Apple reports carbon emissions, touts green hardware

[AppleInsider]

Apple this week launched a new section of its Web site devoted to promoting the company's energy efficient machines and environmentally friendly manufacturing techniques.

The new feature, entitled Apple and the Environment, provides information on how the Mac maker has made efforts to eliminate toxic substances from its machines, and also worked to make its hardware highly recyclable.

Years ago, the company was targeted by Greenpeace over the use of toxic chemicals in its products. In 2006, Apple was given a 2.7 out of 10 rating in being environmentally friendly. Since then, the hardware manufacturer has made a clear effort to improve its image within the environmentally conscious community.

"With a complete life cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, Apple sets a new standard of full environmental disclosure," the company said in a press release. "We’re the only company in our industry that considers the environmental footprint of every product we make. And we’re the only company to add up all our greenhouse gas emissions and tell you how they are distributed across — and beyond — a product’s lifespan."

In 2007, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs unveiled a timetable for the removal of toxic chemicals from the company's products. The new Web site is a means for Apple to tout the progress it has made since then. The page also marks the first time the company will disclose its carbon emissions, according to BusinessWeek.

"Apple's real goal is to change the terms of the debate," the report said. "Company executives say that most existing green rankings are flawed in several respects. They count the promises companies make about green plans rather than actual achievements. And most focus on the environmental impact of a company's operations, but exclude that of its products."



Apple officials reportedly said that the use of Apple products by consumers accounts for more than half of the company's annual 10.2 million tons of carbon emissions. The environmental Web site states that less than 5 percent of the company's emissions come from manufacturing facilities, while more than 95 percent of Apple's greenhouse gases are from the products they make.

"A lot of companies publish how green their building is, but it doesn't matter if you're shipping millions of power-hungry products with toxic chemicals in them," Jobs told BusinessWeek. "It's like asking a cigarette company how green their office is."

The new Web site also pushes Apple's recycling program, where users can learn how to send in their old iPod, iPhone or Mac. Users of handheld devices can fill out a form with their name and address and will be provided a prepaid mailer, while Mac owners can recycle their old system for free with the purchase of any new system in an Apple Store.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[str1f3]

Interesting. Jobs himself even speaks out in this article. He must really care about this himself although it should come as no surprise. It good to see Apple leading the front on environmental awareness.

[infinite_entropy]

I'm very happy to be able to read about this effort by Apple. It makes me feel better when using my new MacBook Air, for what it's worth. I'm a very active volunteer and donor to and for environmental efforts, primarily watershed and river cleanup and maintenance but also a number of other efforts, so this is right up my alley. Way to go Apple!

[Quadra 610]

Very progressive.

[DKWalsh4]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

Very progressive.

I agree, but you can also say this about a lot of things they do. They're on the cutting edge with their products as well as the environmental impact those products have.

[mr O]

The credit crunch has taken all the headlines, but there's still a climate crisis going on

This a mature answer from Apple to the misleading Redmond ads of cheap PCs. Remember, it's not business as usual. The world has changed for the better. And it's good to see that Apple is at the forefront

[ascii]

I thought it wasn't clear the carbon is the cause of climate change. This could all be a big waste of time by Apple.

[teckstud]

I'm sorry, but in NO way is the APPLETV environmentally green or progressive.
From its lack of an "On/Off" switch to the thermal heat it emits continually, it is the exact opposite.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by str1f3

Interesting. Jobs himself even speaks out in this article. He must really care about this himself although it should come as no surprise. It good to see Apple leading the front on environmental awareness.

AL Gore sits on the Board- what would you expect?
Why do you think we wound up with envornmentally friendly though totalling annoying high gloss screens for the last 3 years? You can thank Al Gore.
Thank god that is beginning to change. Love the new non-glare.

[imho]

I think this article is a little misleading. This is not a "new" section of the Apple Website. Apple has had its environment reporting section for years. All this is is an "update" to www.apple.com/environment

[Quadra 610]

Originally Posted by teckstud

I'm sorry, but in NO way is the APPLETV environmentally green or progressive.
From its lack of an "On/Off" switch to the thermal heat it emits continually, it is the exact opposite.

The Apple TV consumes about 14 watts in standby and between 17 and 19 watts while in use.

You should be more worried about the 60 watt incandescent bulb above your head.

[surferfromuk]

Well done Apple - a very admirable start - makes me glad to use your products.

Now please go buy and protect $100 million of rainforest and really make a balanced offset difference that nobody can deny.

[DKWalsh4]

Originally Posted by teckstud

I'm sorry, but in NO way is the APPLETV environmentally green or progressive.
From its lack of an "On/Off" switch to the thermal heat it emits continually, it is the exact opposite.

Since the current Apple TV is several years old, it may have been designed before they actually started their "green revolution." Plus with rumors of the a new aTV coming out sometime in the near future, I'm sure it'll be on par with the rest of their products. (In terms of its environmental impact)

[knightlie]

Originally Posted by str1f3

Interesting. Jobs himself even speaks out in this article. He must really care about this himself although it should come as no surprise. It good to see Apple leading the front on environmental awareness.

Let's be honest, the pressure from Greenpeace prompted this. Where was the "environmental progress" page when Macs were full of poisonous plastics - you remember, two or three years ago?

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

The Apple TV consumes about 14 watts in standby and between 17 and 19 watts while in use.

You should be more worried about the 60 watt incandescent bulb above your head.

Not really. It doesn't turn on. Switch or no switch.

[Beeman60]

Originally Posted by teckstud

I'm sorry, but in NO way is the APPLETV environmentally green or progressive.
From its lack of an "On/Off" switch to the thermal heat it emits continually, it is the exact opposite.

You can easily put the ATV into very low power state by using the menu item System Standby on the settings (?) menu.
Power consumption drops and heat dissipation drops and ATV cools down.
The ATV comes to life when you hit the menu key a few times on the remote. (It's alive! It's Alive!)

To reduce power draw to zero, pull the AC plug from your power source or use a power strip and turn the strip off. I don't do this myself cause I am impatient with the system IPL.

[DKWalsh4]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

The Apple TV consumes about 14 watts in standby and between 17 and 19 watts while in use.

You should be more worried about the 60 watt incandescent bulb above your head.

I like to think of it in more relative terms. For example, a big screen TV is going to use more power than a light bulb. They're different products that use different parts. It's not so much how many watts each device is using, but more about how that device is minimizing its own usage as much as possible.

Even in standby, that 14 watts is running constantly. If there was even a simple on/off switch you can minimize how much power its using drastically.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

You should be more worried about the 60 watt incandescent bulb above your head.

Bad try at an insult but I realize it's too early in the morning for you.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

The Apple TV consumes about 14 watts in standby and between 17 and 19 watts while in use.

You should be more worried about the 60 watt incandescent bulb above your head.

Only you could defend the Apple TV as being environmentally friendly. I got to hand it to you- this stoops to an even lower level than I thought you were capable of.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Not really. It doesn't turn on. Switch or no switch.

[Quadra 610]

The AppleTV will have about the same effect on your bill as leaving a 50 watt light bulb on continuously. If you want to calculate the cost, figure about 1.1 kilowatt-hour (kWh) per day times the number of days in the billing period times the kWh rate your electric company charges. (The actual cost will be lower, assuming it doesn't draw full rated power continuously - this is a worst case scenario.)

For most, it works out to only a few dollars more per month.

The Apple TV has to remain on at all times in order for automatic syncing to work properly. Also, if you want the thing to be able to be turned on via the remote, it needs to be "on" in some form or another, listening for that signal from the remote. All VCRs, DVDs, Cable Boxes, etc. are "on" technically, as long as they are plugged in.

The Apple TV is a computer with its own HD. Do you shut your computer off completely every time you don't use it after 15-20 min?

Let's not overstate the consumption issue.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by ascii

I thought it wasn't clear the carbon is the cause of climate change. This could all be a big waste of time by Apple.

You really should inform yourself a bit better. Here's a good start: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...sis_report.htm

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by knightlie

Let's be honest, the pressure from Greenpeace prompted this.

Not really. Many companies - hundreds, in fact - are getting front of sustainability issues in a significant way. The potential consequences associated with the use of natural resources (land, water, fossil fuels, biodiversity resources, metals......) by global businesses have become huge.

In fact, Apple is a bit behind the curve in the larger scheme of things (although it may be one of the leaders in the computer industry). While its reporting is good, it is by no means the best-of-class. You'd be amazed at what companies like 3M, Walmart, Owens-Corning, and Caterpillar (to name just a few) are doing. You can go to their respective websites and poke around and you'll find tons of info. There are dozens and dozens more like them.

But the fact that Jobs himself is seemingly the protagonist on this is very good news.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

The AppleTV will have about the same effect on your bill as leaving a 50 watt light bulb on continuously. If you want to calculate the cost, figure about 1.1 kilowatt-hour (kWh) per day times the number of days in the billing period times the kWh rate your electric company charges. (The actual cost will be lower, assuming it doesn't draw full rated power continuously - this is a worst case scenario.)

For most, it works out to only a few dollars more per month.

The Apple TV has to remain on at all times in order for automatic syncing to work properly. Also, if you want the thing to be able to be turned on via the remote, it needs to be "on" in some form or another, listening for that signal from the remote. All VCRs, DVDs, Cable Boxes, etc. are "on" technically, as long as they are plugged in.

The Apple TV is a computer with its own HD. Do you shut your computer off completely every time you don't use it after 15-20 min?

Let's not overstate the consumption issue.

Keep going- this is quite entertaining.

[newbee]

Originally Posted by ascii

I thought it wasn't clear the carbon is the cause of climate change. This could all be a big waste of time by Apple.

While it may not "be clear" beyond a doubt what is actually causing climate change, I think everyone who can remember the "good old days" when you couldn't "see the air" because of all the pollution, has to agree that it is best to err on the side of caution. If we wait to have definitive proof of the causes, it may well be too late to do anything about it. I applaud Apple on their stance ... way to go Apple!

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by teckstud

I'm sorry, but in NO way is the APPLETV environmentally green or progressive.
From its lack of an "On/Off" switch to the thermal heat it emits continually, it is the exact opposite.

I agree.

AppleTV data are curiously absent on Apple's website: http://www.apple.com/environment/reports/
(just about every other product has detailed data available).

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

I agree.

AppleTV data are curiously absent on Apple's website: http://www.apple.com/environment/reports/
(just about every other product has detailed data available).

Great catch. Hmmm.

[newbee]

Originally Posted by teckstud

I'm sorry, but in NO way is the APPLETV environmentally green or progressive.
From its lack of an "On/Off" switch to the thermal heat it emits continually, it is the exact opposite.

Teckdud, your ability to always "find the cloud behind every silver lining" never fails to amaze me.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

AppleTV data are curiously absent on Apple's website: http://www.apple.com/environment/reports/
(just about every other product has detailed data available).

Somethings just take longer to come about.

There are good reasons why you just don't want to 'switch' off at times. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2671

My PVR and flat screen are 'always' on standby, except when we go away for more than a weekend.

I would expect Apple to add the upcoming AppleTV to the list. But I wouldn't get too upset if they didn't.

Somethings we just have to take some responsibility for ourselves. Others like over idling our cars on cold winter mornings or hot summer days just so we can be comfortable unfortunately have incurred additional local bylaws on the books.

[ascii]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

You really should inform yourself a bit better. Here's a good start: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...sis_report.htm

Earth's weather is currently too mathematically complicated to be understood by man. However I do support Apple's actions purely on the level of an efficiency drive. There's no point being wasteful.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by newbee

Teckdud, your ability to always "find the cloud behind every silver lining" never fails to amaze me.

I try to call it like it is- keep it "real" as they say. Is this case I own one of those hotties and I am constantly bewildered at both the heat it emits and the frustration in powering it completely off.
Even is standby - it runs hot. My 42" TV is in standby I suppose and yet I feel no heat on it.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Somethings just take longer to come about.

Poor excuse for not including it now on the list of products.

There are good reasons why you just don't want to 'switch' off at times. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2671

There are more good reasons why you would want to. The fan needs to run all night, etc, etc, etc? What is it that's running hot in the first palce. A fan cooling down what if everything has spun down?

My PVR and flat screen are 'always' on standby, except when we go away for more than a weekend.

My 42" plasma TV doesn't emit heat like ATV in standby.

[newbee]

Originally Posted by knightlie

Let's be honest, the pressure from Greenpeace prompted this. Where was the "environmental progress" page when Macs were full of poisonous plastics - you remember, two or three years ago?

Where was anybody 2 or 3 years ago in terms of the environment? .... It's called progress, and while we're at it, what is the rest of the computer industry's ( dell, hp, intel, etc.) stance on this issue today? Go visit with teckdud. Maybe the two of you can find some more things to complain about!

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by ascii

Earth's weather is currently too mathematically complicated to be understood by man.

Wow. On what authority are you saying this?

I suppose all those dozens and dozens of high-quality peer-reviewed science journals, with the thousands and thousands of superbly trained scientists working and publishing on the issue - the standard manner in which scientific thought in today's world is developed, assessed, and disseminated - must amount to a hill of beans, right?

And, what shall we rely on instead? Visions?

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by newbee

Where was anybody 2 or 3 years ago in terms of the environment? .... It's called progress, and while we're at it, what is the rest of the computer industry's ( dell, hp, intel, etc.) stance on this issue today? Go visit with teckdud. Maybe the two of you can find some more things to complain about!

It's called naming Al Gore, the Nobel Prize-winning climate change campaigner, to your Board of Directors. Let's Keep it REAL. It would be an embarassment to Gore if Apple didn't take action on this.

Please stop using my name to further your agenda.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Poor excuse for not including it now on the list of products.

Obviously it doesn't meet their own standards as yet

There are more good reasons why you would want to. The fan needs to run all night, etc, etc, etc? What is it that's running hot in the first palce. A fan cooling down what if everything has spun down?

So pull the plug

My 42" plasma TV doesn't emit heat like ATV in standby.

But your nightlights do.

I wonder how many realize that all those power adapters we have plugged in and use to recharge our cell phones and MP3 players draw power even if nothing is connected to them.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by teckstud

It's called naming Al Gore, the Nobel Prize-winning climate change campaigner, to your Board of Directors. Let's Keep it REAL. It would be an embarassment to Gore if Apple didn't take action on this.

Please stop using my name to further your agenda.

Apple had an environmental strategy and web site more than a decade before Gore came on board.

Nobody can criticize Jobs when it come to environmental concerns without cleaning up their own houses first.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Apple had an environmental strategy and web site more than a decade before Gore came on board.

Nobody can criticize Jobs when it come to environmental concerns without cleaning up their own houses first.

Then why was Apple taken to task by Greenpeace 5 years ago? What kind of strategy was that?

[doyourownthing]

another original idea, in case someone wants to have a laugh

http://www.microsoft.com/environment/hohm.aspx

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by teckstud

I appreciate your response. And I would like to personally apologize to you.

I think you aren't really the troll you present yourself to be.

You just like to Yank Our Chains.

Unfortunately, when we retort likewise, i.e., by yanking your chain, we forget that there is nothing at the other end.