or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple ranks fourth on Greenpeace's 'Guide to Greener Electronics'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple ranks fourth on Greenpeace's 'Guide to Greener Electronics'

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
Greenpeace on Wednesday released its new "Guide to Greener Electronics," in the environmental group ranked Apple fourth among major device makers.

The poll ranked 15 companies across three areas: energy, greener products and sustainable operations. The report also challenges companies to reduce their carbon footprint in a variety of areas, and also to set "ambitious" goals for renewable energy.

With a score of 4.6 out of 10, Apple came in fourth place -- up five places from the previous Greenpeace report. The iPhone maker scored strong on its sustainable operations, but was ranked poorly on energy.

Greenpeace said it believes Apple's greenhouse gas emissions data needs external verifications, and the organization criticizes the fact that Apple has not specified any target to reduce emissions. But it also gave credit to Apple for its improved energy efficiency and use of renewable energy.

While energy was the company's low point, the sustainable operations category was particularly strong for Apple. Greenpeace credited Apple for exceeding its own goals in global recycling in 2010, and also ranked it as a top scorer for policies and practices on the sourcing of conflict minerals.

Apple also had a strong showing in the products criteria, as all of the company's devices are free of PVC vinyl plastic and brominated flame retardants. The company also received maximum points for reporting that all of its products meet or exceed the latest Energy Star standards for energy efficiency.



For years now Apple has pushed the environmentally friendly aspects of its products, countering a dispute that began with Greenpeace in August of 2006, when the organization issued a report condemning Apple for the use of toxic chemicals in its devices. Greenpeace also pulled a number of publicity stunts, such as a "Green My Apple" campaign in London in October of 2006, and a "greening" of Apple's flagship Fifth Avenue glass cube in January of 2007.

The negative publicity helped to prompt Apple co-founder Steve Jobs issue an open letter to customers and shareholders in May of 2007, in which he admitted that the company had not been forthright on its environmental policy. As part of the letter, Jobs outline a timetable for the removal of toxic chemicals from the company's products, including arsenic, mercury, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and brominated flame retardants (BDRs).

Jobs later said he felt Apple's tight-lipped approach to developing products hurt its image with environmental organizations. He argued that Apple's products has always been green, but previously didn't make a point to mention it in public. Apple now mentions its products' environmental impact with a scorecard at each keynote.

"We tend to report rather than predict," Jobs said. "You won't see us out there saying what the PC is going to look like in 2016. We quietly go try to invent the PC for 2016."

Apple's fourth-place ranking in this year's Greenpeace "Guide to Greener Electronics" places it behind Nokia (4.9/10), Dell (5.1/10), and in first place, HP (5.9/10). Immediately below Apple were Philips (4.5/10), Sony Ericsson (4.2/10), Samsung (4.1/10) and Lenovo (3.8/10).
post #2 of 29
Not surprising that they scored low in their use of recycled plastic in their products--they don't use much plastic of any type in their products.
post #3 of 29
Are Greenpeace still using their flawed methodology or have they decided to start grading based on, you know, facts?

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #4 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jensonb View Post

Are Greenpeace still using their flawed methodology or have they decided to start grading based on, you know, facts?

Why would they start basing things on facts? They've got a great scam going now.

Greenpeace has always been about show. The companies who talk the most about their 'green' efforts (and who publicly make donations to environmental groups) get good marks. Companies who do great things but don't issue weekly press releases or invite Greenpeace members to lunch do poorly in their rankings.

Just look at their individual marks:

"Clean Electricity Plan". Apple ranks 'Low'. I guess Greenpeace missed the article that says that Apple's NC data center will be powered by solar.

"Clean Energy Policy Advocacy". Apple ranks 'Zero'. They never sent a check to Greenpeace.

"Recycling" (paper and plastics). Apple ranks 'Zero'. But look at the facts:
http://www.apple.com/environment/#recycling
Quote:
Our original goal for 2010 was to achieve a worldwide recycling rate of 50 percent. (To calculate this rate, we use a measurement proposed by Dell that assumes a seven-year product lifetime. The weight of the materials we recycle each year is compared to the total weight of the products Apple sold seven years earlier.) We exceeded that goal in 2009, one year earlier than projected, when we achieved a rate of 66.4 percent. This far surpasses the last reported numbers from Dell and HP, which were each lower than 20 percent.

Given that 66.4% recycling rate (which is probably higher than 99% of companies out there), how in the world do they give Apple a 'Zero'????

"Measure and Reduce Energy Use in the Supply Chain". Apple ranks 'Low'. Apple clearly measures this - and works hard to reduce it. For example, the following web site is illustrative:
http://www.apple.com/environment/

Greenpeace people are idiots. They are all about 'show' and never let the facts distract them from their agenda. I'd love to see someone stand up to them and demand that they support their claims with more than their own unfounded opinions.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #5 of 29
Not interested in the politically fueled pseudo-science of Greenpeace.
post #6 of 29
The good news is I now an example of a review company I rank lower than Consumer Reports.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #7 of 29
I haven't forgiven GP since they tried to push me back in the water on the beaches of Malibu...
post #8 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Why would they start basing things on facts? They've got a great scam going now.
Greenpeace has always been about show. ...

I have to dispute this part.

Only in the last ten years or so has Greenpeace been like this. For most of their existence they were a well-run, hard-working and very relevant group that was actively working to better the world and did a lot of good.

Sadly, they have turned into this.
I'm sure the founders are rolling in their graves.
post #9 of 29
End of the year fundraising time for Greenpeace. Want a better place on the list? Donate!
post #10 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I have to dispute this part.

Only in the last ten years or so has Greenpeace been like this. For most of their existence they were a well-run, hard-working and very relevant group that was actively working to better the world and did a lot of good.

Sadly, they have turned into this.
I'm sure the founders are rolling in their graves.

Not rolling in their graves, speaking out against Greenpeace

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHZ9lZHW4

I can't believe Dell is better than Apple, maybe better at talking about it.
post #11 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beauty of Bath View Post

Not rolling in their graves, speaking out against Greenpeace

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHZ9lZHW4

I can't believe Dell is better than Apple, maybe better at talking about it.

Dell isn't better than Apple. Look at the quote above. Apple has 3 times the recycling rate of Dell. Admittedly, we don't know how that was measured, but Apple says that they used Dell's own protocol.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #12 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beauty of Bath View Post

I can't believe Dell is better than Apple, ...

You and me both. This obviously discredits Greenpeace. Dell and HP who both make plastic laden junk with an effective life span of 3 years, their computers are terrible power hogs, and have little to no value on the resale market; are ranked higher than Apple who makes things out of metal and glass which can be recycled, have much longer effective life spans, are power efficient, and have value on the resale market (recycle/reuse)? This is madness, corruption, greed, or dope smoking on Greenpeace's part!
post #13 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Why would they start basing things on facts? They've got a great scam going now.

Greenpeace has always been about show. The companies who talk the most about their 'green' efforts (and who publicly make donations to environmental groups) get good marks. Companies who do great things but don't issue weekly press releases or invite Greenpeace members to lunch do poorly in their rankings.

Just look at their individual marks:

"Clean Electricity Plan". Apple ranks 'Low'. I guess Greenpeace missed the article that says that Apple's NC data center will be powered by solar.

"Clean Energy Policy Advocacy". Apple ranks 'Zero'. They never sent a check to Greenpeace.

"Recycling" (paper and plastics). Apple ranks 'Zero'. But look at the facts:
http://www.apple.com/environment/#recycling


Given that 66.4% recycling rate (which is probably higher than 99% of companies out there), how in the world do they give Apple a 'Zero'????

"Measure and Reduce Energy Use in the Supply Chain". Apple ranks 'Low'. Apple clearly measures this - and works hard to reduce it. For example, the following web site is illustrative:
http://www.apple.com/environment/

Greenpeace people are idiots. They are all about 'show' and never let the facts distract them from their agenda. I'd love to see someone stand up to them and demand that they support their claims with more than their own unfounded opinions.

FWIW: You don't get high marks for Clean Energy consumption before the Green Energy [Solar Plant] is operational and being the source of your Energy draw.
post #14 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Why would they start basing things on facts? They've got a great scam going now.

Greenpeace has always been about show. The companies who talk the most about their 'green' efforts (and who publicly make donations to environmental groups) get good marks. Companies who do great things but don't issue weekly press releases or invite Greenpeace members to lunch do poorly in their rankings.

Just look at their individual marks:

"Clean Electricity Plan". Apple ranks 'Low'. I guess Greenpeace missed the article that says that Apple's NC data center will be powered by solar.

"Clean Energy Policy Advocacy". Apple ranks 'Zero'. They never sent a check to Greenpeace.

"Recycling" (paper and plastics). Apple ranks 'Zero'. But look at the facts:
http://www.apple.com/environment/#recycling


Given that 66.4% recycling rate (which is probably higher than 99% of companies out there), how in the world do they give Apple a 'Zero'????

"Measure and Reduce Energy Use in the Supply Chain". Apple ranks 'Low'. Apple clearly measures this - and works hard to reduce it. For example, the following web site is illustrative:
http://www.apple.com/environment/

Greenpeace people are idiots. They are all about 'show' and never let the facts distract them from their agenda. I'd love to see someone stand up to them and demand that they support their claims with more than their own unfounded opinions.

Thanks man. Still just a load of hot air then. Greenpeace really tick me off. Wen you pull BS like they do you damage the whole environmental movement.

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #15 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jensonb View Post

Are Greenpeace still using their flawed methodology or have they decided to start grading based on, you know, facts?

Heh. You knew the answer before you even asked the question...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SixnaHalfFeet View Post

This is madness, corruption, greed, or dope smoking on Greenpeace's part!

"or"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Only in the last ten years or so has Greenpeace been like this. For most of their existence they were a well-run, hard-working and very relevant group that was actively working to better the world and did a lot of good.

Sadly, they have turned into this.
I'm sure the founders are rolling in their graves.

All true, except the last bit. The founders ain't rolling in their graves - they're rolling over Greenpeace in the press. (And YouTube.)
post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

"Clean Electricity Plan". Apple ranks 'Low'. I guess Greenpeace missed the article that says that Apple's NC data center will be powered by solar.

Solar isn't purely clean, it produces a large amount of visual pollution
post #17 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Solar isn't purely clean, it produces a large amount of visual pollution

If this is an attempt at a clever condemnation of its aesthetic, then this is a terrible post. If its not, can you explain to me what visual pollution is?
post #18 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post

If this is an attempt at a clever condemnation of its aesthetic, then this is a terrible post. If its not, can you explain to me what visual pollution is?

It's not light pollution/photopollution/luminous pollution that produces excessive or obtrusive artificial light. It's pollution of visually seeing things that are unpleasant and crappy. just look at any post made by jfanning for an example of such crap.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #19 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by SixnaHalfFeet View Post

Y... Apple who makes things out of metal and glass which can be recycled, have much longer effective life spans, are power efficient, and have value on the resale market (recycle/reuse)? This is madness, corruption, greed, or dope smoking on Greenpeace's part!

Just because apple's products are made out of recyclable parts doesn't mean they are going to be dismantled for recycling. Ipods go straight to the chipper. And those were the ones that weren't tossed in the garbage.
If you look at product lifecycle, apple obsoletes them every year to maximize profit (read GREED). That much more are being dumped.

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply
post #20 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

FWIW: You don't get high marks for Clean Energy consumption before the Green Energy [Solar Plant] is operational and being the source of your Energy draw.

WRONG. The category was "Clean Electricity PLAN". Seems to me that placing an order for hundreds of millions of dollars of solar energy equipment is a pretty strong plan. (And that even assumes that Apple doesn't do anything else - which isn't likely).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Solar isn't purely clean, it produces a large amount of visual pollution

Apple puts in solar energy to reduce the impact of their data center on the environment and get accused of "visual pollution".
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Oh, great. Here come the trolls again. Apple puts in solar energy to reduce the impact of their data center on the environment and get accused of "visual pollution".

Apple should stick to coal¡ It natural, it comes from the ground and creates jobs for hardworking Americans¡
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #22 of 29
If Apple products last longer then some credit should be given for that. How would one really know that figure?

My first computer was a Gateway that lasted six years. If I wanted to spend $150 on it I could get it working again. The only problem was that the fans quit and they were custom sized built within the power supply tunnel, thus the whole thing needs to be replaced. The thing is I really don't want a 1.8 GHz Intel Celeron 256K RAM computer with a 40 GB hard drive that uses 250 watts of power. I could buy a used netbook for about that much money.
post #23 of 29
Why would anyone care about a Greenpeace Guide? This outlaw terrorist organization has no following of any statue and anyone who does is nothing more than a terrorist and should be shot on sight.
post #24 of 29
I kind of like how the French blew up the Rainbow Warrior here in New Zealand.

I find it all hypocritical that Greenpeace would wail the destruction of their boat while they continue to try to ram other people's boats.

Greenpeace are anything but peaceful therefore they need to change their name... CLUELESS seems to fit.
post #25 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post

If this is an attempt at a clever condemnation of its aesthetic, then this is a terrible post. If its not, can you explain to me what visual pollution is?



OK, I thought it was a well known term, it has been talked about for many years. It is when people find something unpleasant to look at, solar energy, and windmills while "green", are an unpleasant sight to some people.

There are many articles on it, here are two results from a search on the term

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_pollution
http://www.dunnfoundation.org/vp/index.html
post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It's not light pollution/photopollution/luminous pollution that produces excessive or obtrusive artificial light. It's pollution of visually seeing things that are unpleasant and crappy. just look at any post made by jfanning for an example of such crap.

Once again you go straight in with stupid abuse for no reason. What is your issue?
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Oh, great. Here come the trolls again. Apple puts in solar energy to reduce the impact of their data center on the environment and get accused of "visual pollution".

Troll? Oh, yes, I'm on Appleinsider, where if you disagree with anyone they either start abusing you, or calling you a troll.

No one accused anyone of anything, I simply stated a fact, I know you guys don't like facts on this site, but get over it, it is still a fact even though you don't like it.
post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

OK, I thought it was a well known term, it has been talked about for many years. It is when people find something unpleasant to look at, solar energy, and windmills while "green", are an unpleasant sight to some people.

So, would you - I mean these people - categorize unattractive people as being an example of "visual pollution"?
post #29 of 29
Greenpreach has no credibility. In the real world, Apple is leaps and bounds ahead of all other technology companies when it comes to environmental responsibility. Even if they weren't, who is Greenpeace to decide what is or isn't environmentally important? They still think ethanol is "green" when in reality it's the worst of all.

They ranked Apple behind Dell and HP on their scorecard, but I'll tell you what, in practice it's exactly opposite. I receive computer equipment every week. The packaging for Apple is minimalist and recycle friendly - the packaging for the others is massively bulky, wasteful, full of styrofoam, plastics and other crap. The equipment from Apple is made with highly recyclable aluminum, glass, and other materials. The products from the other guys are stamped sheet metal and plastic.

Apple has a link at the bottom of their home page of their web site to "Environment" where they thoroughly and elegantly report their efforts and provide info on how you can recycle any Apple product. They'll also recycle other companies' crap for you. The other guys? HP - nada. Dell - they have a link; it takes you to a page that's certainly not inviting, but it's there.

These are just a few examples. I could go on - there are many more areas where Apple is far more environmentally conscious than any other company. So, Greenpreach - go stick it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple ranks fourth on Greenpeace's 'Guide to Greener Electronics'