Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alonso Perez 
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.
Your statement is EXACTLY why so few can take the "green" proponents seriously. You demonstrate precisely what Apple ][ initially observed with respect to the proclivity toward histrionics and dishonesty in the "green" movement members. You misrepresent others' statements and spew hyperbole of the highest order backed with zero factual evidence to support your case.
Your very first assertion that "If you don't care about recycling, you are pro-pollution" is an non-sequitur at best and a bald-faced lie at worst. Recycling is an activity that can be a component of environmental responsibility. However prioritizing other environmentally responsible behavior over recycling is not the same thing as being pro-pollution. If it came to the mutually-exclusive decision (for some reason beyond one's control) to reduce one's environmental impact by 10% through recycling or by 20% via engaging in some other behavior, would it not be more environmentally responsible to forsake the recycling in favor of the alternative behavior? This is the crux of the statement made by Apple ][ - at the organizational level, the "green movement" approach is typically to ignore the more responsible, efficient and effective behavior in favor for the more politically-correct one.
You misrepresent Apple ][ as "not caring about recycling". Apple ][ never stated that they did not care about recycling (at least in this thread - link evidence to the contrary and I'll retract this statement). There was the statement that '...I'm not too concerned with being "green" myself, I'm probably the most green person on this thread'. All this statement says is that Apple ][ does not subscribe the the "green" approach to environmental responsibility. However it does indicate an environmental awareness and the belief that they in fact <were> being environmentally responsible (at the very least with respect to their current company in this forum, and Al Gore as well).
You appear to make the implication that if someone doesn't like the approach that the environmentalists as a whole take, then that makes that person pro-pollution. Also a non-sequitur, by the way; not agreeing with a means to achieve an end does not imply disagreement with that desired end. By your own admission, the environmental movement has hypocrites and dishonest members. For some, the ends do not justify the means. If you can't do it honestly, then find a better way or you risk ultimately undermining the end you seek to achieve.
Somehow you made the leap from "Apple pulls products from green list" (ostensibly as a result of the ease of disassembly not meeting EPAT criteria) to Apple's products are non-recycable and "...designs products intended by design to end up as toxic waste in landfills". So, because it takes an extra step (or effort, if you will) to remove the glue from the case, it somehow makes the product irrevocably un-recyclable? On top of that you state that because it may not conform to a single set of criteria, it therefore means that "it's simply bad design, not to mention awful corporate responsibility". Honestly, how do you even make that connection at all, much less with the information at hand?
As seems to be typical for the knee-jerk reactionist "greens" whose first impulse is to condemn anyone or anything that doesn't bend over backwards (then forward) to stroke the green ego, you take a snippet of a statement with no context and immediately declare that company 'xyz' (Apple in this case) is an irresponsible corporation (YOUR words), who cannot "...be taken seriously as a pursuer of design excellence or manufacturer of great products" (YOUR words), and whose products "destined by design to end up as toxic waste in a landfill" (YOUR words).
Congratulations, you've taken one more step in damaging the green movement. Perhaps after you and the remainder of your ilk are but historical footnotes, some future generation may pick up the mantle and strive to achieve the greater end without damaging it along the way through unworthy means.
) Or they want to take the stand that the dangerous chemicals in the air can't affect them. So they must find an excuse not to change. They point to some extreme environmentalist or find one who is hypocritical to make the case that all environmentalists are crazy. They make the case that if we can't prove that global warming is man-made, then we shouldn't do anything about it because we shouldn't ask big companies to spend one dollar to take any responsibility for the junk they spew into the air because the profits of big corporations are more important than our personal well-being. They try to make the bogus case that those who push environmental efforts have a financial vested interest or use stupid excuses like, "Oh, Al Gore - he doesn't know anything about the environment - he's a nerd who thinks he invented the internet." In spite of significant changes to weather and significant increases in cancer rates, they still refuse to believe that taking care of the planet would make any difference. And they don't believe in recycling because they don't personally see the results of not recycling, since they live in places where they don't have to see the ever increasing size of garbage dumps, many of which are now the size of mountains. In the U.S., we think freedom means being able to do anything you want, including being completely irresponsible and selfish. IMO, it's a very immature attitude.
