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

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.


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher

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