and level determines whether its safe or not. Tiny amounts of lead in electronic equipment aren't bad for the environment or a risk to public health. In fact, as another poster points out, its actually better for the environment, as it allows for more reliable equipment,and thus less waste.

Greenpeace is, once again, wholly off base.


RE: Let me get this straight
By derdon on 4/5/2007 4:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
GE foods actually don't reduce the need for pesticides, they make the plants more resistant against heavier pesticides. The farmers then use it and cause great damage to the soil which of course is not resistant to the pesticides. And they use it on rainforest ground knowing well that the soil is not suitable for farming after 3 years already and any damage done that way, ergo isn't causing any harm... except that they've destroyed a whole ecosystem of insects and bacteria that are vital to the soil and that there will ever grow something again.
And nuclear power and coal power are both campaigned against.

Your hatred for environmental organizations or any thinking in this direction is pretty tasteless. Maybe if you start thinking about the development in this world you'll realize that more care and understanding for our environment will be a key factor for our sustained development on this planet. Besides, your own political agenda that you spread on these forums is full of radical views.


RE: Let me get this straight
By Cogman on 4/5/2007 5:38:58 PM , Rating: 1
"GE foods actually don't reduce the need for pesticides, they make the plants more resistant against heavier pesticides."

Thats just wrong. GE foods (Genetically Engineered) do whatever they are engineered to do (usually). If the research is put into making a type of food resistant to some disease caused by a bug, then yes, it would reduce the amount of pesticides needed. Where are you getting this 3 year number anyways, and how does it apply to what you are saying?

"And nuclear power and coal power are both campaigned against."
Yes, but coal power is not campaigned against nearly as much as nuclear power was. When was the last time you heard about Greenpeace camping out in front of a coal plant to try and shut it down? Nuclear power is dying in the us mostly because of ignorance and stupidity that is only perpetuated by retarded organizations like Greenpeace. The fact of the matter is, Nuclear plant use a LOT less resources, produce a LOT less waist, produce a LOT more power, and overall have a LOT smaller environmental footprint. Again, the only reason it is not flurishing is because of dumb people playing on the fears of the uneducated (Oh NO! Im going to start glowing green from the toxic waste that Nuclear power plants dump into my drinking water!)

"Your hatred for environmental organizations or any thinking in this direction is pretty tasteless."
Honestly, the only reason I hate environmental organizations and people that support them is because they are not making things better and ultimately cost us more money to fund. The people join them are usually ignorant about the very things they protest.

The very thing that you tell the OP to do is what I would encourage every environmentalist to do, that is to start thinking about developments that are made, and understand that more research into it will only benefit mankind. Rather then just blindly attacking any new innovation with the claim that "It will be the death of us!", where as if they would just let it travel its course, the end result will be higher efficiency and friendlier technology (I believe we would have fusion, which produces NO radioactive material, had it not been for our friends without foresight that hampered the Fission projects)


RE: Let me get this straight
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 5:43:41 PM , Rating: 1
> "(I believe we would have fusion, which produces NO radioactive material, had it not been for our friends without foresight that hampered the Fission projects) "

Just as an FYI, we have fission reactor designs which are are radiologically clean as as a D-T fusion-based reactor would be...designs we could build today, with no more research required. Will we ever build one? Not if the environmentalists get their way.


RE: Let me get this straight
By derdon on 4/5/2007 9:06:20 PM , Rating: 3
Fairy tales... the same as your Thorium nuclear plants... I googled it up and even pro nuclear sources such as nuclear-info.org claimed that there was still a lot of research to go into before making them commercially attractive... Indians have two reactors that uses it partly but it's all experimental...


RE: Let me get this straight
By masher2 (blog) on 4/6/2007 12:26:01 AM , Rating: 1
Believe it or not, you can't become an expert on nuclear physics through a few minutes googling. Thorium-based reactors are practical today. Rubbia's "energy amplifier" is one such design for which construction could start immediately, and it generates a tiny fraction of the radioactive waste as a normal fission plant....or about as much as a fusion reactor would. Furthermore, the "Rubbiatron" has the ability to burn the radioactive wastes of conventional plants.


RE: Let me get this straight
By James Holden on 4/13/2007 12:26:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Believe it or not, you can't become an expert on nuclear physics through a few minutes googling."


One more quote to the Wall-o-Masher in my cubicle at work tomorrow.


RE: Let me get this straight
By derdon on 4/5/2007 9:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
No it's not wrong. A big part of GE research goes into making plants more resistant, especially to pesticides. So that they can spray them over the plants without hurting the plants but just the bugs.
And well this is good in theory, because the pesticides leave the plant unharmed and kill all the bugs. However as a side effect they also kill most of the micro-living in the soil and that's a pretty bad thing!

It is well known that rainforest soil is fertile for only a few number of years. I forgot the actual number, but I believe it was around 3 years that you can hope to farm the soil. Typically you'd get best results after the first and second year, then numbers start to drop. This is one reason why they constantly need to cut down new areas of the rainforest. The right thing to do would be to let the forest grow back again, but that requires about 12 years (IIRC) and is almost impossible when you kill all live therein with heavy pesticides.

"Yes, but coal power is not campaigned against nearly as much as nuclear power was. When was the last time you heard about Greenpeace camping out in front of a coal plant to try and shut it down?"

Coal power is constantly campaigned against. It's hard to make news these days with just a factory occupation. On a side note, Greenpeace will never shut a plant down! They sometimes block it temporarily (half a day or one day, depending on how fast the police is able to remove them) so that work cannot continue as usual and only in a limited manner, but it's an impossible thing that they'd touch the controls! Contrary to how people portray the organization, they're not eco-terrorists. Remember that peacefulness is the #1 principle in all Greenpeace actions. This is a very strict rule and anyone that violates this will be thrown out immediately!
Anyway, just searching for Greenpeace and "Kohlekraftwerk" which is german for coal power plant reveals a lot of the protest that they're doing. Here's one from December 2005 where they protested for three days at a coal plant in Thailand. You need to understand german to read it though (or search for it in english):
http://www.greenpeace.de/themen/klima/nachrichten/...

"Honestly, the only reason I hate environmental organizations and people that support them is because they are not making things better and ultimately cost us more money to fund."

I think you know very little about these organizations and how they work.


RE: Let me get this straight
By Cogman on 4/6/2007 2:01:10 AM , Rating: 2
"And well this is good in theory, because the pesticides leave the plant unharmed and kill all the bugs. However as a side effect they also kill most of the micro-living in the soil and that's a pretty bad thing!"

Well first thing about that, when speaking about microbiology, how long do you think it takes for it to restore itself to its former glory? Honestly Micro-organisms don't exactly take years to rebuild, especially if there is no competition for food. You would have problems with the soil needing to be washed of the pesticides, but that won't exactly be a 1000 year destruction of the soil, more like 10 at the most.

"Greenpeace will never shut a plant down!"

I agree 100% with that statement, they will never shut a coal plant down, and that is because they are too busy attacking good alternatives and promoting crappy ones. You cant stop a coal plant by simply lobbying against it, you have to provide a viable solution that will replace it. Nuclear power was just that, but they did a good job at attacking that.

The other thing they do a good job of is promoting fake "Clean" energy. Solar power, for example, for someone that doesn't know a whole lot about what goes into making a solar cell it sound great. As far as I've heard, though, the production of a solar plant puts out more toxic chemicals then that of a coal plant.

How about the promotion of Wind power? I have to admit that is definitely a lucrative suggestion for power (that is, if you are going crazy about killing some birds). But how reliable is it? Does the wind always blow? The answer is no, the wind is not always blowing, and for the matter the sun is not always shining. For someone running a hospital that is a wonderful situation to have when life support is running "Quick bill, get your flash light out, it looks as if the clouds are coming. Don't worry Ted, we may have had near misses in the past, but these flashlights have saved over 10 people"

"I think you know very little about these organizations and how they work."

I know enough about the agencies, I know that they wont let us bury a fiber optic cable under a small stream because the dirt kicked up might kill a snail. Of course if we pay them enough money then it doesn't matter (EPA gotta love them). I also know that they promote a way of living that is near impossible to accomplish without giving any viable methods to achieve such living. I know that they simply do not do what they advertise.

Don't get me wrong, if they would start spending less funds on protesting Nuclear plants and more of their funds on developing Energy efficient lightbulbs, washers, TV's, or cars. then I would have a higher opinion about them. If they didn't rely so much on scare tactics and guilt trips, rather focused on positive methods of encouraging cleaner living, then I wouldn't dislike them so much. But that is not the case.

Again, to set the record straight, I love energy efficient things and technologies, I think that more companies should put effort into developing such things. That, however, is not the message that a lot of these environmental organizations put across.


RE: Let me get this straight
By derdon on 4/6/2007 4:59:33 AM , Rating: 2
"Honestly Micro-organisms don't exactly take years to rebuild, especially if there is no competition for food. You would have problems with the soil needing to be washed of the pesticides, but that won't exactly be a 1000 year destruction of the soil, more like 10 at the most."

Do you know this or are you just speculating? Do you really have any idea on how serious this is!?

"How about the promotion of Wind power? I have to admit that is definitely a lucrative suggestion for power (that is, if you are going crazy about killing some birds)."

Yeah sure, suddenly when wind power becomes a topic all those that oppose environmentalism suddenly become bird lovers... A coal plant kills a lot of animals and a nuclear plant as well just because they require quite a plot of land to build on. I do know that birds get killed, but I realize that no technology will ever be perfect. Wind power is near perfect though, besides the numbers of killed birds are exaggerated. I bet there get killed more by huge modern buildings and their extensive use of glass.

"I know enough about the agencies, I know that they wont let us bury a fiber optic cable under a small stream because the dirt kicked up might kill a snail."

Nothing but rhetorics...

"I also know that they promote a way of living that is near impossible to accomplish without giving any viable methods to achieve such living. I know that they simply do not do what they advertise."

You would be surprised to find out that the way of living of a large part of the world is substantially lower than your standards. Generally, it IS possible, but certainly not admirable. But the way it is, if everyone on earth lives like the US, there would be more than 3 worlds needed to provide all the resources. GP is advocating to reduce the resource hunger. It's members are also much more aware of this, use public transport more often and try to save energy where the general public doesn't care so much. Believe me if only half the population tried to do just half like they we'd be able to live without a lot less plants already and from there we could go on and further.

"Don't get me wrong, if they would start spending less funds on protesting Nuclear plants and more of their funds on developing Energy efficient lightbulbs, washers, TV's, or cars. then I would have a higher opinion about them."

This shows how little you actually know. Greenpeace was the organization that started the development of the CFC-free fridge in 1992, when everybody else said it wouldn't be possible to do one. Read about it "greenfreeze"

"Again, to set the record straight, I love energy efficient things and technologies, I think that more companies should put effort into developing such things. That, however, is not the message that a lot of these environmental organizations put across."

These organizations often point out companies that do not and try to get them at starting with the process. Like with Apple and the computer manufacturing industry in this case.


RE: Let me get this straight
By masher2 (blog) on 4/6/2007 10:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
> "You would be surprised to find out that the way of living of a large part of the world is substantially lower than your standards"

And now we come to the REAL goal of hardcore environmentalists. It takes a while to come out, but it always does-- "lower your standard of living". I don't want to lower my standard, I want to raise it. For myself and my children both.

Environmentalism needs to return to its roots of clean air and water, and stop mucking about in neosocialist nonsense. A rising standard of living is a good thing. Stop campaigning against it.


RE: Let me get this straight
By derdon on 4/6/2007 3:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
You misunderstood environmentalism, because actually it aims at rising standards and not lowering them. It's just that we probably disagree about what constitutes such a rise. For me, being able to walk around in a nice neighborhood, having green instead of concrete next to me, clean air to breathe and healthy food to eat are things that rise my standard.
And wow, what a rise that is! I know that's a lot that I demand and there's the big question if it is even possible?
So I want to make progress in this direction, to make it happen and not having to live in a crappy and dangerous suburb, but with a 100cm Plasma TV and two SUVs in the backyard (to illustrate my point). But of course the current one is easier to achieve as it only depends on ME and MY efforts. Getting people to form a nice and friendly suburb is something that depends on everyone, hence we need to do it together.

Environmentalists are often misunderstood as people that are proclaiming "back to the roots", which I admit, some might do (for romantic reasons though), but when I look at me or Greenpeace, what we actually need to do is make a lot of progress to get to the point where we can have the things that I described on a large scale. And this is exactly the big challenge, the rising scale, population growth and then trying to increase the standard for everybody. If we again take the example of cars and traffic. Driving a car is easy and a comfortable thing with few fellows on the road but a pain in the ass if the street is full because of a traffic jam. What to do? Increase road size? How far before you say no?
For me, the solution can only be a shift to different standards and different values as we're eventually going to get stuck with the current ones. And again this is not making steps backward, but making progress, socially, economically, scientifically... well on all fronts!
Okay I'll stop now.


RE: Let me get this straight
By Cogman on 4/6/2007 11:59:55 AM , Rating: 2
"Do you know this or are you just speculating? Do you really have any idea on how serious this is!?"

I think I could ask you the same thing, What the heck do you know about microbiology? Do you realize how fast it is able to reproduce and grow? This is like basic biology, you know where you take a petri dish full of food, rub a tiny bit of sweat off of your foot and Walla, in 1-2 weeks the entire petri dish is covered with mold and bacteria. Unlike animals, Bacteria takes very small periods of time to replicate, and when it is uncontested (Enough food is available and no other bacteria is attacking it) it grows like wildfire. Yes sir, I do know what Im talking about. If you want to get the same system of bacteria living in the same soil, you just take a small amount of soil from the same area and spread it over the field. I will concede that there will be some differences because the shading from the trees is gone, but please, its not "OMG never going to be better again!".

"Yeah sure, suddenly when wind power becomes a topic all those that oppose environmentalism suddenly become bird lovers..."

Sorry, that was a typo on my behalf, I meant to say if "...you arn't going crazy about killing some birds ..." Sadly that is exactly what happens as well, environmentalists go crazy of dieing birds and just like in every situation they attack, they use "...are exaggerated." If you took a step back you would realize that is a common tactic, bluting out some scary sounding numbers and saying "Change or DIE!!!" lol, again it is those kind of tactics that make envior

"Nothing but rhetorics..."

No, my dear friend, that is policy. This isn't some company that I heard about, this is the local company in my local town. The boss of which I know quite well. I would bet you a large sum of money that if Apple had dumped x millions of dollars into environmental research or campaigns their score would magically be elevated.

"But the way it is, if everyone on earth lives like the US, there would be more than 3 worlds needed to provide all the resources."

I have heard this garbage before. Where the crap do they get statistics like this? Is it from the same place they pulled the "In the year 1990, the earth will run out of oil and we will have to start using a new type of fuel". News flash, its the year 2007, Oil consumption never went down in those years (in fact it increased at about the same rate it always has) and we still have a large amount of oil left on this planet. Of course, I think current predictions are like 2020 or something like that when we will run out of fuel again. This is nothing more then fear mongering.

"the CFC-free fridge in 1992"

WTF? Did you not read what I was talking about? That is not a more energy efficient refrigerator, just a more expencive one. In my eyes they acomplished very little with that. Oh wait, they saved the Ozone layer. BTW tell me, how is it doing now? You don't hear much about that, expecially since their research was discovered to be completly off base when the Ozone layer magically repaired itself...

Ultimately a lot of people would suffer given Greenpeace's standards (btw, you speak as an Active member of green peace, would that assumption be correct?). Currently I live in rural Idaho, not a place like most of the European nations where public transport can thrive. (In fact, most of the US is in similar situations). for a small town a car is essential for living, you kill off the small towns and you effectively kill off a lot of your farming population (Oh, but wait, that would stop the nasty energy inefficient tractors from running). If green peace had its way, everyone would have to ride a bus to where-ever, small towns would just be SOL because you couldn't justify an extensive bus system to them (even in england that was the case, small towns simply suffer). But that doesn't matter, when it comes right down to it, people and their lives don't matter to people like Greenpeace, what really matters is that we are saving the environment.


RE: Let me get this straight
By derdon on 4/6/2007 3:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
I have heard this garbage before. Where the crap do they get statistics like this? Is it from the same place they pulled the "In the year 1990, the earth will run out of oil and we will have to start using a new type of fuel"

No, it's a model called ecological footprint. You can read more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint
I don't say it's perfect, but it's studied scientifically and as all things in science subject to criticism. It's a model that's gaining ground and thought. I'm sure you'll be hearing more about this in the future.

"WTF? Did you not read what I was talking about? That is not a more energy efficient refrigerator, just a more expencive one. In my eyes they acomplished very little with that. Oh wait, they saved the Ozone layer."

Saving the ozone layer means saving people from skin cancer and other related diseases. The technology was quite a success and is one proof that environmental organization don't just sit there and protest. It's still just one step on the way.

"you don't hear much about that, expecially since their research was discovered to be completly off base when the Ozone layer magically repaired itself..."

The ozone hole's size almost set a new record in 2006
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

I feel different about the rest of the more emotional parts of what you said, but we could probably argue about this for a long time and still not come to a conclusion, so I'll just leave it at this.


RE: Let me get this straight
By derdon on 4/5/2007 4:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
That is complete and utter nonsense


F*** greenpeace
By otispunkmeyer on 4/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: F*** greenpeace
By Wonga on 4/5/2007 5:06:33 AM , Rating: 5
You really haven't thought much about this. Perhaps life was much better before we had environmental regulations full stop, hey? :/

It takes the likes of Greenpeace to point out when some companies are particuarly sub-standard. They're not stopping you buying a laptop, but they are saying Apple's envrinmental record stinks, and they said the same long before they were chucked out of Apple's little trade show.

Whether you believe in global warming or anything else, the crux of the matter is that some stuff in the world is bad for us, some shouldn't be landfilled, some shouldn't be pumped into the atmosphere and some shouldn't be dumped in a river. Fortunately every developed countries government recognises this basic principle and implements measure to help you and Jeremy Clarkson live long happy lives becuase of it.


RE: F*** greenpeace
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 10:06:26 AM , Rating: 5
> "[Greenpeace isn't] stopping you buying a laptop..."

Only because the majority of their legislative proposals haven't yet been implemented.

> "Perhaps life was much better before we had environmental regulations full stop, hey?"

Ask any of the millions of people put out of work and/or bankrupted by phony environmental scares propagated by Greenpeace or other environmental groups.

Certainly in the 1960s, we needed environmental legistlation...and we got it. But the cleaner our land and air gets, the more shrill these groups become. They've become self-perpetuating entities, clinging to ever-more ridiculous causes, simply to justify their own existence. Which explains why Greenpeace's original founder quit the group in disgust, proclaiming them as being less interested in environmental good, than in enforcing their anti-capitalist, pro-socialistic agenda.


RE: F*** greenpeace
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/5/2007 10:14:49 AM , Rating: 4
If I remember correctly the majority of the American Communist party merged in with the environmental groups because it was easier to forward their agenda. Or atleast so they say.

Communism = Bad.
Environmental = Good.

Therefore, the same message can look better. Even though its still the same steaming pile of S***.

'nuff said.

Ah, the simplicity of it all.....


RE: F*** greenpeace
By derdon on 4/5/2007 5:00:52 PM , Rating: 1
I doubt you know anything about what you say.
The only political agenda of Greenpeace is: Peacefulness. I highly doubt many consider communist governments peaceful and so I can't really come to the same conclusions. But if you think that Greenpeace is underrun by communists, why don't you talk to some of the members and find it out for yourself?


RE: F*** greenpeace
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 5:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
Its a fact that the Dutch Communist Party disbanded and merged into GreenLeft. When they did so, they publicly stated the reason was that they could more effectively work their goals through the environmentalist movement.

The OP had the country wrong, but otherwise his facts were correct.


RE: F*** greenpeace
By derdon on 4/5/2007 9:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
Bullshit, Greenpeace doesn't work together with politicians and is not even keen to do so. It is funded exclusively by private individuals and there are several certificates that proof and watch over this funding process.
If any of these parties wants to underrun environmental movements, Greenpeace is the last one that they would have success with.


RE: F*** greenpeace
By masher2 (blog) on 4/6/2007 12:29:51 AM , Rating: 2
Can you not read? GreenLeft is not Greenpeace. Two wholly separate entities. The Dutch Communist Party merged with GreenLeft, a "Green" political party.


RE: F*** greenpeace
By derdon on 4/6/2007 5:01:58 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but we were talking about environmental NGOs. Green political parties are to be treated and trusted like any other political party basically. I am trying to save the reputation of the NGOs like Greenpeace when all get thrown into one pot of bad people (eco-terrorists and whatnot) here.


RE: F*** greenpeace
By masher2 (blog) on 4/6/2007 10:54:46 AM , Rating: 2
Greenpeace has a long history of playing fast and loose with facts to dramatize their stories...stories that often wind up inciting violence.

As example, take a look at their action against Shell Oil, when the company attempted to sink their Brent Spar platform. Greenpeace refused believe scientific reports showing this was the most environmentally sound method of disposing of the platform, falsely claimed the platform had over 100 times as much oil in it as really did, and incited a storm of public protest which resulted in over 50 attacks on Shell gas stations (including two which were burned to the ground), and numerous attacks on Shell employees. All in all, the violence cost over a quarter of a BILLION dollars.

All for what? To force Shell to take an action which ultimately was harmful for the environment.

This is just one countles examples. Greenpeace has no credibility at all, not to anyone with their eyes open.


RE: F*** greenpeace
By derdon on 4/6/2007 3:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
Greenpeace is not responsible for actions of other people and it has not called people to conduct such shameful attacks.

Also, "scientific reports" may sound objective as a term, but in reality, when I don't know where this "scientific report" is originating from, I can't really draw any conclusions.


RE: F*** greenpeace
By hlper on 4/5/2007 10:11:19 AM , Rating: 2
Well said.

I agree with most of your assessment of organizations like Greenpeace, and their ability to bring issues like this to the public's attention. However, I would like to add that Greenpeace is at the extreme end of the environmentalist spectrum. Their members have a history of being willing to do or say whatever they deem necessary to further their agenda and it is unlikely they could honestly report the full story.

My point is that we still need to consider the source before we completely condemn Apple.


RE: F*** greenpeace
By derdon on 4/5/2007 5:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to know more about the "history of being willing to do or say whatever they deem necessary to further their agenda". In any case I'd also like to know how Apple or any other company is free of this.

Doubting, is of course always a good thing to do and I hope you are able to make up your own mind by staying informed about the topic.


RE: F*** greenpeace
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 5:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "However, I would like to add that Greenpeace is at the extreme end of the environmentalist spectrum"

Greenpeace isn't at the extreme end by a long shot. Organizations like Earth First! and its even-more-radical offshoots are well beyond it.


Greenpeace=annoying
By Nik00117 on 4/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Greenpeace=annoying
By Spartan Niner on 4/5/2007 2:03:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fanboys annoy me.


Fixed.


RE: Greenpeace=annoying
By borowki on 4/5/2007 4:58:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, a cheer to Apple for standing up to them eco-fascists. Doesn't surprise me that a company owned by totalitarian regime is most compliant.


RE: Greenpeace=annoying
By osalcido on 4/5/2007 5:15:46 AM , Rating: 2
You're joking, right? I almost fell out of my chair after reading your post


RE: Greenpeace=annoying
By Schadenfroh on 4/5/2007 8:18:16 AM , Rating: 2
How much of Lenovo does the Chinese government own? I think you can buy their stock and I know IBM owns a chunk of them.


RE: Greenpeace=annoying
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 10:16:31 AM , Rating: 2
The Chinese government owns 95% of Legend holding, which itself owns a 41% share in Lenovo, enough to control it utterly. There are also a few large blocks of Lenovo stock held by Chinese-based investment firms, which are thought to also be owned indirectly by the Chinese government.


RE: Greenpeace=annoying
By James Holden on 4/5/2007 11:00:37 AM , Rating: 2
Hi Masher,

I think you're off by a few percentages here and there:

http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2962


RE: Greenpeace=annoying
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 11:11:04 AM , Rating: 2
I was working from memory....The 41% figure is correct (actually, 41.3% by the most current data I can find). The 95% figure should indeed be 65% -- but that doesn't change the fact that the Chinese government, through its majority stake in Legend, controls Lenovo.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Related Articles
Apple Ranked Lowest on Environmental Care
December 7, 2006, 3:57 PM
Greenpeace Gets Ejected From MacExpo
October 26, 2006, 10:20 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki