backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by mvpx02.. on Dec 3 at 2:36 PM


Greenpeace is not impressed by the claims of Apple CEO Steve Jobs that his MacBooks are "the greenest line of notebooks" in the country.  (Source: Apple)
Worker harder, Jobs, if you want our lovin' say ecoactivists

Every season seems to bring new claims by Cupertino's Apple Corp. of its leaps-and-bounds advances in being more environmentally friendly.  And every season brings a scathing report from Greenpeace on how far the company has yet to grow.

Perhaps Steve Jobs and company were tempting fate when Apple announced in a recent series of ads that the MacBooks were "the world's greenest family of notebooks", referencing their power saving use of Intel processors and their halogen and plastic free construction.  Unsurprisingly, Greenpeace was there to punch a hole in Apple's dreams as it delivered its environmental report card full of less-than-glowing things to say about Apple's big claims.

While Apple deserves credit for eliminating brominated flame-retardants (BFRs) and other toxic plastics and managing relatively low power consumption, Greenpeace says the company's lack of providing a timeline in phasing out other potentially harmful compounds used in the laptops and their production is one of its key problems.  Another significant shortcoming is Apple's failure to create environmental impact reports and tackle the problem of tech trash, it states.

Greenpeace gives Apple a failing rating -- 4.3 out of 10 (PDF).  Writes Greenpeace, "[Apple]needs to commit to phasing out additional substances with timelines, improve its policy on chemicals and its reporting on chemicals management."

Apple's spokesperson declined to comment on the criticism, saying merely that customers should check out the "Apple and the Environment" section of the company's website if they want information on the company's environmental policy.



Comments     Threshold


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

Still a step in the right direction
By bravacentauri83 on 12/1/2008 12:30:34 AM , Rating: 4
While the choice in advertising slogans can be misleading, Apple "appears" to be making an effort to create environmentally friendly products and most likely reduce its carbon footprint. The company can't change everything overnight due to the course of business. It still has a long way to go.




RE: Still a step in the right direction
By dcalfine on 12/1/2008 12:42:23 AM , Rating: 2
I understand that Apple still hasn't reached true green, but the new laptops are EPEAT Gold, along with two dozen or so others. Greenpeace fails to mention which laptops are more green than the new MacBooks.


RE: Still a step in the right direction
By toyotabedzrock on 12/1/2008 1:40:05 AM , Rating: 2
Any netbook is more green.

Also they claim they are the first to remove the hazardous compounds when they are well behind most computer makers.


RE: Still a step in the right direction
By headbox on 12/1/2008 1:46:32 AM , Rating: 5
Give specific examples when you make claims like that.

Greenpeace won't be happy until computers are made out of hemp.


RE: Still a step in the right direction
By dcalfine on 12/1/2008 2:08:43 AM , Rating: 2
My thoughts exactly.

If Apple happens to be fibbing a tad in its marketing campaign, it certainly wouldn't be the first time. But please be specific with comments that suggest that Apple's claims are false and that other manufacturers are ahead. I'm not saying that such claims are wrong, I just would like to see some proof.

There are 103 notebooks that reach the EPEAT Gold standard. Apple's recent additions are certainly welcome.


RE: Still a step in the right direction
By dcalfine on 12/1/2008 2:16:17 AM , Rating: 2
Also, based on Greenpeace's guide, it seems what's really holding Apple back is the iPod line, whereas the new laptops meet standards.


By paydirt on 12/1/2008 9:07:38 AM , Rating: 5
Apple doesn't care about facts when they advertise. I think that is very clear by now. It's all about innuendo.


RE: Still a step in the right direction
By quiksilvr on 12/1/2008 2:13:19 AM , Rating: 3
LOL, hemp. That's like making a laptop out of wood, and I know no one is THAT stupid as to--

http://www.theinquirer.it/wp-content/uploads/2008/...

uhh...dammit.


By AnnihilatorX on 12/1/2008 8:48:48 AM , Rating: 2
I am working at a computer that can photosythesize. Algae seems to be happy working at the water cooling department.


RE: Still a step in the right direction
By Frank M on 12/1/2008 8:46:37 AM , Rating: 4
LENOVO Ranking = 8/10
NOKIA Ranking = 7.3/10
SONY ERICSSON Ranking = 7.0/10
DELL Ranking = 7/10
SAMSUNG Ranking = 6.3/10
MOTOROLA Ranking = 6.3 /10
FUJITSU-SIEMENS Ranking = 6/10
HP Ranking = 5.6/10
ACER Ranking = 5.3/10
TOSHIBA Ranking = 4.3/10
SONY Ranking = 4.0/10
LG ELECTRONICS Ranking = 3.6/10
PANASONIC Ranking = 3.6/10
APPLE Ranking = 2.7/10


RE: Still a step in the right direction
By VaultDweller on 12/1/2008 8:55:07 AM , Rating: 2
So then where does the article's figure of 4.3/10 for Apple come from?


RE: Still a step in the right direction
By Frank M on 12/1/2008 9:38:25 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure, typo, I'd guess. It's all in the easily linked source document. This isn't rocket science.


RE: Still a step in the right direction
By Frank M on 12/1/2008 9:42:46 AM , Rating: 2
Oops, my mistake, they linked to 2007's doccument, but not this year's.


RE: Still a step in the right direction
By Frank M on 12/1/2008 9:51:32 AM , Rating: 3
Here's a link to this year's report: http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/internationa...

NOKIA Ranking = 6.9/10
SONY ERICSSON Ranking = 5.9/10
TOSHIBA Ranking = 5.9/10
SAMSUNG Ranking = 5.9/10
FUJITSU-SIEMENS Ranking = 5.7/10
LG ELECTRONICS Ranking = 5.7/10
MOTOROLA Ranking = 5.3/10
SONY Ranking = 5.3/10
PANASONIC Ranking = 5.1/10
SHARP Ranking = 4.9/10
ACER Ranking = 4.7/10
DELL Ranking = 4.7/10
HP Ranking = 4.5/10
APPLE Ranking = 4.3/10


By foolsgambit11 on 12/1/2008 8:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
So... did everybody else suddenly start doing worse this year, or did Greenpeace make their grading harder? Because Sony Ericsson lost like, a whole point, Nokia lost a half a point, etc. Lenovo went from nearly 8 to under 4. Geez, they obviously made a bad 'green' choice. Haha, Microsoft got a 2.9.

I see there are additional criteria on this report card that weren't there for the March '07 report card. That must be what's up.


RE: Still a step in the right direction
By soydios on 12/1/2008 1:54:47 AM , Rating: 4
A netbook with toxic plastics and a mercury-containing flourescent lamp illuminating the screen would probably be less green than the new MacBooks.

I don't like a lot of Apple's ads for this reason: they declare something, as if to say "behold, it is good because we say so", and never give any supporting facts. Perhaps that applies to advertising in general, as well.


By sprockkets on 12/1/2008 1:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
Most netbooks came with LED backlights to help with battery life and size to begin with. If anything, Apple was the last major brand to use LED, and while the time lag isn't worth harping about, they usually do use those kind of advanced features faster than most brands, due to their premium nature.


RE: Still a step in the right direction
By VaultDweller on 12/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: Still a step in the right direction
By Frank M on 12/1/2008 8:35:08 AM , Rating: 2
They do that, you just didn't bother to read the report, or even glance at it. Lenovo, as usual, tops the chart.
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/internationa...


By foolsgambit11 on 12/1/2008 8:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
That's the old report. Look around on this conversation for the new report. Lenovo is like, 2nd to last, with a grade under 4 in the new report.


RE: Still a step in the right direction
By Frank M on 12/1/2008 8:33:41 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, they do, if you bother to read their report. Lenovo scores at the top.

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/internationa...


RE: Still a step in the right direction
By VaultDweller on 12/1/2008 9:00:04 AM , Rating: 1
Well, I guess Greenpeace has done their job then.

Silly me for assuming that the article would include such information if available, being that it's the whole point of the piece. At least the article could suggest that other companies were included in this report. From reading the article, you'd think it was an Apple-only review as there is absolutely no mention of any parties other than Apple or Greenpeace.


RE: Still a step in the right direction
By HinderedHindsight on 12/1/2008 9:34:20 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps a reading of the article might lead one to believe that no consideration was taken with other manufacturers.

But your previous posts put the onus of proof squarely on Greenpeace while *appearing* to give Apple a free pass on not having to show a modicum of truth for anything. Why is it you appeared to give Apple the free pass when they made the original claim (being the greenest) while arguing Greenpeace's refuting the claim required proof?

The implication with your argument is that Apple's advertising is to be believed while an environmental agency's claim is not. Even when car companies advertise that they have the "best car or truck", they at least reference the magazine or periodical who made the claim; they at least understand that if they're going to make a subjective claim, they need to back it up. In this case, Apple is making an objective claim with no reference and no proof.

In any debate or court case, the onus of proof is always on the party making the claim (ie, the prosecution). Advertising (and Apple is not by itself when it comes to this) seems largely exempt from this rule- it's almost as if they can put anything in a commercial and it becomes fact.

(keep in mind, I do use and enjoy a number of Apple products)


RE: Still a step in the right direction
By whiskerwill on 12/1/2008 11:00:22 AM , Rating: 3
Lenovo also gives large contributions to Greenpeace every year.

It's amazing that the companies Greenpeace complains about always seem to be the ones that don't do this.


By bob332 on 12/1/2008 4:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
well in 07 they were the top, in 08, they are near the bottom. so, did they nice check to greenpeace not clear for this years info?


By Despoiler on 12/1/2008 2:00:08 AM , Rating: 5
Apple is a marketing company first and a computer company second. They want a pat on the back for being way behind the curve on the push for more environmentally friendly. I'm just wondering with the MAC sheeple will wake up from their hipster comas?


By Entropy78 on 12/1/2008 2:27:54 AM , Rating: 2
If they want to significantly reduce carbon footprint, they have to focus more on the manufacturing stage of the notebook. Some research has already pointed out that up to 85 % of all greenhouse gas emissions occur during manufacturing of computers and its components, while the remaining 15 % actually occur during the use stage (i.e. CO2 emission as a result from electrical energy consumption).

And I don't believe that carving out the body of a laptop out of a single brick of aluminium isn't going to help in reducing energy consumption during the manufacturing stage either...


RE: Still a step in the right direction
By omnicronx on 12/1/2008 10:30:37 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
reduce its carbon footprint.
I guess you are the same type of person that believes buying imported 'green' products instead of merely buying locally is better for the environment, because they don't have to ship their 'green product' half way across the country to get it to you, with all but leaving you with the same 'carbon footprint' while paying a higher price.

There is no such thing as a 'green' computer aside from lowered power consumption. Regardless of what the computer is made of, it still ends up in the same dump, and will sit there for the next 200 years (right beside the old model), with a slightly lower amount of chemicals leaking into the earth.

A green computer is a gimmick, a long with the countless other 'green' products on the market.


By callmeroy on 12/1/2008 4:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

The whole recent global warming thing is a gimmick as well. The only reason why I don't slam it totally is because I believe in being neat and clean just for the sake of being neat and clean...call it how i was raised or call it good old fashioned common sense -- who wants to live in filth? How is that comfortable. I'm not saying my place is perfect 100% of the time - its not, but I'm not a slob. If it takes this huge big deal about global warming to make people throw away trash properly, recycle more often, etc. then good (I think its pathetic that you need such an effort, as doing these things w/o any incentive other than not being a complete slob should be all the reason you need..but hey to each their own).

If folks want to believe that the world is doomed to global warming and that's what motivates them to be cleaner...good for them.

Mean while, I'll be clean and puting trash where it belongs and recycling now and even after the global warming fad ends -- because that's the way I want to live. At the same time I'll entertain myself with the speeches on eletric cars and how that'll save us.....no one thinks um...how do you thinks that the power plants to produce that HUGE electric demand is just causing the pollution all over again....lol


don't agree
By whiskerwill on 12/1/2008 1:31:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
While Apple deserves credit for eliminating brominated flame-retardants (BFRs) and other toxic plastics
You assume this is meaningful in any way. Not like they were present in quantities large enough to harm anyone.

It's insanity. We've forgotten all about actual safety and risk-benefit. It's all about eliminating everything "toxic" now, down to the last atom.

Guess what? Everything is toxic. Even water and air, if you get too much.




RE: don't agree
By dcalfine on 12/1/2008 2:11:25 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Everything is toxic. Even water and air…

"Therefore, I hate Apple!"


RE: don't agree
By Plague421 on 12/1/2008 2:59:12 AM , Rating: 2
I think the main concern is not direct contact, but rather what happens after the plastics have been discarded. One laptop of toxic plastic wont hurt anybody, but a mound of laptops will hurt everybody in the general area.

You even said it yourself "Guess what? Everything is toxic. Even water and air, if you get too much ."


RE: don't agree
By whiskerwill on 12/1/2008 10:46:16 AM , Rating: 2
By that, we should ban air and water then too, and make sure no products contain traces of them.

Show me ONE person whose suffered the smallest problem from "toxic plastics" in laptops. Just one.


RE: don't agree
By adiposity on 12/1/2008 1:02:15 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/06/60minute...

quote:
Greenpeace has been filming around Guiyu and caught the recycling work. Women were heating circuit boards over a coal fire, pulling out chips and pouring off the lead solder. Men were using what is literally a medieval acid recipe to extract gold. Pollution has ruined the town. Drinking water is trucked in. Scientists have studied the area and discovered that Guiyu has the highest levels of cancer-causing dioxins in the world. They found pregnancies are six times more likely to end in miscarriage, and that seven out of ten kids have too much lead in their blood.


RE: don't agree
By adiposity on 12/1/2008 1:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"The situation in Guiyu is actually pre-capitalist. It's mercantile. It reverts back to a time when people lived where they worked, lived at their shop. Open, uncontrolled burning of plastics. Chlorinated and brominated plastics is known worldwide to cause the emission of polychlorinated and polybrominated dioxins. These are among the most toxic compounds known on earth," Hershkowitz explained.


RE: don't agree
By masher2 (blog) on 12/1/2008 3:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
have studied the area and discovered that Guiyu has the highest levels of cancer-causing dioxins in the world. They found pregnancies are six times more likely..."
You realize that the "scientists" in this case are one Chinese researcher who gave those (unpublished, non peer reviewed) figures in a speech last year?

Secondly, even if those results are correct, it in no way demonstrates they're caused by burning plastics in the region. The people in Guiyu live in incredibly poor conditions, with or without pollution, and little to no access to prenatal care. One would expect many more problems with pregnancies regardless.

Third and most importantly, workers breathing in vast amounts of fumes from burning materials are going to suffer health problems regardless of what those materials are. Even if we made laptops out of wood, anyone who chooses to stand over burning piles of them for days at a time is going to suffer health effects .


RE: don't agree
By adiposity on 12/1/2008 3:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
If laptops were made of wood, I doubt they would be exporting them to third-world countries to circumvent recycling laws.

-Dan


RE: don't agree
By Penti on 12/1/2008 6:11:11 AM , Rating: 1
Well I guess it does help and lessens the contamination in the landfills filled up by westerners illegal garbage trade.

Any how it should be easier to recycle the stuff if theres less heavy metals and chemicals in them. I guess the Alu would be more economical to recover then the plastics used in notebooks anyway.


RE: don't agree
By Frank M on 12/1/2008 8:26:48 AM , Rating: 1
We're all stupider for having read your post. May god have mercy on your soul.


RE: don't agree
By amanojaku on 12/1/2008 9:34:39 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
May god have mercy on your soul.

For the non-religious that should read:

May the flying spaghetti monster have marinara as your sauce.


RE: don't agree
By otispunkmeyer on 12/2/2008 4:27:39 AM , Rating: 2
in a single laptop..not enough to harm, but when you gather thousands of them and chuck em in a landfill somewhere...then you got the problems.


So, What is the real green anyway
By nangryo on 12/1/2008 12:42:55 AM , Rating: 3
1. Use refurbish material?
2. Reduce carbon footprint?
3. Use little energy?
4. etc
5. etc (write one here)

So? what it has to do with the green? What is the green anyway? Is it tree? Is it earth?

I don't get it.




RE: So, What is the real green anyway
By porkpie on 12/1/2008 1:36:14 AM , Rating: 4
Green is anything that doesn't have to do with humans.

Humans = bad. Too bad we ever evolved in the first place. The world would be much better without us.

Got it?


By Captain828 on 12/1/2008 3:11:40 AM , Rating: 1
I agree all humies are bad, but... Steve Jobs is green!!

Wait... that means he's not human... that explains his ability to use the dreaded 'reality distortion field'!


By Jedi2155 on 12/1/2008 4:23:29 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe we should all just be left 4 dead .....


RE: So, What is the real green anyway
By phxfreddy on 12/1/2008 6:51:53 AM , Rating: 3
Likely GreenPeace expects those wanting the GREEN stamp of approval to pay a small tax to their high priest in the same manner as the Rabbi's who bless the BallPark Franks to make the Kosher.

Look at just about any high level political cause and you will find it has been turned to capitalist ends. Or in other words it is just about money no matter how much they doth protest.


RE: So, What is the real green anyway
By mmntech on 12/1/2008 9:48:46 AM , Rating: 2
"MMNTech Slams Greenpeace for Being a Bunch of Luddite Dolts"
You'll never see that headline on here. lol

Duh. It's all about money. I once heard that Greenpeace receives something like $1 billion in donations annually. That's obscene. Greenpeace is a militant Luddite organization that opposes modern technology in general. It's almost as if they expect us to revert to pre-industrial civilization. Why people give these idiots the time of day is a mystery to me.


By blaktron on 12/1/2008 11:28:22 AM , Rating: 2
Also if you look at their past of pressuring 3 world governments into refusing certain types of aid (specially bred crops, DDT Bans responsible for maleria outbreaks) because they aren't 'green' enough, its possible that Greenpeace is a much bigger killer than any corporation out there.


By otispunkmeyer on 12/2/2008 4:37:41 AM , Rating: 2
well its a whole combo of those things really... you could make a product, using materials that are non-toxic, easy to break down, seperate and recycle/reuse/remanufacture.

your product should then also be designed for disassembly, generally this will make it easy to put together, then easy to take it apart at the end of its life. the quicker you can disassemble something, the viable recycling is financially.

you'd also have to design a pretty efficient manufacturing process that produced little waste and used the least amount of energy possible. any waste produced (like in apples case of milling out solid aluminium billets) should be recycled and reused to make new billet material.

the macbooks (new ones) are quite good i think, theres very little plastic in them (plastic is notoriously hard to recycle) and little to no toxic stuff. the aluminium can easily be recycled or reused many times

im not exactly a green zealot mind, though having been to a landfill, i see the reason why things like this are being pushed. for me its just about being efficient, not necessarily green


Green marketing & Green brands
By crystal clear on 12/1/2008 2:46:20 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
by the claims of Apple CEO Steve Jobs that his MacBooks are "the greenest line of notebooks" in the country.


Yes indeed - you need a lot of greenbacks to buy them, (not worth paying for) under the false assumptions that people will become green with envy to see you with "the greenest line of notebooks"

As for the Apple CEO appears to be as “green around the gills”,

Greenwashing is the name of the game for many a comapanies, & they are "Cashing in on the Environmental Cow" with the tools Of Greenwashing namely Adverts.

Greenwashing in Popular Culture and Art & companies exploit it.

The "Six Sins of Greenwashing" are -

# Sin of the Hidden Trade-Offs

# Sin of No Proof

# Sin of Vagueness

# Sin of Irrelevance

# Sin of Fibbing

# Sin of Lesser of Two Evils

The question ..... Are You Being Greenwashed ? & How To Spot Greenwash.

Examples of "Cashing in on the Environmental Cow"

GREEN & ORGANIC.......




By Ringold on 12/1/2008 10:57:34 AM , Rating: 2
Six Sins of Greenwashing? See, environmentalism really is a religion. Christianity has the Ten Commandments, Islam has Five Pillars, Hinduism has the Dharma, and even the USSR atheism had The Moral Code..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Code_of_the_Bui...

And environmentalists have The Six Sins of Greenwashing. Cool.


By corduroygt on 12/1/2008 9:09:33 AM , Rating: 5
I also put my V8 in neutral and rev it up when I'm passing a Prius.




scum
By TThor on 12/1/2008 11:02:45 AM , Rating: 2
Apple doesnt give a DAMN about the environment. all they are doing is the absolute minimum in order to simply say they are being environmentally friendly, so that all those missimformed environmentalists go out and buy from apple.




RE: scum
By TThor on 12/1/2008 11:09:58 AM , Rating: 2
tho i guess, for whatever their agenda may be, they are still making steps in the right direction.


Apples manufacturers
By Penti on 12/1/2008 6:01:51 AM , Rating: 2
Who's producing the current macbooks any way? Is it now Foxconn and Quanta? Can Apple really demand that much from 600.000 employee Foxconn? Even Quanta is larger then Apple. Though I think Quanta will be the only supplier in 2009. The only one's producing there own laptops are well the ODMs. So not many brands do really have control of the manufacturing.




On what?
By djc208 on 12/1/2008 10:57:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Writes Greenpeace, "[Apple]needs to commit to phasing out additional substances with timelines, improve its policy on chemicals and its reporting on chemicals management."


They probably wrote this on some cheapo Dell setup that wouldn't even get a grade, which they leave running all the time, and has since been replaced and thrown in the trash along with it's CRT.




By DarthKaos on 12/1/2008 12:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
The report is attacking the company. It is not looking at the slogan and evaluating it constructively. Apple using it's "Greenest Laptop" campaign is going to be great for the environment if it takes off. Other companies will be forced to become more green. Baby steps environmentalists. There needs to be a balance. This country was built on capitalism. Companies are not going to loose money just to save the planet (not until it is too late anyway). Get behind them for what they have done and use it to push more companies in the same direction.




Ratings
By Screwballl on 12/1/2008 1:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
Nintendo almost 0
Microsoft 2.9
Apple 4.3
HP 4.5
Dell and Acer 4.8
Toshiba 5.9

The highest is Nokia at 6.9




By Rodney McNaggerton on 12/1/2008 4:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
They both are arrogant enough, they should love one another. One of them tells everyone that their products are never green enough, and the other tells every that there products are the best. Why doesn't this relationship work out?




Fire PR deparment
By lemonadesoda on 12/1/2008 5:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple's spokesperson declined to comment on the criticism, saying merely that customers should check out the "Apple and the Environment" section of the company's website if they want information on the company's environmental policy.


Oh, the arrogance.




Greenest?
By lagomorpha on 12/1/2008 11:03:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm thinking by "greenest" Apple meant "brings in the most cash".




Greenpunks....
By otispunkmeyer on 12/2/2008 4:24:12 AM , Rating: 2
....wouldnt be happy until the damn things ceased to exist. thats the only situation where they'd provide a good report.

i bet if you made the damn thing from thatched grass they'd still complain. they just want everyone to live in the friggin dark ages.




Good Ol' Greenpeace
By mvpx02 on 12/3/2008 2:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
I like to believe that most of the people involved in organizations like Greenpeace are motivated by genuinely good intentions, even if some of the things they or their group say/do may be misguided. Resultantly, I find it funny when I read stories like this one.

As an organization focused on the health of the environment, I would think that Greenpeace would be first in line to applaud whenever companies act with goals similar to their own.

No company "Goes Green" simply to help the environment. Being on the green bandwagon in today’s market typically yields business benefits (increased sales, better company image, etc.) too sizeable for executives to ignore. Apple is just the same; Steve Jobs is in business to make money. After all, if they cared only about helping the environment & had no ulterior motives, they wouldn’t have even bothered advertising the laptops as being “Green”.

That being said, if Greenpeace wanted to most effectively help the environment (in the long run), rather than scolding Apple for not being “Green” enough, they’d commend the steps Apple has taken to become “Greener” and encourage other companies to follow Apple’s lead.

In writing this, I assume that the laptops are as “Green” as Apple claims, but even if the marketing is misleading, what the John Q. Public sees is Apple getting scolded for trying to develop & bring to market a more environmentally friendly product by the very people who ought to be encouraging such practices. It just seems a bit backwards to me… then again, this is Greenpeace we’re talking about.




According to Greenpeace..
By Clauzii on 12/1/2008 12:49:31 AM , Rating: 1
.. humans are not allowed to breath...

EVERY step in the right direction away from bad is good, which Greenpeace seems to not-quite-get...




2 Words.
By Vanilla Thunder on 12/1/2008 8:53:11 AM , Rating: 1
FUCK GREENPEACE.




By FITCamaro on 12/1/2008 10:02:29 AM , Rating: 1
And kill yourselves since you're clearly helping to kill the planet through the very act of breathing.




Who cares
By Flunk on 12/1/08, Rating: 0
Greenpeace are extremist........
By iwod on 12/1/08, Rating: -1
By whiskerwill on 12/1/2008 10:47:54 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
So to be real Greenpeace they could start the campaign not allow any more human to be born into the world.
They already have. Most environmental groups say there's too many people in the world. Some even say things like wars or killer viruses would be good, to kill off a few billion of us.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Related Articles
The Case Against Chemical Flame Retardants
October 31, 2008, 8:36 AM
Greenpeace Gives Macbook Air "B-"
January 18, 2008, 2:11 PM
Greenpeace Deems iPhone "Toxic"
October 16, 2007, 9:04 AM













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