Apple pulls products from government-backed 'green electronics' list - Page 3

Is it the Mitchell & Webb video?


Edited by SolipsismX - 7/7/12 at 12:08pm

 

If you're concerned for the planet, consumer electronics should be the LEAST of your concerns. 

 

And just to be clear, it's NOT about your concern for "the planet." It's about your concern for YOUR OWN health and that of your children and their children. The planet will go on whether there a mountains of plastic or whether it's a frozen waste. The planet was no less a planet before vegetation and life. The planet plus plastic minus beluga whales is no more nor any less a planet. The planet doesn't care, so long as it doesn't bloody explode. The "environment" has value irrespective of whether it can support human or animal life. Environmentalism is by nature a selfish pursuit. Nothing wrong with it, but let's just be clear where it's coming from. 

 

If your main purchase criteria is based on environmental standards, then there's no reason for you to own Apple gear anyway. This is nothing new. Even with Apple's best efforts to be green in the past, others have far surpassed them. You might as well get gear from one of Apple's competitors. And if you're really concerned about owning the best tech in terms of User Experience, then this decision by Apple would not deter you anyway. In which case you really have no complaints. 

 

Your post is full of crocodile tears, to be honest. 

 

LOL. Is that Ellen Feiss? And would she even know what the oscilloscope on the wall behind her was for?

I agree with you. And to be honest, I don't even believe that environmentalists should own any computers at all, or cars and a bunch of other modern inventions, if they claim to care about the environment or the planet. They should practice what they preach.

They're environmentalists, not Amish. And you never see Amish planting trees.

I don't know too much about the Amish, besides that they drive horse and buggys and that they have funny haircuts, but why wouldn't they plant trees? Is that against their religion or something?

Oh, no, I can't imagine that it is, I'm just illustrating differences. Environmentalists go on about saving the environment and planting forests to offset whatever, but then they go back and live in air-conditioned/heated houses and use plastics and support industrialized economies, whereas the Amish don't bother offsetting the wood they use or take unnecessary precaution to keep the manmade products they use out of the environment, and yet they just have simple houses without modern convenience, use few appliances, and still support industrialized economies.

I've just never seen an Amishman go out of his way to plant a tree, unless he's doing it for beautification on his non-farmland.

They still don't use mirrors, though.

 Since when were planets sentient?

 

The second one is very good, thanks!

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...

 

I didn't know that. Maybe that explains all of the funny looking haircuts.

  Other than not wanting the end user or 3rd parties to be able to replace or upgrade components, what alternative reason would there be for the use of proprietary screws and the soldering of the ram?

It may be the case that CEO Tim Cook is not as interested in appeasing environmentalists as CEO Steve Jobs was.  It may also be the case that a future announcement will negate EPEAT certification.  If education and government requires this certification for purchase of computers through official channels, it stands to reason that Apple would likely not want to lose education and government purchases for a minimal gain in thinness.  Perhaps it would be prudent to email Tim and ask him to clarify Apple's position on this matter.  This matter was likely extensively thought out and discussed within the upper levels of Apple.  There's likely an explanation that prompted the removal of Apple products currently meeting the EPEAT standards.  If Tim chooses not to clarify Apple's position on this issue with end users, it might be wise to find some shareholders who own significant stocks who can bring this issue up for discussion at the next shareholders meeting.  Apple may not always answer to end users, but they must answer to significant shareholders.

 

Education is buying up iPads. iPads are immune from EPEAT.

Sorry, I dozed a minute…had a dream where my mind, ignorant of the facts, conjured up the following:

 

Apple submitted the Macbook Pro for EPEAT approval & it was denied with, 'you're kidding, right?'

Apple: We have a proprietary method of recycling these things that complies with your standards, even better. 

EPEAT: Really, how does that work?

Apple:    We can't tell you, its proprietary.

EPEAT: Well, we can't' put our approval on it, unless we understand the process. We can't recycle it & anyone else can't either.

APPLE: We'll take take care of that, they will want to recycle with us, because we will provide $ incentives toward new purchase.

EPEAT: That's not good enough. We need to know & duplicate the recycling process.

APPLE: You mean you are going to declare our very green product, 'not green,' because you don't know how to do it?

EPEAT: We are an independent body, we need to do independent testing & yield independent results. People rely on us.

APPLE: You only exist because company like ours participate.

EPEAT: We exist because the people want us to exist. This isn't the first un-recyclable product that a company has argued for.

APPLE: We're not arguing, we've got a green product & you won't approve it.

EPEAT: You realize, that without our approval, You will no longer be able to get government & enterprise accounts?

APPLE: Are you threatening us, blackmailing us into revealing/publishing proprietary, confidential information?

EPEAT: No, just stating the obvious facts, lack of our EPEAT approval will cost you 30% in sales.

APPLE: The only thing that's obvious, is you forget who you are dealing with…I need to make a call….

EPEAT: Take all the time you need, we'll still be here.

APPLE:  (smiles, makes the call, then returns)

EPEAT: Well, give you better direction as to the proper way to get this approved from us, to get the official EPEAT "A-OK?"

APPLE: Actually, I got very clear direction. Effective immediately, we are pulling all of our products from EPEAT. We will be

            deleting all of our references to your company because at Apple, you no longer exist.

EPEAT: That's absurd, you'll be the laughingstock of the whole world.

APPLE: We doubt it. We believe that people will want our products so much, that they will drop references to you, buy our products

             & EPEAT will become irrelevant, then cease to exist, all because you wouldn't approve our green product!

EPEAT: I think Apple is making a fatal error in not only financially, but how they are perceived around the world

APPLE: You already made the fatal error, now you enjoy watching EPEAT unravel because of your decision here today; sleep well.

EPEAT: The world will know the truth.

APPLE: What, that we recycle the green laptops? Any of your lies or spin won't touch us in the long run. Be sure to go back & tell your              .            people what a great job you're doing & how you told Apple what they could do with their 'green laptop." I bet they give you an award.

            Nice almost doing business with you.

 

 

Does this sound familiar, like anyone we know?

Really? Which 'part,' specifically?

If it's science-based environmentalism you do not have a problem with, then this is a terribly poor example to pick. You're certainly entitled to an opinion -- it's a free country, and there's no law against ignorance -- but to argue that it's **unscientific** is quite silly.

That's the last time I buy an Apple product, then!

 

... oh, wait. No it isn't. Like 99.9% of consumers, this will have no effect on my purchasing decisions. The sleeker hardware which it makes possible might, though...

I think you're too quick to apologize for Apple. I usually am, too, but in this case I don't see it. If everything's glued together and it's impossible to get the battery out to recycle it (and recycle the aluminum case also), then it's a failure by Apple in environmental responsibility. That's pretty basic - unless it can be recycled easily, it's a failure, and Apple should be embarassed (and criticized). I don't give Apple the benefit of the doubt on this one - they should come out and make a statement.

You should take your own advice - you're pretty belligerant, and by lumping all the "environmental groups" together, it shows you don't care about the reality. 90% of environmental groups go about their business quietly, improving things a little at a time, so you don't hear about them unless you actually care to find out. Yes, Greenpeace can go crawl into a hole and that would be fine with me, but I'm grateful for the hard working environmentalists who got DDT banned, who got asbestos out of building materials, and on and on (PCBs, phthaltes, etc). If that's "dictating their beliefs to others", we need more of that. The alternative is the chemical companies imposing THEIR beliefs, which are that they should be able to use any chemicals for any purpose at any time.

 

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.

 

I'm sure that the millions who have died since the ban are also thankful.

Then that isn't science! The beauty of science is that you can always question the methods by which the info was derived. We are flawed. We make mistakes. We are biased even when we strive not to be. Science is the purity of discovering truth above all else with no agenda on the facts. A man can go in with an idea, with an assumed hypothesis, but if he is a truly scientific he will not let his emotions, feelings, religion, or anything else get in the way of the data. He will question his own methods. He will question his own results. He will test and retest and seek independent results to help build a case for his own findings. This is what I believe in! This is where I put my faith!

 I believe that the term "global warming" was dropped because it caused confusion. The term did not imply that everywhere would be idyllic and cosy. It referred to aggregate temperatures and failed to highlight the cooling/flooding/extreme conditions elsewhere, hence the adoption of "climate change"

 

Yes there are companies that jump on any bandwagon that morphs into a gravy train, it does not mean that the concept is flawed though.

 

BTW We all cherry pick data to "prove" our point.  

I agree with you. I do not have any objections to real, pure science of course. 

 In a moment of weakness (my previous post) I tried to reply to you as an equal.

 

I am now rapidly drawing the conclusion that you are a fandroid. Perhaps in the pay of one of Apple's competitors; your motive being to make Apple owners look like narrow minded, sub-intelligent, xenophobic, obsessional children.

 

Kudos for lasting so long.

We might, but a true scientist should not.

 

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.

there is no argument about global warming, it is warming.

Yes there is an argument about the cause.

Climitologist argue the rate of co2 due to industrialisation etc will push the climate over the top of past warm cool cycles and head into a permanet heat cycle

Others say prove it or so what.

Consequences of permanent warm cycle may affect areas of food production(have you seen the temps in the Midwest) and large coastal swaths( think southern florida, etc). Or worse.

some say prove it, so what, better than paying a carbon tax

In the end what does the risk of perminet warm cycle mean? Well, just as some question the climatologist models, the neysayers don't know the actual effects either.

In the aerospace world we use a risk analysis calculation- probability and consequences. what if there was 1 in1000, 1in 1000000 chance that to continue dumping co2 leads to out right extinction because we become like Venus. At what point in this calculation of odds is action required?

Take 7 billion people all soon to be dumping co2, like the industrialized world.... Is there a point where you say enough?

On the flip side, if efforts are taken to reduce co2(and no that does not mean live in hole or other straw man arguments)... These unknowns may be avoided or greatly reduced.

An interesting ironic aside, pollution restrictions may make things worse. Pollution particulates(think volcanoe ash) reflect sunlight! Can't win. I'm with solip... Essentially in the end there are too many people.

Back to topic... It would be nice if apple would explain how they or others should recycle these products.

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.

I think the issue of the battery being glued down does not prevent the aluminum from being recycled it just presents an obstacle to determining the weight of the metal to pay the private junk recycler. If Apple created their own recycling program they could work out the details of disassembling the device and separating the materials.

Truthfully I'm starting to wonder about that, this year Sydney had one of the coldest summers since 1953 and even the one before that wasn't that warm.

 

If you need to guess, it means you don't know. If you don't know, it means Apple isn't being clear about their intentions.

 

You can give Apple your old machine for recycling, but we don't know what that actually means. Apple says nothing about their material recovery rates for given pieces of hardware. They could just dump it and nobody would be the wiser.

 

By being a part of EPEAT, Apple was making a clear statement. By walking out without explanations, they are obscuring their intentions. I see no reason to trust their generic corporate whitewash language of concern about the environment. Put up or shut up.

 

That's why it's more accurate to call it climate change. It alters the climate patterns so not all areas will warm, just the average.

 

If you are in Sydney, forget temperature. Think sea level. That's rising every year, and the rise is accelerating. Not much noise in that signal. It just keeps rising...

I agree. Apple's integrated design doesn't satisfy the standard. I disagree though that gluing the battery to the case would make the case less environmentally friendly. It will still come out. Apple also sponsors several electronic recycling events around the Country every year. 

 

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.

 

 

I doubt Apple dumps the product. Apple recently paid for a huge event in Ann Arbor where people could drop off any electronic item. Twenty semi trucks worth were collected. Further, Apple paid for a environmental responsible company to salvage the materials that could be used and responsibly dispose of the rest. 

 

 

The problem is people like you don't back up your view with anything tangible all while criticizing views held by others that at least does have some scientific basis. Science always involves taking data to formulate working theories. Further, science doesn't always understand how something works. For instance, radio waves are widely used in technology, however, why they do what they do is still not fully understood. Yet, the scientists utilize the information they have and work off their theories. Moreover, you do not always have time to fully understand something before action is needed. 

 

As far as politicians go, global warming was first put forth by scientists not politicians. Speaking of politicians, Republicans in Texas recently suggested kids should not be taught cognitive skills like deductive reasoning as it might undermine their belief systems. 

 

 

I'd say the opposite should be true. Since buying my Mac, my paper consumption has went way down to zero. So has my use of light, as I do most of my reading on the computer without lights. My computer uses for the whole year less electricity than a 60 watt light bulb. 

God I miss Melgross!

appleinsider has become the tallest_skil channel. all crap, all the time.

I believe I read a study about a year ago on a Wednesday in July about how the US energy costs per capita has been reduced. I don't know how much of this is paper related savings but I assume that overall efficiency in many industries are responsible even as we do move to more electronics in out everyday lives. I'll see if I can locate it...

I think that my favorite quotester, Zappa, said it best: "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life."