or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple pulls products from government-backed 'green electronics' list
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple pulls products from government-backed 'green electronics' list - Page 4

post #121 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list/80#post_2142387"]
I'm sure that the millions who have died since the ban are also thankful.

This is very true. Indeed, the right words in-between should be much stronger: it should say, 'because of.'

The DDT ban probably killed more people than Stalin did.

PS: I did not see post #107 before posting ths.
Edited by anantksundaram - 7/7/12 at 5:06pm
post #122 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

They would have died anyway. The problem with DDT was that mosquitoes were building resistance to it (yes, natural selection works), so they had to keep raising the quantity used. Meanwhile, the stuff doesn't biodegrade and it was accumulating in higher animals at increasing rates. It was lose-lose regardless, so it was banned.

This post has about the same moral foundation as a eugenicist claiming that all he was doing was 'natural selection.'
post #123 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

My guess is that Apple considers the EPEAT criteria to be woefully out of date and thus, no longer worth supporting in 2012. There are possibly other behind-the-scenes political motivations behind the status change.

 

It is unlikely that Apple would ever come out directly against EPEAT, which is explains their thinly veiled language.

 

Apple has disassociated itself from other groups that it no longer felt worth supporting. Apple Inc. pulled out of the US Chamber of Commerce in 2009 over discord with the group's emissions policy. Amusingly, Apple remains a major sponsor of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce.

 

There is a Big difference between local chambers of commerce and the US Chamber of Commerce. The US Chamber is an anti-worker, anti-family, group of elitist fascists that want the vast majority of us who's jobs they don't ship abroad to be slaves of commerce. Local chambers are usually not un-American billionaires and are more down to earth.

post #124 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post

There is a Big difference between local chambers of commerce and the US Chamber of Commerce. The US Chamber is an anti-worker, anti-family, group of elitist fascists that want the vast majority of us who's jobs they don't ship abroad to be slaves of commerce. Local chambers are usually not un-American billionaires and are more down to earth.

Hey... Corporations are people too! /s
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #125 of 197

Since Apple has dropped the EPEAT standard I decided to visit the manufacturer to whom I would go to as an alternative to Apple. They are System 76. They make high end computers for less than the other American manufacturers because they use Linux as the operating system.

System 76 does not have any EPEAT certification listed on any of the products I viewed. They do have something called 80 Plus. It is a system that regulates the amount of power that goes to the power supply to ensure it isn't using any more power than is needed at any one time. It is supposed to reduce energy consumption. Apple had a power saving feature built into some of its products in the past. I haven't studied their product literature in a while to see if it is still a feature.

The benefits I would receive from owning a System 76 product is the ability to access the internal parts. They are also made in the USA which I like. The downside is that there are no sophisticated presentation software programs on Linux equal to Powerpoint or Keynote. If there is such a program out their I really would like to know about it. Libre Office needs to improve some to equal the others.

post #126 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

God I miss Melgross!
appleinsider has become the tallest_skil channel. all crap, all the time.

Aww, that's a shame. Now how about instead of insulting me you explain your meaning. Also take a gander around, as melgross made posts just today.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #127 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list/80#post_2142386"]
There are cases of "scientists" cherry picking data to suit their agenda and do they still even call it global warming? I believe that the propagandists now call it "climate change". In the 70's, propagandists were whining about global cooling. The planet goes through periods where it's both been cooler and warmer than now, long before the global warming alarmists and other ignorant people were ever born.

I do not deny that man-made pollution has some effect on the planet, but I do disagree with the extent and especially the political BS solutions and economic fascism that is being proposed by dishonest politicians and others. It is those people and their solutions that I do not like.

There is a big difference. What are your credentials to make such a claim?

OTOH, 97% of climate scientists agree that human activities are causing global warming. (The call it climate change because you get people who don't understand the concept that even if the planet as a whole is warming up that some areas might be cooler for a short time period). That's 97% of the people who have the expertise, the tools, and the experience to know what they're talking about.
http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/pnas-2010-anderegg-1003187107-1.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

A true environmentalist should not procreate and also consider committing suicide to hasten the demise of the human race since humans are the ones destroying the environment.

Or, better yet, simply shoot the ones who are wasting energy. That would be even more effective. /s
"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 #128 of 197

Part of what makes Apple successful is their industrial design. If they started putting other considerations first, such as recyclability, they would ultimately end up with products that look like design by committee. It would be the beginning of the end of Apple.

 

DesignByCommittee.jpg

post #129 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

Well there goes Apple's opportunity and momentum of selling computers to the government down the drain.
Bush signed an executive order requiring all federal agencies to use EPEAT when purchasing computers back in 2007. Also there are a lot of schools and corporations that require EPEAT certification.
So it is a big deal and a setback..

 

Well, Apple decided to do this. No one forced them to. One has to assume they knew what the consequences might be but went ahead anyway. So it's not really a setback in the sense that Apple did this voluntarily to themselves. Apple is not stupid and something is in the works behind the scenes. You can bet your paycheck on it.

post #130 of 197
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Aww, that's a shame. Now how about instead of insulting me you explain your meaning. Also take a gander around, as melgross made posts just today.

I thought the post was funny, and you're proving his point. You're a moderator- you don't need to get in the mud and argue with him. Shouldn't you be above it?
All crap, all the time. Lol. It's catchy.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #131 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


This post has about the same moral foundation as a eugenicist claiming that all he was doing was 'natural selection.'

 

It has no moral foundation or lack of it. It has scientific foundation.

 

DDT was losing effectiveness and continued massive use would have rendered it completely harmless to mosquitoes, while remaining toxic to animals higher up in the food chain. What part of that is so hard to comprehend?

 

Those millions of dead people are so much right-wing fiction. DDT was banned in the United States and a few other advanced countries, but use of DDT continued elsewhere, though curtailed, precisely because it does not biodegrade and becomes ineffective quickly. Mosquitoes resistant to DDT appeared over 60 years ago, in India, and are now present all over the world.

 

You are parroting a fictional, fact-free story invented by the chemical industry to paint greens as immoral. It's bull, and people who favor turning finite resources into trash have no moral standing to begin with.

post #132 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

This is very true. Indeed, the right words in-between should be much stronger: it should say, 'because of.'
The DDT ban probably killed more people than Stalin did.
PS: I did not see post #107 before posting ths.

 

No, it didn't. Nothing could be more false. For one thing DDT hasn't even been banned worldwide. It's been banned in countries like the United States, where people don't die from malaria.

 

Not only that, mosquitoes quickly became resistant to DDT, so it has been of very limited use for decades, except to contaminate habitat.

post #133 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Part of what makes Apple successful is their industrial design. If they started putting other considerations first, such as recyclability, they would ultimately end up with products that look like design by committee. It would be the beginning of the end of Apple.

 

DesignByCommittee.jpg

 

Not at all. Design is trivial if you only care about one thing. Design should be done by a small group with clear direction, that's true. But the design objectives can be whatever the company wants. Unsustainable design, in this day and age, is simply bad design.

post #134 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Part of what makes Apple successful is their industrial design. If they started putting other considerations first, such as recyclability, they would ultimately end up with products that look like design by committee. It would be the beginning of the end of Apple.

 

DesignByCommittee.jpg

 

Apple's been there, done that. The decade of malaise. Being unable to ship Copland. Chasing technology rabbit holes like Newton and OpenDoc.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #135 of 197

Scratch my original speculation about Apple planning its own recycling centers capable of handling the R-MBP. The cynic in me suggests the following motivation instead:

 

Apple may be pulling previously EPEAT-certified models because (as reported elsewhere) some large customers have policies to buy EPEAT-certified equipment preferentially. If the R-MBP isn't certified but other MBP models are, customers may have difficulty circumventing corporate policy in order to buy the R-MBP.

 

(Apologies to anyone who may already have written it.)

post #136 of 197
Agreed. We have another case of Apple having thought something through very carefully but characteristically refusing to air their side of the situation in public. it is inconceivable that they would have made such a move without Tim Cook and the management team thoroughly discussing it with the Apple Board of Directors which of course includes Al Gore. We certainly don't know the whole story. Just look at the latest keynote at 42.40. They are supremely committed to environmental responsibility.
post #137 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

You are not my equal, since you deny that vast amounts of people have died directly because of DDT being banned and you have nothing to offer besides the rather juvenile and boring usual ad-hominem attacks that certain people resort to when they are participating in a discussion that is far above their pay grade.

 Pay grade? So a limitless supply of crayons makes you the richest kid on the block. Mommy must be proud of you. Just remind her to keep them away from the radiator when she tucks you in at night.

 

I was being polite when I suggested that you were my equal, god forbid, in the event that I become your equal, I hope that my living will results in the life support machine being turned off.

 

I can only imagine that you were distracted by getting another crayon stuck up you nose (again). How else would me explaining the transition from the term "global warming" to "climate change" be missed construed as me commenting on the efficiency, or otherwise, of DDT.

post #138 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What amazes me about this thread is how many people jump out of the woodwork with their knee jerk sensibilities on the topic of the environment, without giving Apple the slightest benefit of doubt (and on the other side, environmentalists the slightest benefit of doubt).
Apple has led on the issue of corporate environmental responsibility, and will continue to. There must be a pretty darn good reason for why they're doing what they are, but we're not going to it get it from Apple PR press releases.
Apple's shareholder meeting is coming up soon, and this topic will be raised. Tim Cook will have the answer. End of story.

 

That is somehow worse than all of the knee jerk responses that must defend Apple at any cost? Which is ironically exactly where everything in your post beyond the first paragraph went.  Good job.

post #139 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

 

Not at all. Design is trivial if you only care about one thing. Design should be done by a small group with clear direction, that's true. But the design objectives can be whatever the company wants. Unsustainable design, in this day and age, is simply bad design.

 

I disagree. The concept of "unsustainability" does not apply to human beings. It is only animals that, year after year, season after season, eat the same food and perform the same patterns that evolution has programmed them with. If the bear eats all the salmon one year, he is doomed the next year, because he does not have any salmon to eat and does not know how to do anything else.
 
Human beings, however, are far more adaptable. For practical purposes, for man, the world is basically "a generic ball of matter and energy." Resources for the bear are simply what is given, but resources for man are always a combination of matter and thought. Therefore if he is given a different form of matter one year, he can adapt his thought to get the same/equivalent resource.
 
Einstein taught us that E=mc2, i.e. matter and energy are directly convertible. The implication of this theory for environmentalism is, worse comes to worst, we can make energy and warmth and survival from *any* matter. It won't come to that, because people get enjoyment from walks in the forest etc, but at the same time, lets not go thinking we are as fragile as the animals, and become afraid to change anything. Change can be good, and human progress can be too.
post #140 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

 

If it quacks like a duck... If you don't care about recycling, you are pro-pollution. Not a lot of wiggle room there. You disparaging portrayal of environmentalists speaks louder than your backtracking.

 

Yes, some environmental advocates are hypocrites. So are advocates of any other stripe. Environmentalism would be truly strange if it lacked its share of dishonest players. But as a whole the legacy of conservationists and environmentalists could not be more positive, going all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt.

 

So, once more, with feeling, you can't manufacture hundreds of millions of devices a year destined by design to end up as toxic waste in a landfill, and be taken seriously as a pursuer of design excellence or manufacturer of great products. Unless Apple can show that the retina display MBP can be recycled as much as an EPEAT gold laptop can, then it's simply bad design, not to mention awful corporate responsibility.

I doubt you really know what is happening in this green thing. I am no expert but I feel that anything is recyclable because there is money to be made from it. I believe the scape sellers exporting every make of used computers to China to be recycle.

 

You have ben reading too much into those companies with great PR on their green program.

 

Btw do you really believe the plastic used in a dell pc or laptop is recyclable?

 

One more thing don't drive a car or ride a bus and yes don't buy anything which may use coal or oil in their manufacturing process.

post #141 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by efithian@mac.com View Post

A few months ago, I saw the future of Apple's repair policy. My grandson dropped by wife's new $900 iPad and cracked the screen. I figured that the screen needed replacing. Not so with Apple. The entire iPad was replaced with a new one since there were no refurbs two days after launch. This appears to be the tact with new MacBooks. If your memory is bad, we replace the entire logic board, send the old one back to Apple and repair it. It makes some sense if you think about it. The Applecare pricing with both iPad and MacBook are very reasonable and fit into this approach. The way to recycle the Retinas is to send them to Apple who will disassemble and recycle, with the appropriate technology. It is one thing less for consumers to worry about, at a reasonable cost. So, why did Apple reject EPEAT? The standards set by EPEAT are no longer reasonable, and there are easier, more efficient ways to recycle.

Yours made the most sense than all the boys who cry wolf.

post #142 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by efithian@mac.com View Post

A few months ago, I saw the future of Apple's repair policy. My grandson dropped by wife's new $900 iPad and cracked the screen. I figured that the screen needed replacing. Not so with Apple. The entire iPad was replaced with a new one since there were no refurbs two days after launch. This appears to be the tact with new MacBooks. If your memory is bad, we replace the entire logic board, send the old one back to Apple and repair it. It makes some sense if you think about it. The Applecare pricing with both iPad and MacBook are very reasonable and fit into this approach. The way to recycle the Retinas is to send them to Apple who will disassemble and recycle, with the appropriate technology. It is one thing less for consumers to worry about, at a reasonable cost. So, why did Apple reject EPEAT? The standards set by EPEAT are no longer reasonable, and there are easier, more efficient ways to recycle.

 

Totally worth quoting. 

post #143 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Quote:
I thought the post was funny, and you're proving his point. You're a moderator- you don't need to get in the mud and argue with him. Shouldn't you be above it?
All crap, all the time. Lol. It's catchy.

 

In my opinion, it reflects very badly on AI to have an immoderate mederator who spews insults and nastiness in practically every post.
post #144 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Scratch my original speculation about Apple planning its own recycling centers capable of handling the R-MBP. The cynic in me suggests the following motivation instead:

 

Apple may be pulling previously EPEAT-certified models because (as reported elsewhere) some large customers have policies to buy EPEAT-certified equipment preferentially. If the R-MBP isn't certified but other MBP models are, customers may have difficulty circumventing corporate policy in order to buy the R-MBP.

 

(Apologies to anyone who may already have written it.)

 

YOu may be on to something there. 

 

But whether or not this specific theory is correct, it is certain that Apple pulled out in a move to increase profits.  Any time one wonders why Apple took any action, the explanation is the same at its base.  Everything Apple does is designed to take more money out of consumer's pockets and to give it to Wall Street.

post #145 of 197

Oh, look.  More government.  This is exactly why we can't build anything in this country anymore.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #146 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list#post_2142003"]Good. I've always felt that Apple spends too much time talking up the whole green angle during their keynotes,

This really has nothing to do with them being green or talking about it.

It's about abiding by a particular standard for 'being green'. That's all. EPEAT is about being able to open the computer with standard screwdrivers etc to pull out the battery and toss the rest in a shredder. But is that really the best way to recycle. Might it actually be better to strip the components apart and do it that way. Is shredding everything together better than perhaps the machine going back to Apple to be disassembled and the enclosure somehow melted down to be pressed into a new enclosure, the rare earth metals melted down etc. And if this way a step towards Apple offering an incentive like they do for iPods, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

And the govt thing is a bit moot cause Congress and Obama can change those rules if they want to.
post #147 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

. I also don't see why Apple can't set up recycling centers to disassemble MacBooks and iPads to separate out their aluminum shells.

They already have a place. Their repair depots. They would have to have the tools to replace batteries in repairs.

The issue with EPEAT is that Apple doesn't use common screws etc that you or I can remove with something we picked up at Joes Hardware. That's it. That's what got them off the list. It doesn't count if you can go to an Apple store and pay a tech $10 to remove the battery for you. Doesn't count if they ship it to a repair center to have it done. If I can't do it right now myself, it's not EPEAT standard
post #148 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

Well there goes Apple's opportunity and momentum of selling computers to the government down the drain.
Bush signed an executive order requiring all federal agencies to use EPEAT when purchasing computers back in 2007. Also there are a lot of schools and corporations that require EPEAT certification.
So it is a big deal and a setback..

So Obama writes a new order, as do the schools. Issue over
post #149 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Like I said, if we cannot even by whatever manual or automatic technique unglue a battery, recycle the battery and recycle the case, we are truly screwed.

YOU can't, doesn't equal that Apple can't
post #150 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

Since Apple has dropped the EPEAT standard I decided to visit the manufacturer to whom I would go to as an alternative to Apple.
. . .

System 76 does not have any EPEAT certification listed on any of the products I viewed. .

You drop Apple over this lack of EPEAT, to go to a computer that lacks EPEAT

That's logical
post #151 of 197
To me this seems much ado about nothing. And the only people we've heard from are an EPEAT and iFixit spokesperson - certainly not objective, neutral parties. iFixit is just po'd because they can't sell a service. I don't trust their motives.

And just because something isn't EPEAT certified doesn't mean it's not recyclable. Again much ado about nothing. How many people purchased a Mac because of the EPEAT certification? My guess is not many.
post #152 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

To me this seems much ado about nothing. And the only people we've heard from are an EPEAT and iFixit spokesperson - certainly not objective, neutral parties. iFixit is just po'd because they can't sell a service. I don't trust their motives.
And just because something isn't EPEAT certified doesn't mean it's not recyclable. Again much ado about nothing. How many people purchased a Mac because of the EPEAT certification? My guess is not many.

How many people can even have a broad understand of what EPEAT is or what the acronym EPEAT stands for? I could have given the former and their rating nomenclature (not what the levels mean) but I couldn't have told you what EPEAT stood for.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #153 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Except I meant "in the minority on this Board", not in the overall marketplace.     I don't think the full impact of Apple's 'no-upgrade', 'can't fix" design philosophy has hit the market yet.    Come back to me a year from now and we'll see.   

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

It already has. Long ago. In the form of iPods, iPhones, and iPads. 

 

You're comparing a $200 phone to a $2500 laptop?    I (and I think most people) can live with replacing a $200 phone every 2-3 years.   The Pad only runs one app at a time, so the need to add memory is someone lesser and while most people wouldn't be thrilled at replacing a $500 to $700 machine every year or two, it's still not completely unreasonable.   But a $2500 laptop has got to last a long time (except perhaps, for people who are rich enough so that it doesn't matter how much they spend) and therefore, needs to be upgradable and fixable.      I think we'll see a lot of backlash down the road once these machines either break down or when applications have ever-increasing memory requirements that render the machines useless for newer apps.    And as I posted earlier, even if I'm wrong, Apple's competitors will use this against them in any case.       
 
And I still don't understand why many are defending Apple is this regard.    To do so, you have to believe that a non-upgradable, non-repairable laptop is better than one that can be repaired.    I refuse to believe that Apple's engineering team couldn't deliver the latter.    The only debate is whether it was worth saving the 1/4" of depth to make them unrepairable.     Some will say yes because of the elegance of that thinner design and people like me will say no.   
 
At the very least, Apple has got to accept machines back for recycling (do they do this now?) and institute some sort of reasonable "trade-up" plan.    
post #154 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

In my opinion, it reflects very badly on AI to have an immoderate moderator who spews insults and nastiness in practically every post.

That's only for you, Zazzles.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #155 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berp View Post

Environmentalists in general, and Greenpeace in particular, pattern their activism on modern political parties' reality distortion fields. They spin, cherry-pick, lie, distort, and capitalize on it all to feed the insatiable desire of their growth hormone's agenda. The 'environment debate' stands as a variation on the theme of 'making a proprietary case' out of 'molded', 'plastic'... differentiations. Pun intended.
One lesson ought to be learnt from Apple's system-wide creativity. They will, through organic consistency, expand and 'fine-grain' their original thought process onto life-after-death ...of their 'end' products. Who can better recycle past innovations into more salient ones than a through-the-core, recidivist innovator himself? 
Apple's genius stands on its own, very lonesome indeed, as a self-replicating 'art-and-science' tautology. Very salmon-like; spawning grounds re-cycled into killing fields ...into spawning grounds ...into killing fields...Very Apple-like, 'bear market' notwithstanding...

You should really take a half day out of your important life and visit, say, the local dump. Many of the hills one sees are mountains of garbage. Stay and watch while truckloads come and dump their loads. You will first enter a large secured site, and drive miles of dirty roads as you climb the "mountain". The dirty underneath your car wasn't there a decade ago, but excavated from deepening holes and dumped on top of garbage, then spread out by heavy equipment which "buries" the garbage, then flattened to make a pathway for your car and loaded trucks as they climb higher up the garbage mountain. There at the top of you will drive over partially buried bricks, clothes, coat hangers, children's dolls, decaying refuse in black plastic bags with wire ties, All day, the heavy machinery is plowing and moving the newly deposited garbage around, while more garbage comes along with truckloads of excavated dirt. It's loud; maybe 100 decibels or more as the machines do their work moving the new dirt on top of new garbage then packing them down to make a plateau of garbage, your garbage. Next week, go back again, and the garbage you dumped the week before will have been buried, the garbage mountain just a little higher than the week before; the road you traveled just a little bit steeper, until they decide to make a new road up to the new plateau. 

 

Think of what you are seeing, and image how this area was and how much life it contained before we acquired it for a dump. You will see nothing living there, and life will not return. Apple's genius will be long forgotten; the dumps will remain our lasting legacy. 

post #156 of 197
EPEAT (Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool) is a comprehensive environmental rating that helps identify greener computers and other electronic equipment (1) which is managed by the Green Electronics Council, a program of the International Sustainable Development Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. (2)

EPEAT is not a government program although EPEAT was conceived and developed through the collaboration of stakeholders from the business, advocacy, government and academic arenas during the presidency of George W. Bush with funding and support via an executive order requiring that all federal agencies satisfy 95% of their purchase requirements with EPEAT-registered products. (3)

More importantly, the preceding illustrates that EPEAT is not a government program.


Apple states, "Our goal in 2010 was to achieve a worldwide recycling rate of 70 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 met and exceeded that goal in 2010. This far surpasses the last reported numbers from Dell and HP, which were each lower than 20 percent. In 2011, Apple global recycling once again exceeded our 70 percent goal, and we are confident that we will maintain this level through 2015." (4)

250

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) assumes that 40 percent of commercial computers reach their end-of-life after three years, another 40 percent after five years, and the remaining 20 percent after seven years "... based on information from the International Association of Electronics Recyclers (IAER 2006), surveys of computer reuse (Lynch 2001), personal communications with industry experts (DuBravac 2006, Powers 2006), and assumptions about the length of time that commercial products are held in storage ..." (5)

The EPA estimates "that in 2009:438 million new electronic products were sold; 5 million short tons of electronic products were in storage; 2.37 million short tons of electronic products were ready for end-of-life management; and 25 percent of these tons were collected for recycling." (5)


The approach implemented by Apple appears to be far more successful in reducing waste and reusing components.


1. Unattributed. No Published Date provided. EPEAT Home. EPEAT. Retrieved 8 July 2012.
2. Unattributed. No Published Date provided. About the Green Electronics Council. Green Electronics Council. Retrieved 8 July 2012.
3. Unattributed. No Published Date provided. EPEAT Timeline. EPEAT. Retrieved 8 July 2012.
4. Unattributed. No Published Date provided. Apple Recycling Program. Apple. Retrieved 8 July 2012.
5. Unattributed. May 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery Electronics Waste Management in the United States Through 2009. EPA. Retrieved 8 July 2012.
post #157 of 197
I have been an Apple fan for a while, and i have been directly or indirectly been responsible for quite a few Apple purchases, through friends, family or work. I am however starting to have a problem with what Apple is becoming. Put simply, I think the bean counters are gaining control of the company. They are getting too greedy and complacent. The glued in batteries, non upgradeable memory, and proprietary ssd hard drives are really just the last straw. I also find that my iPad feels like a controlled prison. I have al ready purchased an Android phone and I will likely find other alternatives for my next laptop purchase. I am angry at Apple.
post #158 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by catchblue22 View Post

I have been an Apple fan for a while, and i have been directly or indirectly been responsible for quite a few Apple purchases, through friends, family or work. I am however starting to have a problem with what Apple is becoming. Put simply, I think the bean counters are gaining control of the company. They are getting too greedy and complacent. The glued in batteries, non upgradeable memory, and proprietary ssd hard drives are really just the last straw. I also find that my iPad feels like a controlled prison. I have al ready purchased an Android phone and I will likely find other alternatives for my next laptop purchase. I am angry at Apple.

Okay, bye.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #159 of 197

The thing that concerns me is that the Govt and many large corporations require their purchases to be EPEAT certified. It really sucks to be blocked out of a whole market like that.

post #160 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakeb View Post

The thing that concerns me is that the Govt and many large corporations require their purchases to be EPEAT certified. It really sucks to be blocked out of a whole market like that.

Sucks for whom?

Apple's doing fine.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple pulls products from government-backed 'green electronics' list