Steve Jobs expands on Apple's green goals
In a new interview, Apple's co-founder explained his company's environment-centric public relations push, and shared advice provided by former Vice President Al Gore.
Steve Jobs, along with Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook, spoke with BusinessWeek to highlight Apple's environmentally conscious ways. Jobs acknowledged that Greenpeace's targeting of his company years ago played a part in the Mac maker promoting its green focus in public.
After Greenpeace criticized Apple for the use of toxic chemicals in its products, Jobs said he turned to Gore, a member of his company's board of directors and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change. Gore reportedly told Jobs to do what he does, and not get into a "mud-slinging war" with the environmental organization.
In response, Apple began mentioning its products' environmental impact with a scorecard at each keynote. Jobs argued that his company has always been green, but in the past it didn't make it a point to mention it in public. He said the company's tight-lipped approach, particularly on public policy issues, hurt its image with environmental organizations.
"We tend to report rather than predict," Jobs told BusinessWeek. "You won't see us out there saying what the PC is going to look like in 2016. We quietly go try to invent the PC for 2016."
It was the second time this week the publication profiled Apple's environmentally friendly push. Another feature highlighted the company's reporting of hardware carbon emissions, a new disclosure that was revealed by the company this week. That story also included comment from Jobs.
The use of Apple products by consumers accounts for more than half of the Cupertino, Calif., corporation's annual 10.2 million tons of carbon emissions. The company's environmental Web site states that less than 5 percent of the company's emissions come from manufacturing facilities, while more than 95 percent of Apple's greenhouse gases are from the products they make.
Cook said that companies often focus on the wrong issues. He gave the example of installing motion detectors in a conference room, to automatically turn off the lights in a room when no one is there. But the real carbon footprint, he said, comes from the products themselves.
"Making products cleaner involves real engineering," Cook said. "It's about innovating, and it's hard work."
Steve Jobs, along with Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook, spoke with BusinessWeek to highlight Apple's environmentally conscious ways. Jobs acknowledged that Greenpeace's targeting of his company years ago played a part in the Mac maker promoting its green focus in public.
After Greenpeace criticized Apple for the use of toxic chemicals in its products, Jobs said he turned to Gore, a member of his company's board of directors and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change. Gore reportedly told Jobs to do what he does, and not get into a "mud-slinging war" with the environmental organization.
In response, Apple began mentioning its products' environmental impact with a scorecard at each keynote. Jobs argued that his company has always been green, but in the past it didn't make it a point to mention it in public. He said the company's tight-lipped approach, particularly on public policy issues, hurt its image with environmental organizations.
"We tend to report rather than predict," Jobs told BusinessWeek. "You won't see us out there saying what the PC is going to look like in 2016. We quietly go try to invent the PC for 2016."
It was the second time this week the publication profiled Apple's environmentally friendly push. Another feature highlighted the company's reporting of hardware carbon emissions, a new disclosure that was revealed by the company this week. That story also included comment from Jobs.
The use of Apple products by consumers accounts for more than half of the Cupertino, Calif., corporation's annual 10.2 million tons of carbon emissions. The company's environmental Web site states that less than 5 percent of the company's emissions come from manufacturing facilities, while more than 95 percent of Apple's greenhouse gases are from the products they make.
Cook said that companies often focus on the wrong issues. He gave the example of installing motion detectors in a conference room, to automatically turn off the lights in a room when no one is there. But the real carbon footprint, he said, comes from the products themselves.
"Making products cleaner involves real engineering," Cook said. "It's about innovating, and it's hard work."
Comments
Rush was on Jay Leno thursday and took Jay's green car challenge driving on an obstacle course in an electric card where Al Gore and Ed Begley cardboard cutouts would "jump" out at you for you to take evasive action. If you were to hit them, you would be penalized and your time increased. During Rush's run, Al Gore pops out and Rush hits him. Rush then stops the car, backs up so he can go forward and hit Al Gore again!
Gotta love him!
HT
I no longer see Greenpeace continuing to help in this area though. They need to reward successes! Maybe now it's time for Apple to push THEM to improve. I sure hope so.
Greenpeace's sensationalism isn't what bothers me, nor their singling out of Apple just because that makes headlines. Those choices are just "good marketing," and in modern culture, unfortunately they ARE good ways to get things done sometimes. What bothers me, though, is the emphasis on what companies promise vs. what they deliver. That's where "good marketing" fails to get things done, and actions must be acknowledged! That's how other companies will be persuaded to follow Apple's lead.
What's the environmental savings offset between Apple's environmentally friendly ways of doing business and Al Gore's massive homes?
Rush was on Jay Leno thursday and took Jay's green car challenge driving on an obstacle course in an electric card where Al Gore and Ed Begley cardboard cutouts would "jump" out at you for you to take evasive action. If you were to hit them, you would be penalized and your time increased. During Rush's run, Al Gore pops out and Rush hits him. Rush then stops the car, backs up so he can go forward and hit Al Gore again!
Gotta love him!
I do hope Al Gore gets smaller homes--or maybe one is enough!--but that won't help the planet much. These causes are real, and increasingly desperate, and we ALL need any help the planet can get. Even if that help comes from someone whose homes are too large.
If a former arsonist puts me out when I'm on fire, I'll call him a hypocrite... but I'll still be glad not to be burning!
What's the environmental savings offset between Apple's environmentally friendly ways of doing business and Al Gore's massive homes?
Rush was on Jay Leno thursday and took Jay's green car challenge driving on an obstacle course in an electric card where Al Gore and Ed Begley cardboard cutouts would "jump" out at you for you to take evasive action. If you were to hit them, you would be penalized and your time increased. During Rush's run, Al Gore pops out and Rush hits him. Rush then stops the car, backs up so he can go forward and hit Al Gore again!
Very immature but not at all surprising coming form him as Rush is arrogant, immature, sexist, racist and earns a living by spreading hate and ignorance.
Very immature but not at all surprising coming form him as Rush is arrogant, immature, sexist, racist and earns a living by spreading hate and ignorance.
Gore, and Greenpeace should mind their own whacko business. Greenness is a ridiculous reaction to bunko science.
Nature does more damage to the earth than man could ever hope to imagine.
You are the arrogant one here.http://forums.appleinsider.com/image...s/1smoking.gif
Gore, and Greenpeace should mind their own whacko business. Greenness is a ridiculous reaction to bunko science.
Nature does more damage to the earth than man could ever hope to imagine.
You are the arrogant one here.http://forums.appleinsider.com/image...s/1smoking.gif
You have been reported for Trolling.
What bothers me, though, is the emphasis on what companies promise vs. what they deliver. That's where "good marketing" fails to get things done, and actions must be acknowledged!
Me too!
I think it was Dell that was highlighted 18months back as better than Apple, due to the promises it was making to have removed all <insert polluting components> within a year. I remember hearing it and getting annoyed that they were comparing Dell's promises against an unknown Apple. And then 6 months ago Dell announced that they wouldn't be doing that yet, but promised it for the next year.
And this, by Greenpeace standards, is great as it's a commitment to greener products.
Al Gore gave Steve Jobs good political advice…"don't get into mud-slinging…".
What's the environmental savings offset between Apple's environmentally friendly ways of doing business and Al Gore's massive homes?
Rush was on Jay Leno thursday and took Jay's green car challenge driving on an obstacle course in an electric card where Al Gore and Ed Begley cardboard cutouts would "jump" out at you for you to take evasive action. If you were to hit them, you would be penalized and your time increased. During Rush's run, Al Gore pops out and Rush hits him. Rush then stops the car, backs up so he can go forward and hit Al Gore again!
Gotta love him!
What a load of off topic, negative crap.
Why don't you start your own forum if all you want to do is hear yourself talk. The only thing remotely relevant here is the lie about Al Gore's carbon footprint, and it's ... you know, ... a lie.
Rush Limbaugh is not funny he's a fascist jerk. You are also not funny.
Cook said that companies often focus on the wrong issues. He gave the example of installing motion detectors in a conference room, to automatically turn off the lights in a room when no one is there. But the real carbon footprint, he said, comes from the products themselves.
"Making products cleaner involves real engineering," Cook said. "It's about innovating, and it's hard work."
Sure that's true, Mr. Cook. It is absolutely essential to use good engineering to reduce the 'lifetime-use carbon footprint.'
But there are two things to note here: (i) The benchmark should not be how your own products performed in the past, but rather, how your best (on this score) competitors' products are performing. I'd like to see Apple perform that analysis against its best competitor, with the analysis conducted by a third-party that can audit and verify the results independently - that would be pushing the envelope. (ii) It is also hugely important to take on energy efficiency initiatives since those are like low-hanging fruit for cost savings as well as GHG emissions reductions. Motion detectors in conference rooms etc are a no-brainer. Every little bit helps, considering how energy-hungry and energy-wasting the US is.
As long as we use Computers -- it shall never be 100% green
So what? Breathing produces CO2. So we'll never be 'green' as long as we breathe either.
It is a matter of making the best cost-benefit tradeoffs that we can.
Sure that's true, Mr. Cook. It is absolutely essential to use good engineering to reduce the 'lifetime-use carbon footprint.'
But there are two things to note here: (i) The benchmark should not be how your own products performed in the past, but rather, how your best (on this score) competitors' products are performing. I'd like to see Apple perform that analysis against its best competitor, with the analysis conducted by a third-party that can audit and verify the results independently - that would be pushing the envelope. (ii) It is also hugely important to take on energy efficiency initiatives since those are like low-hanging fruit for cost savings as well as GHG emissions reductions. Motion detectors in conference rooms etc are a no-brainer. Every little bit helps, considering how energy-hungry and energy-wasting the US is.
This post is nonsense to me. What are you arguing here?
Apple (and Cook), are saying to include the products themselves in the ratings, which no-one has bothered to do before. Apple's products are known to be more energy efficient on average than most others because they've been designing to that heuristic for many years now. It seems like you are saying "yeah, but let's see what a detailed comparison of products will reveal." As if this would be a bad thing for Apple?
All indicators we know of, kind of imply Apple would win such a comparison hands-down. Their batteries are more efficient and have a greater power density, their motherboards are more efficient etc. The only product I know of they make that could be said to really suck up the power is the Mac Pro and they make those in lower volume than all the others. I don't get what you are arguing here.
This post is nonsense to me......... etc etc
Calm down, man. That said, let me address your weasel-y words and vacuous claims.
This post is nonsense to me. What are you arguing here?
I am not arguing anything. I am just making a couple of points. The fact that you don't agree with them is fine.
Apple (and Cook), are saying to include the products themselves in the ratings, which no-one has bothered to do before.
Really? No one? Produce some evidence, please.
Apple's products are known to be more energy efficient on average than most others because they've been designing to that heuristic for many years now.
'Known to be' by whom? Provide some evidence. 'On average'? That's weasel-y. I am presuming Apple aspires to be better that than average. 'They've been designing.....' and others haven't? If you know that, provide some evidence.
It seems like you are saying "yeah, but let's see what a detailed comparison of products will reveal." As if this would be a bad thing for Apple
No. I am saying that'll be a good thing for Apple. And, I am saying, do it against the best in the industry (and if Apple is that already, shout it from the rooftops).
You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
All indicators we know of, kind of imply Apple would win such a comparison hands-down.
Really? Provide some - any - evidence.
I don't get what you are arguing here.
Hopefully, you do now.
I appreciate environmental consciousness but PLEASE dont taint my favorite company with this global warming scam BS, PLEASE dont compromise any products for the sake of environmentalism, and PLEASE dont give credibility to the greenpeace pu**ies.
You have been reported for Trolling.
Do you breathe, fart, drive a car, use incandescent bulbs, live in a developed nation....?
If you do, I will be forced to report you to Al Gore! You may be redeemed by purchasing $10,000 in carbon credits.
http://greenrankings.newsweek.com/companies/view/apple
Apple only came in at number 133/500 !
That was behind HP at 1, Dell at 2, Intel at 4 and IBM at 5!!
Something sounds fishy
Do you breathe, fart, drive a car, use incandescent bulbs, live in a developed nation....?
If you do, I will be forced to report you to Al Gore! You may be redeemed by purchasing $10,000 in carbon credits.
Don't panic. Or exaggerate. The average American emits a little over 20 tons of CO2 per year from all that stuff you list. At $20/ton for CO2 credits (a very generous estimate of the likely price), that's only $400 per person.