or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Investors push Apple to meet or beat Dell enviro goals
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Investors push Apple to meet or beat Dell enviro goals

post #1 of 66
Thread Starter 
An investment group plans to use Apple Inc.'s upcoming shareholder's meeting to press for greener products -- and is holding the company's arch-rival Dell as the benchmark.

Trillium Asset Management roused Apple shareholders to action on Thursday, calling on them to support a motion that would require that the Cupertino-based company outline a schedule for ridding its hardware products of toxic materials.

The investment firm rekindled accusations that Apple has stalled on its commitments to environmental progress and urged that it scrap brominated flame retardants (BFCs) and polyvinyl chloride plastic (PVC), either of which can leak dangerous chemicals in the wrong circumstances.

Such substances can be especially volatile in developing nations, where attempts to cannibalize the better components of junked PCs frequently triggers their release into the environment. Continuing to use these materials without a "reasonable" timetable to eventually scrap them is both irresponsible and hypocritical, Trillian proclaimed.

"Consumers have grown to expect more from Apple, a leader in product design and innovation," Shelley Alpern, a VP at the firm, wrote in its call to investors. "Are we falling behind in the arena of greening our products?"

In what could be a considerable embarrassment for Apple, the shareholder coalition issued a definitive "yes" as its answer to the question of the Mac maker's sluggishness, and held up examples from rival companies. Current US market leader and ages-long nemesis Dell was treated as the gold standard for eco-friendly behavior: while Apple had not even published a schedule, Dell had already pledged to eliminate both BFRs and PVC plastic from its computers no later than 2009.

Indeed, prompting by AppleInsider has revealed that Trillium would like Apple to at least emulate its Texas opponent in any schedule that goes forward, if not exceed it.

"The timetable is a number one goal, and something on par with or hopefully better than Dell would be preferred," said a spokesperson for the firm. "But we'd also like to see [Apple] making a broader commitment to getting out of the use of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic chemicals."

Apple, in contrast, has been savaged for often promising a vague green strategy but failing to deliver on some of its most basic promises. In its plea to investors, Trillium highlighted several instances in which Apple had suffered public humiliation for its seeming inertia, including the notorious last-place Greenpeace ranking that has dogged the company for months.

Apple has even dragged its heels, the firm added, on environmental responsibility to the extent that multiple devices were banned from Europe due to continent-wide material safety laws.

In speaking to AppleInsider, a spokesperson for Trillium, which holds approximately $5.3 million in Apple shares, said the the group hadn't yet made contingency plans should voters shoot down its request for a cleanup schedule. The firm is instead devoting attention to the impending vote -- a fact evident from its trailing jab at Apple's top brass.

"One of the interesting aspects of this issue is that enviro-celebrity Al Gore is on the Board of Directors of Apple," said the spokesperson.
post #2 of 66
Investors, frankly, have more important things to worry about. It's sad but it's true. These guys should go put more money into getting hybrids on the road so we can stop polluting the AIR.

I'd rather have everyone driving their hybrids listening to an iPod than driving their Hummers listening to a Green-Pod!
post #3 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsavage View Post

Investors, frankly, have more important things to worry about. It's sad but it's true. These guys should go put more money into getting hybrids on the road so we can stop polluting the AIR.

I'd rather have everyone driving their hybrids listening to an iPod than driving their Hummers listening to a Green-Pod!

Ah, but it's possible to do MORE than one good thing More hybrids = great. Millions of greener consumer electronics products = great too.
post #4 of 66
I really wish people would research a little deeper into the green thing, do it because it is the right thing to do, not as some marketing strategy, yes, tell people you are doing it, but do not chase after artificial goals set forth by a computer company whose consumers will likely throw away more of its products in a year than Apple will even produce in 5 years. I know Greenpeace shook things up a bit, but look at the real numbers not the scale that Greenpeace has set forth based mostly on whether or not a company signed a pledge to them to cut back on hazardous materials. I am confident Apple is doing its share and will continue to do so even if it is not breaking down to the whims of Greenpeace.

As far as hybrids go.... take a look at what it takes to produce those batteries that hybrids use. Take a look at the desolate wastelands left behind from mining Nickel to produce them, then ship that Nickel to Europe to be smelted, from there, shipped to Japan to be refined further before then being shipped again back to North America where they are placed in cars with a life expectancy of a few years before needing replacement. Then what happens to the old battery? They can be recycled, but it is very energy intensive currently and not available everywhere.
post #5 of 66
This is a pointless article without disclosing the size of the voting block this group represents.

Until proven otherwise, I speculate that this group represents less than 1/10000 of a percent of all voting stock. Thus it is just more PR BS.

Is anyone vetting this crap, or is AppleInsider just doing a mad scramble to put anything on this site that contains the word "Apple"?
post #6 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

This is a pointless article without disclosing the size of the voting block this group represents.

Until proven otherwise, I speculate that this group represents less than 1/10000 of a percent of all voting stock. Thus it is just more PR BS.

Is anyone vetting this crap, or is AppleInsider just doing a mad scramble to put anything on this site that contains the word "Apple"?

Trilliun isn't a large voting block by itself, but with others, it could be. When I read their proposal, I might decide to vote for it myself.
post #7 of 66
Another supposed enviro group blowing smoke. They're just repeating Greenpeace's misleading charges. Why don't they look at the actual toxics in the computers instead of the "timetable" promised? Because when Greenpeace actually took apart an Apple laptop, they couldn't find anything wrong. But because Apple didn't do a PR event with them and didn't promise to support Greenpeace, they're criticized.

As for the "multiple devices were banned from Europe due to continent-wide material safety laws," a big exaggeration. Apple took the old Airport Extreme off the European market when the European law took effect; the new Airport Extreme was released a few months later, and meets all safety laws. As far as I know, there were no other Apple products taken off the European market, certainly no computers or iPods.

As an Apple shareholder, I am not supporting this resolution. I want Apple to be totally clean and environmentally conscious - they're doing this behind the scenes, not grabbing for media attention.
post #8 of 66
Whether you agree with their stance or not, at least they are going about trying to affect change in a much more productive and responsible way than Greenpeace. They have invested money in Apple, and as shareholders they have a right to give input into how the company should be run. Far more effective than staging protests as media gimmicks. And since their website states they are an investment company "dedicated solely to socially responsible investing" that must mean they think Apple is not all bad since they have in fact already invested in Apple. It doesn't appear that they are threatening to sell their Apple stock if the vote doesn't go their way. They just think Apple can do better. Nothing wrong with that....in this SUV driver's opinion.
post #9 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

As far as I know, there were no other Apple products taken off the European market, certainly no computers or iPods.

As an Apple shareholder, I am not supporting this resolution. I want Apple to be totally clean and environmentally conscious - they're doing this behind the scenes, not grabbing for media attention.


....not sure about this, but wasn't the iSight also removed because of contaminants?

Also, as for how much Apple should or shouldn't do, I firmly believe they should be worlds best practice when it comes to environmentallt sustainable design. Sustainable design is simply a constraint just as budget, functionality, ease of use and so on are. Apple rigorously pursues excellence in all areas except in the area of environmental considerations. Apple are brilliant designers and there is no reason why they could not excell in this area.

They are the leaders so they must also lead by example.

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

Reply

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

Reply
post #10 of 66
The primary goal of the company is to provide a return for it's investors. When going green adds to the value of the company and it is recognized by consumers as a plus that they are willing to pay more for, and not go with a competitor instead based on price, then heck yeah, Apple should do it. Otherwise, it's just another "proposal" that apparently anyone can make who owns stock in a company. These proposals happen all of the time... you should see some of ones that come up sometime. Many of them are raised simply to make a point and often have nothing to do with the charter of the company.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #11 of 66
Going green has generally proved to be good to the companies doing it.

I don't know how many people here remember a few years ago, when board manufacturing companies here in the US balked at eliminating solvents from the cleaning process at the end of the manufacturing line.

They had to go to water soluble methods instead. After all the fighting was finished, they found it to not only be both cleaner and environmentally better, and cheaper, but that it did a better job cleaning the boards than did the older volatile solvents.

I'm all for doing the right thing in manufacturing. We all share the same world.
post #12 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

The primary goal of the company is to provide a return for it's investors. When going green adds to the value of the company and it is recognized by consumers as a plus that they are willing to pay more for, and not go with a competitor instead based on price, then heck yeah, Apple should do it. Otherwise, it's just another "proposal" that apparently anyone can make who owns stock in a company. These proposals happen all of the time... you should see some of ones that come up sometime. Many of them are raised simply to make a point and often have nothing to do with the charter of the company.



SpamSandwich, with all due repect are you teleporting from last century?? (please excese me there not really having a go at you... )

Don't you think that any company has an obligation to the context they operate in, which includes environment, society etc. As in, we don't generally accept companies exploiting children or allowing workers of operate in manifestly unsafe environments. So why should we alllow companies to exploit the environment in which we all share and live?

I am a share holder (and I know Melgross is too), and I would prefer the company that I invest in to be a good corporate citizen.

And why will it neccesarily reduce my return as an investor if Apple goes 'green'. There are many things that Apple could do, and is doing, that could actually increase my returns, whilst at that same time being 'green'. For instance if they reduce the amount of packaging then they are not only using less resources, they also save money. They are stating to do this already...just look at the way the used to package iPods and the way the do it now. Smaller packages also means ferwer shipping containers, less transport costs, more savings, more return for me.

So sorry SS but I don't buy the argument you are putting forward. In any case Apple is capable of undertaking this... it is not rocket science.

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

Reply

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

Reply
post #13 of 66
Here's another example of where a company doing the right thing actually saves money. There is an arguement that waste is actually a product that is produced. To produce something costs money. If you can reduce waste, which can't be monetized, then you improve your bottom line. And is that not an obligation of any publically listed company.

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

Reply

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

Reply
post #14 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post

do it because it is the right thing to do, not as some marketing strategy

in an ideal world this would be true, but (if it hasn't escaped your notice) our present economic system worships at the alter of the dollar, not any kind of morality. all this talk of the "green market" makes me cringe, but if i makes a positive contribution then so be it.
post #15 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

The primary goal of the company is to provide a return for it's investors.

You just keep telling yourself that as your choking to death on CO2.

Companies need to realize that the planet IS more important than their business.
post #16 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyboy View Post

in an ideal world this would be true, but (if it hasn't escaped your notice) our present economic system worships at the alter of the dollar, not any kind of morality. all this talk of the "green market" makes me cringe, but if i makes a positive contribution then so be it.

I think you should re-read my two posts above yours. The two can be inextricably linked. The whole 'green' thing is not hippy shit. It is kind of funny that all those greenies ended up be right all along.

In any case why should any company operate in my backyard with out bearing the cost for its use?


This has nothing to do with utopian bullshit, it is simply a constraint that we simple cannot ignor.

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

Reply

I only know 10 people that get the
binary joke

Reply
post #17 of 66
Apple shouldn't 'go green' because of pressure from Greenpeace or anyone else. It should do it because--aside from doing right by the planet--it would generate a tremendous response from customers. This is a potentially huge marketing advantage because people are willing to pay to be green. Think of things like hybrid cars or home retrofits or green power. Or carbon 'offsetting' (We don't even know if the concept is sound!)

And from an environmental standpoint...

We Mac fans often jump to defend Apple against what we think is unfair criticism. But if it's unfair to want Apple to be the best in the industry, then I must be an unfair person, because that's what I want too. It only seems natural for Apple to play this role. It didn't take this "Green My Apple" business to make me realize it. Why can't Apple do better than Dell? It's not an unfair question, and I'm glad this investment group is raising it.

It's sad to see Apple go on about flat-panel displays saving energy and jet fuel when environmental policy could be a major feather in their cap from both a business and environmental perspective. Such a (wait for it...) waste.
post #18 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by orange whip View Post

For instance if they reduce the amount of packaging then they are not only using less resources, they also save money. They are stating to do this already...just look at the way the used to package iPods and the way the do it now. Smaller packages also means ferwer shipping containers, less transport costs, more savings, more return for me.

Yep. Apple seems to know what they're doing with packaging just now. The largest environmental cost in packaging is not what you make the packaging out of but the volume and weight of the boxes you've got to ship things around in. It's MORE environmentally friendly to ship in small, light weight plastic containers than the larger cardboard boxes you need to ensure a package arrives intact as they take up less space in the containers from China and get transported in less trucks when landed.

Which makes me also wonder the impact of buying a multibox Dell instead of an iMac.
post #19 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by badNameErr View Post

You just keep telling yourself that as your choking to death on CO2.

Funny, yes. However, there is no mechanism by which a human being could choke due to the simple presence of CO2.

You might suffocate if the O2 levels get too low to support respiration, sure. But CO2 is a natural byproduct of that respiration so by definition there must always be a higher concentration of CO2 inside the human body than there is in the surrounding atmosphere.

Quote:
Companies need to realize that the planet IS more important than their business.

Companies need to realize that in order for them to STAY in business, the planet must remain viable to support human life. Ergo, the cost of maintaining human viability must be factored into the regular cost of doing business.
post #20 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

Yep. Apple seems to know what they're doing with packaging just now. The largest environmental cost in packaging is not what you make the packaging out of but the volume and weight of the boxes you've got to ship things around in. It's MORE environmentally friendly to ship in small, light weight plastic containers than the larger cardboard boxes you need to ensure a package arrives intact as they take up less space in the containers from China and get transported in less trucks when landed.

Which makes me also wonder the impact of buying a multibox Dell instead of an iMac.

And not only multibox. I bought my first laptop from Apple and was most impressed by the little packaging. But a couple of weeks ago a friend bought a Dell laptop. Now granted, his came shipped to him, but I was amazed at the packaging for this laptop. Not so much with the outer box that it came in (for shipping), but all the small pieces of cardboard and styrofoam that seemed to do nothing but hold individual cords, manuals, CDs in their place. Then the entire laptop was wrapped in what looked like a large plastic garbage bag. It was about 3 times the size of the laptop and tied off in a big knot.
post #21 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

An investment group plans to use Apple Inc.'s upcoming shareholder's meeting to press for greener products -- and is holding the company's arch-rival Dell as the benchmark.

Perhaps some should look at Apple's Environmental policies before leaping on the bonflre.

http://www.apple.com/about/environment/

In particular, click the "restricted substances program. I would suggest that Apple is well on its way and more that likely ahead of many others in the greening of our environment. Steve Jobs may be a lot of things, but I honest feel hypocracy is not intentionally in his demeanor.
post #22 of 66
after all, they pollute cities a million times more than apple. some people have too much time on their hands.
post #23 of 66
Thanks for posting this URL, Abster2core. Indeed, people need to be well-informed before they grab their torches and pitchforks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Perhaps some should look at Apple's Environmental policies before leaping on the bonflre.

http://www.apple.com/about/environment/
post #24 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

An investment group plans to use Apple Inc.'s upcoming shareholder's meeting to press for greener products

Yeah..... like this will happen for free. And, like Macs aren't too expensive already....
post #25 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by palex9 View Post

after all, they pollute cities a million times more than apple. some people have too much time on their hands.

Great point!

Why do I get the feeling that you're wearing a diaper right now?
post #26 of 66
http://www.apple.com/environment/materials/

The bit about ROHS is simply not true. Apple met ROHS in Europe by stopping selling the Airport Extreme Base Station and the iSight just before the deadline - not 'long before' - and in any case they continued selling those products outside the EU.

The beef Greenpeace have with Apple is that Apple may say they are planning to remove all harmful substances but they've given no timescale. Dell have, which is why even though their products are more harmful (according to the EPA), Greenpeace love them. Dell's promise is probably unrealistic and I suspect it'll come back to haunt them when the deadline goes past and they're still using harmful substances.
post #27 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by palex9 View Post

after all, they pollute cities a million times more than apple. some people have too much time on their hands.

You must have strange pigeons in your cities. Ours produce crap that's generally organic material that they've picked up off the ground already, not lead, BFRs, PVC and metals that won't dissolve in rain for millennia.
post #28 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

Funny, yes. However, there is no mechanism by which a human being could choke due to the simple presence of CO2.

You might suffocate if the O2 levels get too low to support respiration, sure. But CO2 is a natural byproduct of that respiration so by definition there must always be a higher concentration of CO2 inside the human body than there is in the surrounding atmosphere.


As a homebrewer who works with CO2 regularly, I take umbrage with your criticism. When you breathe CO2 is in high concentrations it goes into solution on your mucous membranes creating high concentration carbolic acid which, believe me, will make you choke! You can get an idea of what that would be like on a small scale by wolfing down the foam on your root beer. The bubbles contain pure CO2 which you will inhale, and feel the burn.
post #29 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCrow View Post

Indeed, people need to be well-informed before they grab their torches and pitchforks.

And basing an opinion on a company's own PR department is being "well-informed"?

Shell and BP are doing a great job with the environment as well. Just look at their web sites!

post #30 of 66
Both Apple and Dell say they will meet the goal, only that Dell has set a date for it. What happens when the time comes and they can't meet it?

What's the point of setting a date of when you think you'll be ready? Apple couldn't even keep the date with Leopard. Look at Vista.

No, Apple was right not to set a date.

Dell can promise anything they want, the shame is on Greenpeace for judging words and not actions.
post #31 of 66
I generally agree with several posters including melgross Abster2core and aegisdesign,

My thoughts:
Creating Green products indeed takes far more than hopping on the Greenpeace bandwagon. I agree with Greenpeace that it makes sense to get BFC's and PVC out of computers, as well as eliminating any other harmful materials. However, while Greenpeace is well intentioned, I would say that their idealism and zeal exceeds their knowledge and understanding of the situation by far.

They obviously have not taken a good look at the full product cycle impact of computer companies. To hold Dell up as the gold standard over Apple is ridiculous. Apple computers tend to last at least twice as long as PCs. The G4 I am using was manufactured in 1999 and is running the latest operating system. I have an even older beige mini-tower that works as a print server and scanning station. Apple has never made the disposable computers that are the norm in the PC world. They also have a computer take-back program, an ipod battery replacement program, and an iPod recycling program with a 10% discount on new ipods (These could be sweetened up and expanded a bit, I'd say.)

WRT Greenpeace's main gripe, Apple has not committed to eliminating BFC's and PVC because there presently are no alternatives available. They are however actively seeking alternatives. They only have access to the same components as any other computer manufacturer (none of which has yet eliminated BFC's and PVC.) When usable parts are available, they will use them.
post #32 of 66
What a lot of sabre rattling BS... Dell has posted a timetable-- great! That does a lot, I must say.
post #33 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by badNameErr View Post

You just keep telling yourself that as your choking to death on CO2.

Companies need to realize that the planet IS more important than their business.

Let see, Al Gore, author of "An Inconvenient Truth", is building such a large home in which he needs "Carbon Offsets". Hhmmm how to go about doing that. Here's what I read and it came from a blogger so it must be true!

"A blogger, ladies and gentlemen, has uncovered that the carbon credits -- these "carbon offsets" that Al Gore buys -- are actually from a company that he owns, and apparently they don't sell these credits or these offsets to anybody other than Gore. You can't buy them off of their website.

So Gore is paying...himself. Literally, Al Gore is paying himself to reduce his carbon footprint. His carbon footprint is not getting smaller. His carbon footprint, if anything, is enlarging -- which is all bogus. I couldn't care less, but he's making a big deal out of it. The blogger is Ecotality.com. As one commenter posting on the few blogs covering the Gore story yesterday put it, “The Gorical is chairman and founding partner of Generation Investment Management, LLP. That's a boutique international investment firm that invests other people's money for a fee in the stocks of green companies. So when Al Gore beats the drum for possible future global warming he's also drumming up business, and he's profiteering from hyping the global warming crisis.

“In a nutshell, Algore consumes large amounts of carbon-based electricity while he trumpets the global warming crisis that drives up the value of green companies like the one in which he invests in their stocks, and carbon offsets are a dodgy way for someone to claim to be carbon neutral even as they consume large amounts of carbon based energy. The notion that selling carbon offsets actually helps the environment is taken as a given by those who sell them and by those who buy them. But at this point it's unproven. While some bloggers and pundits have likened carbon offsets to the indulgences of pre-Reformation Catholic church, sold to the wealthy so they could continue to sin, the writer of the blog The Virginian says that carbon offsets are more like the sumptuary laws of medieval times, laws that regulated and reinforced social hierarchies and morals through restrictions on clothing, food, and luxury expenditures. The bottoms line is that this company that Algore buys his carbon offsets from is owned by Algore. He's investing in himself. He's not losing any money at all in this, and nobody else can buy offsets from this company except Algore.”

There is an update to all this, too -- via the blog on the website of carbon offset marketer TerraPass, where it was recently found -- a New York Times story that's skeptical of carbon offsets. “Some carbon-offset firms have begun to acknowledge that certain investments like tree-planting may be ineffective, and they are shifting their focus to what they say is reliable activity, like wind turbines, cleaner burning stoves, or buying up credits that otherwise would allow companies to pollute.” The whole thing is a scam, folks. It is a giant, 100% scam. This is a money-making routine for Algore and others involved in this whole thing, but here's the important thing. It is a precursor for an international or global tax on the use of energy. The French are posing it. The United Nations has proposed it -- and while you may laugh and poke fun at the idea of these offsets (and we have been doing that ourselves), these things are very ominous. They're going to become expected. They're going to be expected to be part of our daily lives.

It's going to end up being an environmental tax on all of us as an extra cost of fuel or airfare or buying SUVs or whatever else the wackos claim is causing the greatest amount of pollution and thus global warming. If you cut down trees in your yard, you'll pay a tax. If you don't recycle you'll pay a tax. If you pick paper or plastic you'll pay a tax. If you don't buy organic, you'll pay a tax. Using Aqua Net, having nice homes, having second homes, all that could be subject to taxation based on this whole carbon offset problem and the size of your footprint. We're now seeing the initial drumbeat for this. It's the only way the leftists can assuage their guilt, but it's going to be forced on all of us.

If you don't snap to on this and understand exactly what this is about and the scope and the deeply rooted tentacles of this scam, it's not going to go away. The little people -- we, the little people, we are -- about to be hosed again while the elite continue their lifestyles with righteous indignation for all that do not worship at the feet of the Earth Mother Gaia. Mark my words on this, folks. They will totally exempt themselves from any lifestyle changes just as libs always do with every policy they make. Two laws, two rules, two sets of them: one for you and me and one for them." - thanks www.rushlimbaugh.com

And what about "while the elite continue their lifestyles with righteous indignation" that Rush talked about, well, there is Sheryl Crow and her Stop Global Warming tour, containing three tractor trailers, four buses, and six cars all to visit what 11 universities to tell them to pollute less and enlighten the "uneducated" about Global Warming? What's wrong Sheryl, could travel around in a hybrid like a Prius, with an accoustical guitar and do your act live and "unplugged"? You still could of gotten your message out that way. What heights of hypocrisy that come from these so called "Green" envrionmental groups and people. thanks - http://www.thesmokinggun.com/backsta...ow/scrow1.html

Make a deal with you - I'll show concern for the envrironment and "global warming" when those who spout it do?

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #34 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjwill246 View Post

What a lot of sabre rattling BS... Dell has posted a timetable-- great! That does a lot, I must say.

Perhaps Apple is a lot closer to achieving its environmental goals than most are aware. Checking out some of the 'Environmental Attributes listing' shows the current status of their desktops and laptops. Not sure if anyone else is so open and/or has such information.

http://www.apple.com/environment/resources/specs.html

For anybody who considers Apple's Environment sites is just PR are blowing smoke out of their ass.

I would suggest that Apple has a better chance of making sure their goals are attained better than the likes of most cloning companies, Dell included.
post #35 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

You must have strange pigeons in your cities. Ours produce crap that's generally organic material that they've picked up off the ground already, not lead, BFRs, PVC and metals that won't dissolve in rain for millennia.

ok, looks like many of you do not know the perils of pigeon poo. first of all it is corrosive and causes millions in damages to historic treasures like statues in rome. second of all, pigeon poo, like all poo, caries deseases.

and to britwithgoodteeth who took this to a personal level with his coment, brits all have bad teeth, drink far to much and behave like animals when on vacation.
post #36 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by badNameErr View Post

You just keep telling yourself that as your choking to death on CO2.

Companies need to realize that the planet IS more important than their business.

Don't misunderstand me, my point was this--- businesses exist because they can make a profit. When a greener method of doing business meets with the primary goal of making a profit, then everyone wins. I didn't invent the system.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #37 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by palex9 View Post

ok, looks like many of you do not know the perils of pigeon poo. first of all it is corrosive and causes millions in damages to historic treasures like statues in rome. second of all, pigeon poo, like all poo, caries deseases.

Perils of pigeon poo? (Nice one) However, none of which is considered pollution.
post #38 of 66
The point to environmental concern is that is is a major problem. A narrow viewpoint would be to say that companies should be allowed to make their profits the way they want to, and shouldn't have to bother with being "greener" if it brings their profit down.

But that is a terribly short term view. It also shows a lack of understanding of the broader issues.

The issue isn't whether or not a company should be concerned with this. They must be concerned.

It also isn't a matter of profitability. It's been shown that going green may have a slight negative effect while changeover is taking place, as it does with any change a company makes, but that in the longer term, it is either neutral or positive.

Many companies have found that by changing their methods of manufacture, they end up with not only a smaller amount of waste, but waste that is more cheaply recovered, or disposed of. Sometimes they find it to be a new profit center.

It must be understood that companies have long been responsible for any waste they may produce, and that disposing of it properly is expensive.

As far as materials used in the product itself goes, there are plenty of alternatives. One of the major reasons given for failure to switch to cleaner materials and methods is not the overall costs per se, but rather an institutional resistance to changeing something that has been working well.

We here are all like that as well. do we change our diets, or exercise, even though we know it is better for us? Mostly, the answer is no. That's the eternal New Year's promise joke.

If you think that companies are different, think again.

But companies, fairly or not, are always concerned that if they spend that one extra penny, and their competitors don't, that they will be on the losing side. There is very little, if any evidence for that, esp. where environmental matters are concerned.

In the NYTimes this morning is an article about how US citizens are now very concerned about global warming, and other environmental matters, they just can't decide what should be done about it.

I think that Apple can benefit from this concern if they can show some leadership in this area.

But, it would have to be real, not just some idea that eventually everything will be fine.

Unlike a couple of people here, I'm not impressed with what Apple has on their site. it's no different from what I see anywhere else, and is less that what I've seen elsewhere.

I'd much rather Apple emulate Hp, at first, and the gallop past them. Hp is a true leader here.

Dell IS doing more than Apple is right now, believe it! Apple is doing what they must, but they are not enthusiastic about it. That must change.

Their products must be as pristine inside as they look outside.

The free publicity from that would be worth quite a lot, and would gain them sales in environmentally concerned areas of the world.

Perhaps that is the key to gaining sales in Japan, where there are used battery kiosks in the street, and fines for throwing away batteries are high.

Certainly, Europeans would look favorably upon it.
post #39 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Current US market leader and ages-long nemesis Dell was treated as the gold standard for eco-friendly behavior: while Apple had not even published a schedule, Dell had already pledged to eliminate both BFRs and PVC plastic from its computers no later than 2009.

and here I thought that all Texans were against all timetables
post #40 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Yeah..... like this will happen for free. And, like Macs aren't too expensive already....

you're just grumpy because of those $100 Apple calls you sold short
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Investors push Apple to meet or beat Dell enviro goals