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 - Page 2

post #41 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

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?

Rush Limbaugh? Really? Didn't the babbling homeless guy on the corner have an opinion you could have quoted?
post #42 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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.

Interesting that you state that you are not impressed with what Apple has on their site and that it is no differenct from what you see anywhere else. But you seem to believe Dell's and HP's meanderings.

Could you point to Dell's "Product Environmental Specifications" as Apple has done, i.e., for their deskstops and laptops, e.g., the 13.3-inch MacBook (http://images.apple.com/environment/...k_11-08-06.pdf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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.

What evidence do you have to support such? Not hearsay. But actual references. Scientific and peer reviewed.
post #43 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

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.

What part of the more than 10 mentions of RoHS is not true? If your referring to

Quote:
As a result of our precautionary approach to hazardous substances, Apple met many of the RoHS restrictions long before the July 2006 deadline.

I don't see what's not true? Did you miss the word 'many'? Their statement is entirely consistent with your own recitation. Having had to modify our products to be RoHS compliant, Apples efforts, pre-deadline, on many of the substances addressed by RoHS are very impressive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


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.

This is a major part of the problem with the actions of 'environmental activists' - words are more important that actions. Greenpeace loves Dell's because of what they said, not what they did. Greempeace target's Apple because of what they didn't say not because of what they didn't do. This is simply wrongheaded and most likely done simply to raise money for Greenpeace through the attention it draws.
post #44 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

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.

And you established the untruth from what? This…

Apple and RoHS
Apple products are compliant with the European Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, also known as the RoHS directive. Examples of materials restricted by RoHS include lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and PBB and PBDE flame retardants. As a result of our precautionary approach to hazardous substances, Apple met many of the RoHS restrictions long before the July 2006 deadline.


All I got out of Apple's statement was that many of the materials that the RoHS finally decided to restrict in 2003 had already been eliminated by Apple before the RoHS deadline they set for 2006, e.g., Apple banned lead in batteries (1990), CFCs in manufacturing (1992), PVC in packaging (1995), etc. Simply that.
post #45 of 66
I have some sympathy for Apple. Perhaps they're not as "green" as Dell (though the jury must still be out on that one) but that must in large part be because they care so much about the design, look and feel of their products down to the last detail - even the packaging is an important part of the overall end user experience. It's all designed to ooze the feeling of quality, whereas if you're happy to use whatever plastic comes to hand during the manufacturing process, and throw it in it the nearest available cardbox box to ship it out, then clearly it's alot easier to switch to alternative materials with perhaps less environmental impact. None of this is meant to imply that environmental concerns aren't important, however, just that it's a tough balancing act.

-Rolf
post #46 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Interesting that you state that you are not impressed with what Apple has on their site and that it is no differenct from what you see anywhere else. But you seem to believe Dell's and HP's meanderings.

Could you point to Dell's "Product Environmental Specifications" as Apple has done, i.e., for their deskstops and laptops, e.g., the 13.3-inch MacBook (http://images.apple.com/environment/...k_11-08-06.pdf)

I'm not interested in what any company puts on their site, unless it can point to outside recognition of what they have done, and are doing, as well as actual specs. That information must also show specific programs the company has undergoing, and what actual results have been achieved.

The info that Apple has posted, while nice, doesn't show anyrthing special. Where their educational programs relating to the environment? Where are their partnerships with outside groups?

It's nice to abide by the law, but right now, most standards are still voluntary. Where do we see Apple rushing to meet these standards before they are required in 2009, as both Dell and Hp have been doing?

What I'm refering to is just what that company has done that goes beyond what law mandates. Apple has done a pretty good job of following the various laws, as have most other companies, but they haven't shown that they are interested in going much beyond those laws, as particularly Hp has.

Quote:
What evidence do you have to support such? Not hearsay. But actual references. Scientific and peer reviewed.

[/quote]

There have been articles in industry publications about this over the years.

Don't be a jerk about talking about scientific and peer reviewed articles. We aren't talking about scientific research, and you should know that.

Don't try to set up a situation that you can try to take advantage of in some meaningless way.

What we are interested in, and what matters is what concrete steps a company has actually taken outside of the lab.

As you like to go to a companies site, go here to Hp's.

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitiz...ent/index.html

If you want to look through Dell's pages on the environment, you can go here:

http://www.dell.com/content/topics/g...us&l=en&s=corp

If you want to go more specifically to the data sheets, which contains these specs, go here (you can get to it easily from the above link):


http://www.dell.com/content/topics/g...us&l=en&s=corp

Here:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/...eenlist_1.html
post #47 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhowarth View Post

I have some sympathy for Apple. Perhaps they're not as "green" as Dell (though the jury must still be out on that one) but that must in large part be because they care so much about the design, look and feel of their products down to the last detail - even the packaging is an important part of the overall end user experience. It's all designed to ooze the feeling of quality, whereas if you're happy to use whatever plastic comes to hand during the manufacturing process, and throw it in it the nearest available cardbox box to ship it out, then clearly it's alot easier to switch to alternative materials with perhaps less environmental impact. None of this is meant to imply that environmental concerns aren't important, however, just that it's a tough balancing act.

-Rolf

No, the problem seems to be (and no, I haven't found the originals on these assertions) that, in fact, Apple is currently 'greener' (whatever that really means) than Dell BUT Apple has NOT SAID they intend to stay that way. All of this posturing creates the FUD in peoples mind that lead to the above statements and these shareholder actions.

I would recommend reading this to get a more researched/informed report. Mr. Eran definitely has a bias, and he admits to it, but his facts are almost always traceable if you want to go deeper into the conclusions.
post #48 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhowarth View Post

I have some sympathy for Apple.

Rolf, I am not sure if you need to. I doubt that Apple or Dell are much different than any other major corporation when it comes to environmental policies. Just that they present or do it differently.

The suggestions in this forum that one is much better at it than the other is ludicrous. Taking that much of their source materials come basically from the same place dictates that one would not unsupport the other in order to get an environmental advantage. To do so would be economically unsound.

For some, the aesthitcally, beautiful products of Apple breathes opulence for some. To look so good, it has to be expensive. It has to be depleting our natural resources, it has to be destroying our environment. Bull crap. Apple is proving it every day.
post #49 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


Thanks for the links. Just as I thought, they are all trying to do the same.

Interesting that Apple gets dumped on because it doesn't set a date, gets dumped on if they fall short of a date or even comes in before the date.

As for, "Where do we see Apple rushing to meet these standards before they are required in 2009, as both Dell and Hp have been doing?" Why would they such…they started a long time ago and as such have a head start over most companies.

And while on the subject, best you start greening yourself before everybody finds out your mind is brown as cow dung (which by the way, I have no scientific evidence to prove such. Or disprove it for that matter).
post #50 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Thanks for the links. Just as I thought, they are all trying to do the same.

Interesting that Apple gets dumped on because it doesn't set a date, gets dumped on if they fall short of a date or even comes in before the date.

As for, "Where do we see Apple rushing to meet these standards before they are required in 2009, as both Dell and Hp have been doing?" Why would they ruchthey started a long time ago and as such have a head start over most companies.

And while on the subject, best you start greening yourself before everybody finds out your mind is brown as cow dung (which by the way, I have no scientific evidence to prove such. Or disprove it for that matter).

I try to be pretty green myself, to take that line seriously.

I do whatever I can.
post #51 of 66
[QUOTE=melgross;1075766]
Quote:
There have been articles in industry publications about this over the years.

We get a lot of Dell gear and thus far I see no evidence that Dell is greener than Apple. If you said Fujitsu I'd believe you. While googling for their desktops I ran into Environmental Reports since 2000.

http://www.fujitsu.com/global/about/environment/report/

If we're going to use a benchmark lets at least pick someone that is best in class.

Vinea
post #52 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.

Sorry, I wasn't going for a doctoral dissertation, I was going for effect. Which I think worked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

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.

Isn't that what I said?
post #53 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

I don't see what's not true?

This bit...

"Apple products are compliant with the European Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, also known as the RoHS directive. "

Have they stopped selling all non RoHS compliant products outside the EU yet? I think you'll find the answer is no.
post #54 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

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.

Good point. I once got a blast of CO2 on a film set and it was particularly unpleasant. Perhaps it would even do permanent damaged if breathed in high enough concentrations for long enough.
post #55 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by britwithgoodteeth View Post

Rush Limbaugh? Really? Didn't the babbling homeless guy on the corner have an opinion you could have quoted?

tried to but liberals hired him in an honest effort to avoid last presidential election when... "A Democrat group crucial to John Kerry's presidential campaign has paid felons - some convicted of sex offenses, assault and burglary - to conduct door-to-door voter registration drives in at least three election swing states." - thanks NewsMax - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...3/171443.shtml

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 #56 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

This bit...

"Apple products are compliant with the European Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, also known as the RoHS directive. "

Have they stopped selling all non RoHS compliant products outside the EU yet? I think you'll find the answer is no.

In other words, Apple has two different configurations. One running 110 no-compliant with RoHS and the other 220 compliant.

So the Environmental Specifications listed are incorrect?
post #57 of 66
[QUOTE=vinea;1075846]
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post



We get a lot of Dell gear and thus far I see no evidence that Dell is greener than Apple. If you said Fujitsu I'd believe you. While googling for their desktops I ran into Environmental Reports since 2000.

http://www.fujitsu.com/global/about/environment/report/

If we're going to use a benchmark lets at least pick someone that is best in class.

Vinea

Fujitsu is, I think, among the largest companies, number 1. But both Dell and Hp are given pretty good ratings.

Anyway, I wasn't the one to bring up Dell, I just responded to that post.
post #58 of 66
By the way, no company of any size is yet completely compliant with all of the regulations that are in effect legally, but have not yet come into force. They often have time yet to comply.

But, some companies have complied much more than others.

By 2009, they must be in compliance.
post #59 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

By the way, no company of any size is yet completely compliant with all of the regulations that are in effect legally, but have not yet come into force. They often have time yet to comply.

Exactly what regulations, laws or directives are you talking about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But, some companies have complied much more than others.

Could you distinguish them? In particular, what law or regulation has not Apple complied with?

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

By 2009, they must be in compliance.

To what law(s) are you referring?
post #60 of 66
[QUOTE=melgross;1075955]
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post


Fujitsu is, I think, among the largest companies, number 1. But both Dell and Hp are given pretty good ratings.

Anyway, I wasn't the one to bring up Dell, I just responded to that post.

Didn't mean to imply you did. I meant the other folks.

I wouldn't support the initative as stated simply because its just dumb and you wouldn't get Jobs on board. Being held to a low standard is not what Apple is about and having Apple follow Dell is just insane.

On the other hand, Fujitsu, for whatever reason, seems to have a corporate culture that is very green. I can see getting Jobs and Gore on board simply because they are (to me anyway) a best in breed example of going green.

Not the half assed, lipservice green that Dell and HP are doing.

I recall a story about how Jobs and his family talked about the pros and cons of various washing machines and they settled on a European one because it was well constructed and saved water.

If they picked Fujitsu and argued for real excellence...

Vinea
post #61 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

This bit...

"Apple products are compliant with the European Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, also known as the RoHS directive. "

Have they stopped selling all non RoHS compliant products outside the EU yet? I think you'll find the answer is no.

How do I find that answer?
post #62 of 66
And how is this shareholder initiative consistent with facts as determined by a third part - EPA

http://arstechnica.com//journals/app.../2007/1/6/6507
post #63 of 66
As user and investor, I am very happy that the are finally going to green our apples.

MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #64 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100mph View Post

As user and investor, I am very happy that the are finally going to green our apples.


Have you actually read the report that backs up the assertions in this page? The 'important' things in the measure are only what companies say, not what they do. There is one substantive measure, PVC-free and BFR-free products. First, using 'free' meaning none used is a terrible criteria as there may be good environmental reasons to use small amounts of almost any material as their use might save the use of much larger amounts of other non-safe materials. Thin, light plastic packaging vs heavier weak paper may save a free trees. Second, even in this report almost all the computer companies are the same. They only thing they want 'greened' at Apple are words. I'd rather have actions, which it seems Apple has taken.
post #65 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

you're just grumpy because of those $100 Apple calls you sold short

Wow. I am stunned. You have a long memory (about my being short AAPL calls).

Yes, I would be very grumpy if I had sold my calls at $100. I had actually sold for $120.

That said, at the rate things are going, it looks like I am going to be REALLY grumpy in a few months......\
post #66 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

This bit...

"Apple products are compliant with the European Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, also known as the RoHS directive. "

Have they stopped selling all non RoHS compliant products outside the EU yet? I think you'll find the answer is no.

"All Apple products worldwide comply with RoHS."

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/

Vinea
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