Greenpeace lauds, then criticizes Apple cleanup effort

[AppleInsider]

Greenpeace has already celebrated Apple's new push towards eco-friendly goods as beating much of the industry at its own game. The Mac maker, however, wasn't completely off the hook.

The environmental activist group didn't hesitate in responding to Apple CEO Steve Jobs' open letter on Wednesday, "cheering" the move as a major step towards electronics free of toxic chemicals.

Complements were especially warm for the consumer electronics firm's turnaround on removing the most hazardous elements from its devices. Brominated Fire Retardants and PVC plastic. Greenpeace was acutely aware of Dell's 2009 target for doing the same and was pleased to hear that the Round Rock, Texas-based PC maker would be eclipsed by its arch-rival a full year sooner, scrubbing the devices clean by 2008.

"Way to go Steve," Greenpeace said on the matter.

The activist group also felt that its targeted campaign for greener Apple hardware had been validated by the change. Efforts by supporters to spotlight the computer builder's shortcomings in dramatic fashion -- which included a complaint-ridden MacExpo protest and a near-literal greening of Apple stores -- had made it "clear" that the wasteful practices needed to change, Greenpeace claimed.

Apple's CEO had mentioned the environmentalists' demands in his letter, but said nothing of the related protests. The company's shareholders had until today been scheduled to vote later his month on an investor-driven green timetable which would have brought the issue to the forefront with or without the demonstrations..

Even with its seeming victory, however, Greenpeace quickly turned its commendation into a jab at Apple's remaining weaknesses. The Mac maker's computer take-back program was singled out as overly US-centric, according to the statement. While it meant that no discarded systems or handhelds from American would filter back to Asia and contribute to local pollution, buyers in other regions would be forced to toss their systems away. Other companies have already implemented worldwide recycling programs.

The environmental advocates also made it evident that the plan had to translate into action, and that the expectations for Apple -- a company known for meticulous design -- would be especially high.

"Apple hasn't gotten an actual green product to market, but no other electronics manufacture has either," Greenpeace commented. "That's a race worthy of the wizards of Cupertino."[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2728)

[Johnny Mozzarella]

I'm all for greening Apple and nuking Greenpeace.

[swmooretiger]

Greenpeace seems to have totally missed one major point, Apple didn't do any of these things in reaction to their request. The efforts described in Jobs' letter have been underway for the last 10-15 years at Apple. All Greenpeace has done to Apple is help persuade them to make their existing programs known to the public; they have not effected any change within the company.

Greenpeace should do more research before making public claims that aren't true. It would be respectful and more effective if they contacted an Apple representative to inquire about their environmental programs, in an effort to work with Apple to make their "green" labors known, rather than slinging mud then claiming their efforts were successful.

[AgNuke1707]

"Apple hasn't gotten an actual green product to market, but no other electronics manufacture has either," Greenpeace commented. "That's a race worthy of the wizards of Cupertino."

See, what do they mean by "green product" ... one that contains no hazardous chemicals? That's going to be impossible for any electronics manufacturer ... it would be nice if Greenpeace actually defined what they wanted...

[SpamSandwich]

Only too predictable... "Even with its seeming victory, however, Greenpeace quickly turned its commendation into a jab at Apple's remaining weaknesses."

Friggin' tools. :rolleyes:

[aplnub]

I'm all for greening Apple and nuking Greenpeace.

Agreed.

They claim vicotry but all the nerds know that LED is better for the user and just happens to be greener than what we have now. So no victory, just good PR for Apple to get GP off their case just a little. But the little buggers are like roaches and just keep coming with it.

[Ireland]

Greenpeace cause nothing but red wars, they can shove it!

[anantksundaram]

I wonder, do Greenpeace employees use computers at all, either at home or in the office?

If "no," hats off to them. At least, that would be very consistent and honest.

If "yes," then (s)he is simply a third-rate, garden-variety hypocrite. (But nothing in the law says you can't be one.)

[desarc]

without going on a rant that would be ohh-so easy, YES greenpeace can be extremely annoying, but all companies, computer manufacturers included, should be looking more at saving us from oblivion instead of saving 14 cents per unit.

as a design firm we use 100 post consumer paper and soy based inks, unless the client is especially annoying, in which case we use 100% "wind power" paper. never a tacky foil stamp or metallic papers. do we really need a huge hard plastic case to package a matchbook sized ipod? aren't there 100 million of those in landfills now?

[Johnny Mozzarella]

See, what do they mean by "green product" ... one that contains no hazardous chemicals? That's going to be impossible for any electronics manufacturer ... it would be nice if Greenpeace actually defined what they wanted...

An abacus made of soy beans and twigs.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

Blah blah blah blah...do we really need a huge hard plastic case to package a matchbook sized ipod?
Yes. otherwise we would lose them because they are so tiny.

aren't there 100 million of those in landfills now?
Yes. It is part of Apple's landfill beautification project.

[Slewis]

Greenpeace seems to have totally missed one major point, Apple didn't do any of these things in reaction to their request. The efforts described in Jobs' letter have been underway for the last 10-15 years at Apple. All Greenpeace has done to Apple is help persuade them to make their existing programs known to the public; they have not effected any change within the company.

Greenpeace should do more research before making public claims that aren't true. It would be respectful and more effective if they contacted an Apple representative to inquire about their environmental programs, in an effort to work with Apple to make their "green" labors known, rather than slinging mud then claiming their efforts were successful.

More research? More like reading the damn thing the whole way through. That's all the research they needed to do and they even failed at that.

:lol:

without going on a rant that would be ohh-so easy, YES greenpeace can be extremely annoying, but all companies, computer manufacturers included, should be looking more at saving us from oblivion instead of saving 14 cents per unit.

as a design firm we use 100 post consumer paper and soy based inks, unless the client is especially annoying, in which case we use 100% "wind power" paper. never a tacky foil stamp or metallic papers. do we really need a huge hard plastic case to package a matchbook sized ipod? aren't there 100 million of those in landfills now?

I dunno, I kept the case to mine, on the shelf with the rest of my Mac Related Products Packaging and Books. I like the design. 8-)

Sebastian

[roehlstation]

Dear Greenpeace,

Apple did not create these policies because of anything you've done, so stop dancing around, Apple was already doing this, they just didn't brag about it, they did it because it was the right thing to do, not as a marketing ploy. Just because you couldn't get the information to twist around before, does not mean Apple didn't have a plan.

Now as far as a computer take back program, you'll find that a lot of Mac users want to hold on to their old Macs, even if they aren't working.

[KeyMACer]

Now as far as a computer take back program, you'll find that a lot of Mac users want to hold on to their old Macs, even if they aren't working.

Yup, until two years ago, the family computer at our house was almost 8 years old aand 2 years before that was another 8 year old computer we now have 4 retired computers hardrive/monitor and all in our basement, all Macs not filling the landfill, but our basement instead.
The family Comp is now about 7 years old

Don't you just love hand-me-UPs (university kids giving old comps to their parents)

[1984]

So instead of going after companies that have poor environmental policy they go after those that have good environmental policy because they happen to have a popular product? Hmmmm... So if I have one neighbor that recycles and one that doesn't I should pester the one that recycles to recycle more? Um... okay.

:rolleyes:

[ShadowMac]

Greenpeace just take a cheap shot by saying Apple hasn't produced a green product. No technology company ever have or will.

They've got nothin!! Now, thanks to that lame statement, everybody knows it!

[desarc]

sebastian, the case would still be cool if the same [obviously very talented] packaging designer were told to make it eco-friendly. and when it did EVENTUALLY go from your shelf to a landfill, maybe it could decompose, too?

mozzarella, very funny. landfill beautification project. you're a comic genius. a pure masterpiece of humor. the funniest thing since the first football to the groin. i'm still laughing. seriously. no really. honest.

shadowmac: there are shades of grey in green products. my macbook could be made from 100% post consumer aluminum... or from lead.

finally, as far as no international buyback program... ebay is the only buyback program i've ever used.

[fastred]

I used to be a contributor to Greenpeace's activities; some I still passively support (like their action on whaling)... but their histrionic, half-baked and mis-directed attacks on Apple meant they lost my subscription. I now make donations to less self-important, up-them-selves environmental organisations.

They ain't getting my money back through this sort of carry-on either....

[CJD2112]

I applaud Desarc for making some excellent points against the general disdain for environmental issues that seems prevelant here. It makes me sick when I read pompous comments about how unimportant environmental issues are and that destroying a community that attempts to improve the way of life for generations to come is seen as humor. It's ignorant and sad.

Keep in mind, humanity is just a spec on the timeline of this planet, and nature can flick us off any time she wants. The Tsunami in Indonesia and the rapidly increasing hurricanes and global climate change is just a taste of what's to come from man's disrespect of the only planet they call home. Think about that fact very carefully before you anonymously reply with pompous comments. If attitudes similar to what has been displayed here continue, it's only a matter of time... :grumble:

[fastred]

I applaud Desarc for making some excellent points against the general disdain for environmental issues that seems prevelant here. It makes me sick when I read pompous comments about how unimportant environmental issues are and that destroying a community that attempts to improve the way of life for generations to come is seen as humor. It's ignorant and sad.

Keep in mind, humanity is just a spec on the timeline of this planet, and nature can flick us off any time she wants. The Tsunami in Indonesia and the rapidly increasing hurricanes and global climate change is just a taste of what's to come from man's disrespect of the only planet they call home. Think about that fact very carefully before you anonymously reply with pompous comments. If attitudes similar to what has been displayed here continue, it's only a matter of time... :grumble:

Oh grow up. Very little of what has been said here is "distain for environmental issue". What it is, and quite appropriately, is distain for the *inappropriate* grandstanding by Greenpeace, who targetted Apple not because of its poor environmental record but
a) because Apple has a high profile;
b) Apple didn't play the silly games other computer manufacturers have been playing.

Don't presume to judge my views on the environment, or those of others here either.

What matters is that *all* of us, companies, governments, and individuals take action on environmental issues. Ad hominem attacks on either individuals or companies with high profiles won't cut it.

[interwebs]

I greatly admire both Apple and Greenpeace and think they have both taken mostly positive actions here. I don't think Apple would have released it's environmental policies - even though they are industry leading - unless Greenpeace had done this prodding. And why not? This is not an Apple product announcement, this is about being a good corporate citizen, and that's what Apple has now demonstrated they are. Now, thanks to Greenpeace, Apple is the clear leader in removing toxics, and Dell, and other manufacturers now have to compete with Apple to become even greener. No company wants to be low on the list of toxic manufacturers.

Apple wins by demonstrating it's a leader, and Greenpeace wins by showing it forced Apple mysteriously reluctant hand to be more open.

But neither organization has been perfect. Steve Jobs admitted so in his letter: "we have failed to communicate the things that we are doing well" and "We apologize for leaving you in the dark for this long." And Jobs wasn't only responding to Greenpeace - he admitted "shareholders, employees and the industry... deserve and expect more from us, and they’re right to do so." I think he showed great leadership, owned up, and realized there's no reason to be secretive in this instance.

And while I don't fault Greenpeace for taking aim at Apple on this issue - they did so, in my opinion, not for a hatred of Apple, but precisely because Apple is a leader in so many areas and can shame the other manufacturers into acting responsibly as well - I do think Greenpeace took a bit too much credit. They made it appear that they changed Apple's manufacturing processes, when they really changed Apple's openness about their environmental plans. And the result is a good thing.

[IQ78]

... Keep in mind, humanity is just a spec on the timeline of this planet, and nature can flick us off any time she wants ...



Exactly! This is why it bothers me a bit when people talk about how we are hurting the "earth" and we should "take better care of the earth." No, man... sorry, you got it all wrong. We need to take care of ourselves. The Earth will roll on just fine. We are a mere spec. One quick event and we're all toast, and then a few million years later we are replaced by something else maybe even better.

We need not feel any pity for nature. She can take care of herself. We can spew crap in the air all day long without hurting "nature. A lot of life forms will adapt, a lot of life forms will die (maybe including us) and others will hardly be effected. What will be, will be. Mother Nature don't go down easily. Look what she did with an ice age. Our existance is nothing on her time scale.

IQ78

[Evoken]

Greenpeace? What's that? PETA for trees?


Evo

[i386]

I wonder, do Greenpeace employees use computers at all, either at home or in the office?

If "no," hats off to them. At least, that would be very consistent and honest.

If "yes," then (s)he is simply a third-rate, garden-variety hypocrite. (But nothing in the law says you can't be one.)

I say they do, they'll have no choice but to switch to Apple now :lol: :lol:

[aegisdesign]

sebastian, the case would still be cool if the same [obviously very talented] packaging designer were told to make it eco-friendly. and when it did EVENTUALLY go from your shelf to a landfill, maybe it could decompose, too?

I suspect the packaging designer HAS made it eco-friendly. The biggest environmental issue with packaging isn't what it's made of, it's the size/volume of the package. Transporting large, heavy, fragile cardboard boxes around the world is more damaging than small, light, strong plastic boxes.

Greenpeace seem to concentrate on the materials, not how efficient the production and distribution is not to mention power consumption of the final product.

[Aussie John]

I wonder, do Greenpeace employees use computers at all, either at home or in the office?

If "no," hats off to them. At least, that would be very consistent and honest.

If "yes," then (s)he is simply a third-rate, garden-variety hypocrite. (But nothing in the law says you can't be one.)

Dont be such an apple fan boy (and the other posters) - one can never criticise Apple!!!??

Yes if you are a Greenpeace supporter, you would never drive a car, fly in plane, eat pesticide covered vegetables et al - oh spare me

Computer companies do have a responsibility to produce toxic free (or as close as possible) products and kudos to Greenpeace for being on on the manufacturers' cases and likewise kudos to Apple for any legitimate effort to reduce toxic products and excess waste.

[Banalltv]

"I'm all for greening Apple and nuking Greenpeace."


Asshole.

[Vincent_Agniello]

I don't think it's fair to jump on Greenpeace so viciously. They are concerned about the environment and are just trying to make a difference. It's really great to see that Apple is concerned as well. Kind of a bummer to read all these posts boooing what is a very important issue, imo.

[cnocbui]

I don't think it's fair to jump on Greenpeace so viciously. They are concerned about the environment and are just trying to make a difference. imo.

They might be 'concerned' but they are terminally thick so should be ignored. The complete inanity of most of their positions and arguments about big issues, unfortunately detracts from the few issues that actually should be of concern - like deforestation in the third world.

They believe global warming is caused by mans activities yet are anti-nuclear. They decry landfill and yet oppose waste incineration etc.

Greenpeace is really good at telling everyone what they shouldn't be doing but they never have practical answers or alternatives.

[cnocbui]

IThe Tsunami in Indonesia and the rapidly increasing hurricanes and global climate change is just a taste of what's to come from man's disrespect of the only planet they call home. Think about that fact very carefully before you anonymously reply with pompous comments. If attitudes similar to what has been displayed here continue, it's only a matter of time... :grumble:

Please don't use the word 'fact' when the correct word is 'myth'

Explain please the causative link between man's activities and the earthquake that triggered the Tsunami - I am really keen to learn how that works.

[ajmas]

I suspect the packaging designer HAS made it eco-friendly. The biggest environmental issue with packaging isn't what it's made of, it's the size/volume of the package. Transporting large, heavy, fragile cardboard boxes around the world is more damaging than small, light, strong plastic boxes.

Greenpeace seem to concentrate on the materials, not how efficient the production and distribution is not to mention power consumption of the final product.

I say they do, they'll have no choice but to switch to Apple now :lol: :lol:

Maybe they already are, hence their fustration. ;)

[CJD2112]

Please don't use the word 'fact' when the correct word is 'myth'

Explain please the causative link between man's activities and the earthquake that triggered the Tsunami - I am really keen to learn how that works.

Sure, go stand in front of one and see how it works, then tell me all about it later... :lol:

I made no reference to causality, I simply demonstrated man's inferiority to nature and that such acts AS the tsunami are an excellent example of how humanity is no match. RAPID global climate change, on the other hand, has been and is quickly being proven a direct result of man's blatant disregard for the planet through pollution and corp. greed. THAT, dear Sir, is a fact.

[Shintocam]

Greenpeace just take a cheap shot by saying Apple hasn't produced a green product. No technology company ever have or will.

They've got nothin!! Now, thanks to that lame statement, everybody knows it!

You know it's funny, people read, or hear what they want. What Greenpeace said was:

"Apple hasn't gotten an actual green product to market, but no other electronics manufacture has either,"

This is the first part of the statement. You read it as a cheap shot at Apple. First of all, they are not taking a shot at Apple only, they are actually commenting on ALL electronics manufacturers if you read the full thing. And, if you continue reading:

"That's a race worthy of the wizards of Cupertino."

So in fact, I read this as a compliment. They are suggesting that since no one else has managed to do this, perhaps, the clever minds at Apple might actually be able to come up with something, and that they likely can take the lead in that regard.

And to suggest that "no technology company ever will" make a green product is a ludicrous statement. Given enough incentive, given enough desire it will and can be done. How can anyone say something will "never" be invented or done....

[Abster2core]

I greatly admire both Apple and Greenpeace and think they have both taken mostly positive actions here. I don't think Apple would have released it's environmental policies - even though they are industry leading - unless Greenpeace had done this prodding. And why not? This is not an Apple product announcement, this is about being a good corporate citizen, and that's what Apple has now demonstrated they are. Now, thanks to Greenpeace, Apple is the clear leader in removing toxics, and Dell, and other manufacturers now have to compete with Apple to become even greener. No company wants to be low on the list of toxic manufacturers.

Apple wins by demonstrating it's a leader, and Greenpeace wins by showing it forced Apple mysteriously reluctant hand to be more open.

But neither organization has been perfect. Steve Jobs admitted so in his letter: "we have failed to communicate the things that we are doing well" and "We apologize for leaving you in the dark for this long." And Jobs wasn't only responding to Greenpeace - he admitted "shareholders, employees and the industry... deserve and expect more from us, and they’re right to do so." I think he showed great leadership, owned up, and realized there's no reason to be secretive in this instance.…
Apple's environmental policy has been public for quite a long time. Their Environmental web site (http://www.apple.com/environment/) has been available for a long time and it is not the first time that it has had to be brought to attention.

The fact that Apple seems to walk the talk without fanfare while everyone else is virtually talking the walk, I would suggest that you retrack your comments, in particualar that, "…I don't think Apple would have released it's environmental policies" and "…Greenpeace wins by showing it forced Apple mysteriously reluctant hand to be more open." Obviously, the evidence is to the contrary is overwhelming.

I think that the leasson here is we should all not be so quick to jump to conclusions. And to the likes of Greenpeace, quit acting like a nagging spouse. It only leads to divorce.

[Ronbo]

A few of you guys have got it right, and a bunch of you are missing the point. Pretty much everybody supporting Greenpeace is missing the point. The point isn't the environmental issue.

The point was the slipshod and reckless way that Greenpeace nailed Apple. They repeatedly criticized Apple for failing to do something, without regard for the fact that they were already doing it, doing it better than Greenpeace reported, and doing it better than other companies Greenpeace applauded.

And then, when this press release came out, Greenpeace completely failed to do the honorable thing and admit they'd criticized Apple unfairly.

It's NOT sufficient to fall back and say "Well, the issue is important." Swing and a miss, people. Apple didn't dispute that, and neither have most of us.

What gets most of us is the sheer level of dishonesty and beligerant self-delusion that's characterized Greenpeace's behavior. To try and repair their shattered image of respectability, they need to be able to say, "Hey, we appear to have been wrong on certain points."

And these things were NOT secret. Roughlydrafted.com talked about all these things in great depth. He had access to the information, and so did Greenpeace. The difference was that he did some honest investigation, and they did not.

That's what's got most Apple fans riled. Greenpeace was relentlessly dishonest and ignorant. These people are supposed to be ambassadors for certain causes. Like all ambassadors, when they behave badly, the anger spills over onto their cause. That's just how it is, and you're seeing it in the above posts. If you don't like it, then please for once go criticize the organization whose misbehavior has created such outrage. It wasn't Apple. Apple, as you should be able to see if you've really bothered to read the letter from SJobs or the roughlydrafted articles, has been doing far far more than Greenpeace has been giving them credit.

[cnocbui]

I made no reference to causality, I simply demonstrated man's inferiority to nature and that such acts AS the tsunami are an excellent example of how humanity is no match. RAPID global climate change, on the other hand, has been and is quickly being proven a direct result of man's blatant disregard for the planet through pollution and corp. greed. THAT, dear Sir, is a fact.

Your juxtaposition of the tsunami reference and comment on global warming were such that I think most people would interpret that you thought the latter was the cause of the former.

This is getting a bit off-topic (apologies). Nothing you allege is fact or proven. Warming is occurring on Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune and Pluto. How is that caused by man's Co2 emissions? The long term historical record indicates that Co2 levels rise after temperatures have risen. Fairly easy to see which variable is causative and which is dependent.

What Greenpeace have done is just as slimy as the behaviors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

They pick on Apple - probably because they are well aware of of it's own unprompted efforts towards 'greener' products - because they know that is the direction Apple is headed. So they make a lot of noise chastising Apple so they can claim the credit when Apple announces/achieves what it was already intending to do.

So Greenpeace looks good and claims credit for what Apple has done - they make me sick!

[Johnny Mozzarella]

Greenpeace? What's that? PETA for trees?


Evo
Don't get me started on PeTA!

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/bigpot6.jpg

[hardeeharhar]

How is that caused by man's Co2 emissions? The long term historical record indicates that Co2 levels rise after temperatures have risen. Fairly easy to see which variable is causative and which is dependent.

While this may be true historically, it is clear also from prehistoric ice cores that co2 has a synergistic effect on temperature. That is, heat increases the metabolic cycling of carbon (thus resulting in more co2), and the increase in co2 causes more heat to be trapped. Cause and effect are irrelevant since it is a direct feedback loop.

[iPilya]

Ronbo: I could not have said this better or more in a polite way. (I am to much of an opinionated asshole to be so kind). I like your words so much - I hope you don't mind if I quote your entire bit.



A few of you guys have got it right, and a bunch of you are missing the point. Pretty much everybody supporting Greenpeace is missing the point. The point isn't the environmental issue.

The point was the slipshod and reckless way that Greenpeace nailed Apple. They repeatedly criticized Apple for failing to do something, without regard for the fact that they were already doing it, doing it better than Greenpeace reported, and doing it better than other companies Greenpeace applauded.

And then, when this press release came out, Greenpeace completely failed to do the honorable thing and admit they'd criticized Apple unfairly.

It's NOT sufficient to fall back and say "Well, the issue is important." Swing and a miss, people. Apple didn't dispute that, and neither have most of us.

What gets most of us is the sheer level of dishonesty and beligerant self-delusion that's characterized Greenpeace's behavior. To try and repair their shattered image of respectability, they need to be able to say, "Hey, we appear to have been wrong on certain points."

And these things were NOT secret. Roughlydrafted.com talked about all these things in great depth. He had access to the information, and so did Greenpeace. The difference was that he did some honest investigation, and they did not.

That's what's got most Apple fans riled. Greenpeace was relentlessly dishonest and ignorant. These people are supposed to be ambassadors for certain causes. Like all ambassadors, when they behave badly, the anger spills over onto their cause. That's just how it is, and you're seeing it in the above posts. If you don't like it, then please for once go criticize the organization whose misbehavior has created such outrage. It wasn't Apple. Apple, as you should be able to see if you've really bothered to read the letter from SJobs or the roughlydrafted articles, has been doing far far more than Greenpeace has been giving them credit.

[Abster2core]

For anyone that wants the facts, the open letter from Steve is a great read.

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/

However, I do also like his response in Apple, 2005

"… Jobs said that Apple takes its environmental responsibilities seriously and added that the company is leading the industry on environmental issues. He also expressed frustration at Apple being singled out for criticism over its peers, calling it "bullshit."

[quinney]

:lol: :lol: :lol: foolish earthlings :lol: :lol: :lol:

[cnocbui]

While this may be true historically, it is clear also from prehistoric ice cores that co2 has a synergistic effect on temperature. That is, heat increases the metabolic cycling of carbon (thus resulting in more co2), and the increase in co2 causes more heat to be trapped. Cause and effect are irrelevant since it is a direct feedback loop.

No. Co2 is the least abundant and least effective of the greenhouse gases - it's effect is minuscule. To postulate that it is the principal component of a feedback mechanism powerful enough to significantly effect the temperature of the earth is ... misguided, to be polite. Step outside at noon and look up at that bright round HOT shiny thing in the sky - theres the simple explanation , unfortunately, it doesn't involve human guilt that must be expiated by returning man to iron age living conditions so it is an unacceptable explanation for many.

[tomkarl]

never mind.

[cincytee]

Complements were especially warm....

No, "Compliments....." Basic English, folks.

[EruIthildur]

I don't think it's fair to jump on Greenpeace so viciously. They are concerned about the environment and are just trying to make a difference. It's really great to see that Apple is concerned as well. Kind of a bummer to read all these posts boooing what is a very important issue, imo.
Let's all grow our hair long, smoke pot, and hug trees.

Yes, we can't go trashing our environment, but be reasonable as well... Statistics is a two-way game, everyone can skew them.

[CJD2112]

Nothing you allege is fact or proven. Warming is occurring on Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune and Pluto. How is that caused by man's Co2 emissions? The long term historical record indicates that Co2 levels rise after temperatures have risen. Fairly easy to see which variable is causative and which is dependent.

lol show me this "data", me and the rest of the world are very curious on this data that apparently has escaped the scientific communities knowledge.. :lol:

Certainly CO2 levels rise naturally, over the course of 1,000+ years, NOT in the course of 100 years or less and NOT with the rapid change in global climate we are currently experiencing. Cutting down trees through excessive logging and paper consumption that are essential in recycling humanity's excessive CO2 emissions is part of the problem, as well as over-population and suburban sprawl. Note that Los Angeles had the BEST electrical mass transit train system in the 1930-40's until General Motors bought the mass electrical system out with a monopoly in order to use diesel buses ( http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm and a Wikipedia reference just for those that believe it to be the best lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...car_conspiracy ) ? Check it out. We have become an oil based nation with political powers that have heavy ties to oil companies. Lee Raymond, ex-Exxon/Mobil CEO retired with a $400 MILLION DOLLAR PARACHUTE PACKAGE ( http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989 )! Exxon/Mobil reported the biggest profits in the fourth quarter of 2005 of $10.7 Billion at a time when Americans were paying the most at the pump ( http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=1558860 ). Apparently this was due to the extra money Exxon/Mobil spent acquiring oil due to Katrina and Iraq, yet if that were the case their profit margin would have remained the SAME, not increased, in order to compensate for costs. We're all pawns in the corporate/political oil game people, it's time we woke up from our dream states of bigger flat screen TV's, political rhetoric and realized we're just sheep baa'ing our way through it all.

Again, show us the links that show:

A) Other planets are experiencing similar rapid rises in CO2 levels over the past 100 years

B) Prove that it is naturally occurring and not at the hands of humanity.

I think people get angry over this issue because it is hard to accept that our way of life is negatively impacting the planet and our future. We have become arrogant creatures with our religious beliefs and our recent rapid rise in technological innovations since the industrial revolution that we have lost sight of the fact that we are still carbon based life forms that are a small part in nature’s grand scheme. Using Al Gore as an escape goat and piñata to blow off and continue our lives of luxury and indifference is not going to solve the problem, and the "figures" from FOX News and Wikipedia (FACT Wikipedia is a user submitted site and many of the "facts" are completely inaccurate that teachers and Professors have automatically failed students for referencing any information from Wikipedia) have been proven inaccurate and laughable. We need a lot more humility in our lives...

Instead of casting all this aside and arguing, why not make a difference. It's easy to criticize someone for putting something they passionately believe in out there than it is in doing something positive and active. I recycle 50-60% of all our household waste; I purchase organic produce and only shop from retailers that ship using recyclable materials. I recycle all cardboard materials and paper products, use cloth dinner napkins and biodegradable household products such as Method (which are cheap and sold at Target). I recently purchased brand new Kenmore Elite stainless steel appliances for my parents and my home, including dishwasher drawers that use less water and energy, and I saved 20% plus 10% and another 10% on the appliances and warranties, with two years no interest on my Sears card. The point is, if we all do a little bit (and we don't have to spend a fortune), each one of us can make a difference, we just have to realize that we need to and care enough to make it happen...

Al Gore is demonstrating that there is a huge green economy out there waiting to be made, if we just transition slowly off of oil we would not need to be involved in the Middle East conflicts (although something tells me our government has done more to produce these conflicts in order to gauge oil prices and create more terrorism - wasn't it the U.S. that trained Osama bin Laden and Sadam Hussein in the first place?). An economy based on green power is not a fantasy, it can and has to become a reality, we just need to make it happen with our dollars...

[Abster2core]

Environmental Policies

Apple
http://www.apple.com/
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/
http://www.apple.com/environment/

Dell Earth
http://www.dell.com/html/global/topics/pure_earth/index.html

HP
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/environment/index.html

Sony
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/Environment/

Greenpeace
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/

On a quick perusal of Greenpeaces Green Electronics Guides for Apple and Dell, I refer to Job's previous comment, "Bullshit."

Best of all:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/2007/05/look_what_apple_just_put_on_th.html#more

Perhaps Greenpeace shoud add another category to clean up, i.e., the web. Starting with their own site.

[TheCrow]

This is so easy to say - but EVERYTHING is about money. The pressure for Apple to keep costs down and be competitive has been consistently high for years. If Apple DIDN'T save 14 cents per unit, people would complain about paying a premium for their oblivion-sparing practices. Ideally, every company should care about the world and do whatever is necessary to save it - but that will never happen. Every company should put solar panels on the sides of their buildings. But if it costs them money to do it, they won't. They can make better quality paper out of hemp, which grows back in one year vs the years it takes for trees to grow back - but they don't change because it would cost money to change the infrastructure. The bottom line is...there are LOTS of great green solutions right now that would save the planet, but no one will implement them if they cost money. Money is everything. Why isn't everyone driving a hybrid car? Because they're more expensive. If company A made a computer that was basically the same as company B's, but environmentally safer and more expensive - the majority of people would buy company B's. Sad, but true. Money is everything. Okay, tirade over.

without going on a rant that would be ohh-so easy, YES greenpeace can be extremely annoying, but all companies, computer manufacturers included, should be looking more at saving us from oblivion instead of saving 14 cents per unit.

[CJD2112]

This is so easy to say - but EVERYTHING is about money. The pressure for Apple to keep costs down and be competitive has been consistently high for years. If Apple DIDN'T save 14 cents per unit, people would complain about paying a premium for their oblivion-sparing practices. Ideally, every company should care about the world and do whatever is necessary to save it - but that will never happen. Every company should put solar panels on the sides of their buildings. But if it costs them money to do it, they won't. They can make better quality paper out of hemp, which grows back in one year vs the years it takes for trees to grow back - but they don't change because it would cost money to change the infrastructure. The bottom line is...there are LOTS of great green solutions right now that would save the planet, but no one will implement them if they cost money. Money is everything. Why isn't everyone driving a hybrid car? Because they're more expensive. If company A made a computer that was basically the same as company B's, but environmentally safer and more expensive - the majority of people would buy company B's. Sad, but true. Money is everything. Okay, tirade over.

Very true, but with mass production comes less cost. Fact is, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have less moving parts than combustion engines, and while expensive now if in mass production hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would cost thousands less. Initially, the expense would be enormous for companies to become more "green", but with little strides here and there, and environmental/corporate laws to ensure such strides (and Bush placing Gail Norton, who has been PRO big business and against environmental protection policy's, as interior secretary set the U.S. back decades in environmental advancements), in a few decades money/costs would not be such an issue. We just need to make the initial change, we have to WANT it. Sadly, humanity doesn't tend to want to change their ways until it is too late...

[eyeless]

There were a lime-coloured iBook already :\

[crentist]

There were a lime-coloured iBook already :\

he he he. Had to chuckle at that one.

[Marsattack]

I used to be a contributor to Greenpeace's activities; some I still passively support (like their action on whaling)... but their histrionic, half-baked and mis-directed attacks on Apple meant they lost my subscription. I now make donations to less self-important, up-them-selves environmental organisations.

They ain't getting my money back through this sort of carry-on either....

"Like their action on whaling" Take it from a guy who has grown up eating whale meat. All whales aren't in danger to extinction! Greenpeace have made so much mess towards my country, because we hunt/"make them turn toward the beach" and kill them, whereafter we eat every ounce there is on the whale. This is also important to my country's economy, as we save ALOT on imported meat. Believe me, Pilot Whales are not endangered from extinction, far from.
And no, we don't do it because we just love to kill, or because we want the whales to suffer. They die almost instantenously.
If Greenpace should protest, they really should focus their energy on the enormously bad conditions that pigs, chickens, cows etc. live in.
At least the Pilot Whales live a joyful life in the open sea.
Greenpeace should dive deeper into many of their cases before they shout out.
-cincerely, Mars

PS: "Free Willy" from the movie, or the killer whale, is not friendly like an ordinary dog. It is a wild animal that is the second in the food chain. Humans are first.

[cnocbui]

lol show me this "data", me and the rest of the world are very curious on this data that apparently has escaped the scientific communities knowledge.. :lol:

Certainly CO2 levels rise naturally, over the course of 1,000+ years, NOT in the course of 100 years or less and NOT with the rapid change in global climate we are currently experiencing.

Again, show us the links that show:

A) Other planets are experiencing similar rapid rises in CO2 levels over the past 100 years

B) Prove that it is naturally occurring and not at the hands of humanity.

I did NOT say that the rise in temperature of other bodies in the solar system was due to rises in Co2 .

Quite the opposite. The point is that these bodies are getting warmer - just like the Earth is. They can't be getting warmer because of Co2 - (in the case of Pluto, it doesn't have any (gaseos)) - so something ELSE must be causing the warming - that something else is most likely an increase in the energy output of the Sun.

So I cant answer A) - because it has nothing to do with what I actually said.

As for B - http://tinyurl.com/2sg7ep and http://www.abd.org.uk/co2_cause_or_effect.htm

[CJD2112]

I did NOT say that the rise in temperature of other bodies in the solar system was due to rises in Co2 .

Quite the opposite. The point is that these bodies are getting warmer - just like the Earth is. They can't be getting warmer because of Co2 - (in the case of Pluto, it doesn't have any (gaseos)) - so something ELSE must be causing the warming - that something else is most likely an increase in the energy output of the Sun.

So I cant answer A) - because it has nothing to do with what I actually said.

As for B - http://tinyurl.com/2sg7ep and http://www.abd.org.uk/co2_cause_or_effect.htm

The idea that the sun is causing global warming is preposterous and erroneous. Certainly the sun causes warming, but not nearly to the extent that has been demonstrated over the past century. As for my A) question, I said give proof that those planets are warming, I didn't necessarily state warming from CO2. My inclusion of CO2 was due to the fact that comparing Earth to the other planets in the solar system is comparing apples to oranges, as the other planets do not have the same atmosphere and conditions (or humans for that matter) as Earth does. To make the statement that all the planets are warming together at the same rate is quite a scientific discovery that hasn't made headline news as I'm certain that claim hasn't been made. I'd like to know more though...

[bandmassa]

I suspect this would be Greenpeace's preferred environmental computer, but even then you'd have to cut down trees to make it...
http://www.sandiegofamily.com/graphics/ask%20our%20read/pencil-n-paper.jpg

:err:

[Ronbo]

The idea that the sun is causing global warming is preposterous and erroneous...

Don't be too quick, there.

It may turn out to be erroneous, but it's not at all preposterous. This is an interesting bit of news that has come from recent reports from NASA. Mars is also undergoing globabl warming, and its polar ice caps are shrinking.

Remember that the sun is not a static entity. It's very dynamic. It undergoes long cycles of higher and lower sunspot activity, for instance. The great dust bowl of the last century was only partly due to unwise farming practices. It also happened during a peak in sunspot activity. These things really do matter.

I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to remember that back in the SEVENTIES, everyone was panicked about the big ice-age that the world was about to be plunged into.

Now, don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening. I'm also not saying that we're not impacting the global climate.

One of the things I'm saying, though, is that the effects aren't fully understood. Case in point: Mars. Personally, one of my big arguments about the likelihood of the reality of global warming was the thinnning of the ice caps. But the news that Mars' ice caps are shrinking is frankly very astonishing.

It may not change your mind about our own situation, but for the sake of intellectual honesty, both you and I are obligated to stop, take a breath, look at this new piece of data, and ask ourselves seriously how this impacts what we're saying.

Every now and then, we get wound up about things that seem very important, but when you look for the expected impact, it doesn't seem to be there.

Consider the ozone hole over the south pole. Last I recall, it started to shrink, by the way, but that's not the point. There were all manner of problems we'd hear about, that were supposed to be attributable to a depletion of the ozone layer. Increased cataracts was a biggy. Increased skin cancer is hard to be sure of in the wild, because the animals are covered anyway. But cataracts. We expected to see cataracts. But we don't. Why? I don't have that answer. Keep in mind that the increased levels of UV that were going through this hole in the ozone were far LESS than the increased UV you can get simply by travelling from where I live in Texas down to the beach. So if a hole in the ozone is bad (which it might well be), why aren't we seeing those horrible problems based on latitude? We do see a difference in skin cancer rates, but not on a calamatous scale.

All I'm saying is that you need to pause and see that some of the people telling you about the coming disaster, they have a vested interest in panicking you, because if you believe there's an emergency and only THEY are dealing with it, well, you're more likely to open you wallet. Or surrender your freedoms.

Just something to think about. And it's especially a problem because there are certainly some bad things we're doing to our planet, and they need to be addressed.

But if we panic about the wrong things, then (a) we waste resources that would have been better spent elsewhere, (b) the public becomes cynical about the other things you're saying (case in point: this forum. Rightly or wrongly, you're seeing a lot of people who no longer will listen to Greenpeace, the next time they tell us about something bad going on), (c) genuine problems will be more advanced by the time they really do become apparent.

The issue about global warming & Mars is fascinating. And sobering. Don't ignore it. Integrate it into your data set. Remember the bogus ice age we almost had in the 1970s. Integrate that into your data set. Remember Greenpeace's very well-documented and unrepentant dishonesty in this current situation with Apple. But at the same time, this doesn't mean anybody has a right to say, "See, humans aren't having any significant impact." Because that's entirely wrong. I'd point you to fishing data for an easy one. It's all over the place, but it's nicely summarized in the last chapter of "The Making of the Fittest." If you want good data about how we're causing ecological damage, look there. But trace amounts of arsenic in computers? That, my friends, is people wasting your time. That's people panicking about nothing. There's more arsenic in some of your foods. That's like people panicking that NutraSweet metabolism created acetone! And acetone can be a poison! Gasp! What they didn't mention is that acetone is simply produced during the metabolism of certain amino acids. The body copes it with. Drink a bottle of acetone and you're screwed. As a byproduct of NutraSweet metabolism, it's nothing. Nothing.

Save the planet, please, but don't be stupid about it. Greenpeace is becoming less like a skilled hunting dog and more like a rabid animal, simply barking and barking. My advice is to be very very careful about which dog you hunt with -- NOT that you shouldn't hunt. Greenpeace is spending too much effort simply trying to intimidate people; in so doing, they're squandering political capital, and probably real capital too. They no longer have a sense of relative risk, if they ever really did, and they have no concern with actual data, as is apparent in the current fracas.

Panic-mongering won't save the world. If anything, it endangers the world, because it makes us jaded.

Perhaps YOU will save the world, CJD2112. Honestly, I wish you all the luck in the world -- for my own, very selfish reasons. Get to it, my friend.

By the way, here are a couple of links:
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html)
SPACE.com -- Mars Emerging from Ice Age, Data Suggests (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html)

</soapbox>

[hardeeharhar]

No. Co2 is the least abundant and least effective of the greenhouse gases - it's effect is minuscule. To postulate that it is the principal component of a feedback mechanism powerful enough to significantly effect the temperature of the earth is ... misguided, to be polite.

This is wrong from the get go...

Other than water, CO2 concentration is almost 1000x the concentration of the nearest significant greenhouse gas (methane). It isn't 1/1000th as efficient as absorbing IR radiation as methane; in fact, its effect on heat absorption in the earth's atmosphere is second only to water vapor.

In other words, you are full of hot air...

Really, do you just pick facts out of the air to suit your theories?

[anantksundaram]

Dont be such an apple fan boy (and the other posters) - one can never criticise Apple!!!??

Yes if you are a Greenpeace supporter, you would never drive a car, fly in plane, eat pesticide covered vegetables et al - oh spare me

Computer companies do have a responsibility to produce toxic free (or as close as possible) products and kudos to Greenpeace for being on on the manufacturers' cases and likewise kudos to Apple for any legitimate effort to reduce toxic products and excess waste.

Apparently, you're not a very smart (or attentive) Aussie john.

Where did I mention "Apple" in my post? (Check it again). It was about Greenpeace, not Apple. And, yes, I am suggesting that they are, in all likelihood, a bunch of atavistic hypocrites.

(Oh, btw, I am an Apple fan-boy. I am not sure what your point there is, since that had nothing to do with my post).

[cnocbui]

The idea that the sun is causing global warming is preposterous and erroneous. Certainly the sun causes warming, but not nearly to the extent that has been demonstrated over the past century. As for my A) question, I said give proof that those planets are warming, I didn't necessarily state warming from CO2. My inclusion of CO2 was due to the fact that comparing Earth to the other planets in the solar system is comparing apples to oranges, as the other planets do not have the same atmosphere and conditions (or humans for that matter) as Earth does. To make the statement that all the planets are warming together at the same rate is quite a scientific discovery that hasn't made headline news as I'm certain that claim hasn't been made. I'd like to know more though...

The Sun is the only thing (ignoring the core) keeping the Earth from being as cold as Pluto, which is -238c. The average temperature of the Earth is 15c. The atmosphere contributes 33c to the Earth's heat so the Sun is responsible for 238+15-33 = 220c of heating compared with the atmospheres 33c (without the sun there would be no contribution from the atmosphere so I am being kind). So which factor is the most significant one for contributing to the overall warmth of the Earth ?

The rise in temperature of the Earth over the last 100yrs is:

a) 5 c
b) 2.5 c
c) 0.6 c

So which is the correct answer - given that you imply there has been a significant rise.

I never said the planets were warming at the same rate - they have different orbits and atmospheres so I wouldn't expect them to warm at the same rate. I just said they are warming.

Why are you again asking for a link supporting the idea of general planetary warming? I gave it in my previous post. What did you think those links were for - decoration?

[Ronbo]

The Sun is the only thing (ignoring the core) keeping the Earth from being as cold as Pluto, which is -238c.

That's not true. I had friends visiting from Pluto last weekend. The average temperature there has gone up there, too. The average temperature the past couple of years has been -236.5C! They're very worried. If it keeps going up, soon the oxygen is going to melt and they won't be able to breathe. Like everyone else, they blame America on their problem.

[cnocbui]

This is wrong from the get go...

Other than water, CO2 concentration is almost 1000x the concentration of the nearest significant greenhouse gas (methane). It isn't 1/1000th as efficient as absorbing IR radiation as methane; in fact, its effect on heat absorption in the earth's atmosphere is second only to water vapor.

In other words, you are full of hot air...

Really, do you just pick facts out of the air to suit your theories?

Mea culpa. I was thinking of Co2's relative green house gas effect compared with say methane - not the overall effect due to it's greater abundance.

[-hh]

Very true, but with mass production comes less cost.

A lower cost for that item, not necessarily a lower cost versus competing technologies.

Fact is, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have less moving parts than combustion engines, and while expensive now if in mass production hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would cost thousands less.

And you would end up with a less expensive (but still more expensive than an ICE) mass produced item that still would be unreliable, have only a fair power:weight ratio and have a short lifespan...in comparison to an ICE. As such, its lifecycle cost will be much higher. Overall, I understand the sentiment that you're trying to express, but fuel cells are also an example of how you simply can't push a technology until its clearly ready.


Overall, the best way to make a consumer willing to buy your "greener" producdt is to drive down its adoption costs to keep it competitive versus the less green, and if you can, then offer it with new features that make it more desirable than the traditional, which sometimes can overcome some part of a cost premium.


We just need to make the initial change, we have to WANT it. Sadly, humanity doesn't tend to want to change their ways until it is too late...


As a general rule of thumb, this is shortsightedness brought on by competitive pressures. The general solution for this problem for these "good for us" (but unglamorous) product characteristics are those that get imposed on Industry through Government regulation for the public good. Examples are easily found in automobiles, from pollution standards and fuel economy standards to safety equipment.


Originally posted by Ronbo

"And then, when this press release came out, Greenpeace completely failed to do the honorable thing and admit they'd criticized Apple unfairly."

Amen.


-hh

[Celemourn]

... do we really need a huge hard plastic case to package a matchbook sized ipod? aren't there 100 million of those in landfills now?

I kept mine... pretty plastic... mmmmmm

[Celemourn]

I applaud Desarc for making some excellent points against the general disdain for environmental issues that seems prevelant here. It makes me sick when I read pompous comments about how unimportant environmental issues are and that destroying a community that attempts to improve the way of life for generations to come is seen as humor. It's ignorant and sad.

Keep in mind, humanity is just a spec on the timeline of this planet, and nature can flick us off any time she wants. The Tsunami in Indonesia and the rapidly increasing hurricanes and global climate change is just a taste of what's to come from man's disrespect of the only planet they call home. Think about that fact very carefully before you anonymously reply with pompous comments. If attitudes similar to what has been displayed here continue, it's only a matter of time... :grumble:

It would be nice if reality were that easily polarized. I have very rarely seen anyone say that being mindful of the environment is unimportant. I have more often seen environmenalists claim that that argument has been made so that they can feel justified in becomming impassioned to promote their point of view.

It would be nice if reality were that easily polarized. I have very rarely seen anyone say that technology is a sin and we need to eradicate all industry from the face of the earth. I have more often seen anti-environmentalists claim that that argument has been made so that they can feel justified in becomming impassioned to promote their point of view.

There is a fine line between defending or promoting a particular point of view, and fabricating an imaginary conflict so that you can manipulate people's emotions. Stop with the cheep shots. That is one hallmark of Greenpeace and every other special interesst group like them, no matter what their position may be on whatever topic interests them. Lets act like intelligent people here, and recognize that we CAN discuss things without getting impassioned about them. All it really takes to change someone's mind is one good point, and them feeling certain that you are not attacking them. Shall we try to keep the discussion intelligent and open then?

One point on Global Warming: There is a book writen by a guy (I'm sorry, I don't recall the book title or the author, and haven't read through it myself)
***EDIT***
I found the source I was thinking of. Talbot, D., (2006). CO2 and the "Ornery Climate Beast" (Side bar). Technology Review, 109(3), pp. 40-41.
The source is actually an article in MIT's Technology Review magazine, and the person I was thinking of was NASA's Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Dr. Jim Hansen. He holds a Ph.D. in Physics, with B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction, and an M.S. in Astronomy. Jim's Wikipedia profile. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hansen)
***/EDIT***
who did a lot of research and showed that the Earth experiences a warming and cooling cycle, going from peak temperature to ice age, and back again. If I recall correctly, he used geological records to show this. I recall seeing a graph that covered, I think, four such previous cycles. His research showed that we are currently (over the next 15k years or so, I think) in the warm up portion of the cycle. Once we hit peak, global temperatures will start going back down again. Now, lets assume for a moment that his findings are correct. The wrong approach is to try to discredit this guy because "He's saying that global warming isn't real". That's just silly. The correct approach, I feel, is to ask, "If this warming cycle is real, then does human influence appear to be changing that regular cycle in any meaningful way? Are we accelerating or slowing down the warming cycle, or is what we see as Global Warming simply the cycle in action, and nothing more?" Please, no knee jerk reactions to that. Probably no one in this room can honestly answer that question without doing some considerable research. Well, if we can't use that to further our position, then what good is the question? It tells us where we SHOULD be spending our time, rather than meaninglessly arguing with someone else about claims they didn't make.


And with that my attention span has expired, and my Train of Thought been derailed.

Celemourn

[Celemourn]

...Blah blah blah blah...

In other words, please don't assume that everyone here holds a particular opinion simply because one person posted it. Please also do not assume that anyone here holds a particular opinion simply because of how you've interpreted a single, or multiple, posts. DON'T PUT WORDS IN PEOPLE'S MOUTHS.

[Celemourn]

The Sun is the only thing (ignoring the core) keeping the Earth from being as cold as Pluto, which is -238c. The average temperature of the Earth is 15c. The atmosphere contributes 33c to the Earth's heat so the Sun is responsible for 238+15-33 = 220c of heating compared with the atmospheres 33c (without the sun there would be no contribution from the atmosphere so I am being kind). So which factor is the most significant one for contributing to the overall warmth of the Earth ?

The rise in temperature of the Earth over the last 100yrs is:

a) 5 c
b) 2.5 c
c) 0.6 c

So which is the correct answer - given that you imply there has been a significant rise.

I never said the planets were warming at the same rate - they have different orbits and atmospheres so I wouldn't expect them to warm at the same rate. I just said they are warming.

Why are you again asking for a link supporting the idea of general planetary warming? I gave it in my previous post. What did you think those links were for - decoration?

This is a rather confusing post, I think.

The Sun is the only thing keeping the earth from being as cold as pluto
Not true. The DISTANCE of the Earth from the Sun is what is responsible for that difference. Pluto has no indpenent heating mechanism that I am aware of, and relies on the Sun also. The distance is the difference.

The average temperature of the Earth is 15c.
At what elevation? At what longitude and latitude? Need more specifics, please. That's like saying that my GPA is 4.0. Is that cumulative, or only one semester? What classes was I taking? It matters.

The atmosphere contributes 33c to the Earth's heat...
What? The atmosphere is more or less chemically inert. It only stores heat. It does not generate heat. It works as an insulating layer. The original source of that heat is predominantly, I THINK (I'm just a Physics major, not a Geophysics major) the Sun. I'm not sure how much the heat generated by gravitational compression of the Earth's core contributes. I'm pretty sure that the solar radiation dwarfs it.

... so the Sun is responsible for 238+15-33 = 220c of heating compared with the atmospheres 33c (without the sun there would be no contribution from the atmosphere so I am being kind)...
No. While math may work like this, science does not. Heating is done by energy transfer, which is measured in Joules. You cannot measure energy simply by using temperature. Temperature cannot be added as if it were a thing. It is only a description of an atribute of an object. If we wish to measure energy contribution of certain sources, then we have to use Joules, Btu, or some other unit of energy, rather than a unit of temperature. We must use the correct units. Temperature is the measure of how much random movement is occuring at the molecular level within a substance. Temperature does not equal heat, nor energy content, nor energy transfered. And again, the Sun is the primary source, and the atmosphere acts as an insulating layer. Where are you going with this, anyway?

... So which factor is the most significant one for contributing to the overall warmth of the Earth ?...
Wrong question. Think of the moon. Almost no atmosphere. On the dark side, the teperature drops to around 40 Kelvin (that's about -387°F or -233°C. 0 Kelvin is Absolute Zero, where all vibrational and rotational motion at the molecular scale ceases..(*Side note: Absolute Zero is not really reachable, actually, but we've gotten darned close... look up Bose Einstein Condensates if you're curious*) ). On the light side, it peaks around 396 Kelvin (253°F, or 123°C). The moon is subject to the same electromagnetic radiation that the Earth is (actually, think for a moment about how the difference in size might affect this), but the difference is that the Earth has an atmosphere to mellow out, if you will, the Sun's effect. The atmosphere both contributes to the warmth and the cooth (yeah, fake word there. :D) of the Earth. So really, if you're asking how much of an effect the atmosphere has on the surface temperature of the Earth, the answer is A HUGE effect.

SOURCE: NASA's Solar System Exploration: Planets: Earth's Moon: Facts & Figures (http://solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Moon&Display=Facts&System=Scientific)

The rise in temperature of the Earth over the last 100yrs is:

a) 5 c
b) 2.5 c
c) 0.6 c

So which is the correct answer - given that you imply there has been a significant rise.

I'm having trouble finding the numbers, but I've read that even as little as a 5°C change in average temperature IN THE FUTURE is enough to have a significant impact on the size of the Polar Ice Caps and glaciers. Too much temperature rise could completely melt them. However, even if the ice caps and glaciers all melted completely, the mean seal level would rise by just 0.5 meters.

But what was the point? I think we need to define 'Significant' here.

SOURCE:IPCC 2001 report. (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/434.htm#11541)

As a side note, an excellent source for all things climactic is The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (http://www.ipcc.ch/) If yall are really interested in the environment, then a logical first step is to read through the IPCCs reports. They break down the complex issues surrounding global warming into stuff that most reasonably intelligent people can digest. Disclaimer: No, I haven't read through it all myself yet.

Celemourn