Apple ranks fourth on Greenpeace's 'Guide to Greener Electronics'

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Greenpeace on Wednesday released its new "Guide to Greener Electronics," in the environmental group ranked Apple fourth among major device makers.



The poll ranked 15 companies across three areas: energy, greener products and sustainable operations. The report also challenges companies to reduce their carbon footprint in a variety of areas, and also to set "ambitious" goals for renewable energy.



With a score of 4.6 out of 10, Apple came in fourth place -- up five places from the previous Greenpeace report. The iPhone maker scored strong on its sustainable operations, but was ranked poorly on energy.



Greenpeace said it believes Apple's greenhouse gas emissions data needs external verifications, and the organization criticizes the fact that Apple has not specified any target to reduce emissions. But it also gave credit to Apple for its improved energy efficiency and use of renewable energy.



While energy was the company's low point, the sustainable operations category was particularly strong for Apple. Greenpeace credited Apple for exceeding its own goals in global recycling in 2010, and also ranked it as a top scorer for policies and practices on the sourcing of conflict minerals.



Apple also had a strong showing in the products criteria, as all of the company's devices are free of PVC vinyl plastic and brominated flame retardants. The company also received maximum points for reporting that all of its products meet or exceed the latest Energy Star standards for energy efficiency.







For years now Apple has pushed the environmentally friendly aspects of its products, countering a dispute that began with Greenpeace in August of 2006, when the organization issued a report condemning Apple for the use of toxic chemicals in its devices. Greenpeace also pulled a number of publicity stunts, such as a "Green My Apple" campaign in London in October of 2006, and a "greening" of Apple's flagship Fifth Avenue glass cube in January of 2007.



The negative publicity helped to prompt Apple co-founder Steve Jobs issue an open letter to customers and shareholders in May of 2007, in which he admitted that the company had not been forthright on its environmental policy. As part of the letter, Jobs outline a timetable for the removal of toxic chemicals from the company's products, including arsenic, mercury, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and brominated flame retardants (BDRs).



Jobs later said he felt Apple's tight-lipped approach to developing products hurt its image with environmental organizations. He argued that Apple's products has always been green, but previously didn't make a point to mention it in public. Apple now mentions its products' environmental impact with a scorecard at each keynote.



"We tend to report rather than predict," Jobs said. "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."



Apple's fourth-place ranking in this year's Greenpeace "Guide to Greener Electronics" places it behind Nokia (4.9/10), Dell (5.1/10), and in first place, HP (5.9/10). Immediately below Apple were Philips (4.5/10), Sony Ericsson (4.2/10), Samsung (4.1/10) and Lenovo (3.8/10).
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    Not surprising that they scored low in their use of recycled plastic in their products--they don't use much plastic of any type in their products.
  • Reply 2 of 28
    jensonbjensonb Posts: 529member
    Are Greenpeace still using their flawed methodology or have they decided to start grading based on, you know, facts?
  • Reply 3 of 28
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jensonb View Post


    Are Greenpeace still using their flawed methodology or have they decided to start grading based on, you know, facts?



    Why would they start basing things on facts? They've got a great scam going now.



    Greenpeace has always been about show. The companies who talk the most about their 'green' efforts (and who publicly make donations to environmental groups) get good marks. Companies who do great things but don't issue weekly press releases or invite Greenpeace members to lunch do poorly in their rankings.



    Just look at their individual marks:



    "Clean Electricity Plan". Apple ranks 'Low'. I guess Greenpeace missed the article that says that Apple's NC data center will be powered by solar.



    "Clean Energy Policy Advocacy". Apple ranks 'Zero'. They never sent a check to Greenpeace.



    "Recycling" (paper and plastics). Apple ranks 'Zero'. But look at the facts:

    http://www.apple.com/environment/#recycling

    Quote:

    Our original goal for 2010 was to achieve a worldwide recycling rate of 50 percent. (To calculate this rate, we use a measurement proposed by Dell that assumes a seven-year product lifetime. The weight of the materials we recycle each year is compared to the total weight of the products Apple sold seven years earlier.) We exceeded that goal in 2009, one year earlier than projected, when we achieved a rate of 66.4 percent. This far surpasses the last reported numbers from Dell and HP, which were each lower than 20 percent.



    Given that 66.4% recycling rate (which is probably higher than 99% of companies out there), how in the world do they give Apple a 'Zero'????



    "Measure and Reduce Energy Use in the Supply Chain". Apple ranks 'Low'. Apple clearly measures this - and works hard to reduce it. For example, the following web site is illustrative:

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



    Greenpeace people are idiots. They are all about 'show' and never let the facts distract them from their agenda. I'd love to see someone stand up to them and demand that they support their claims with more than their own unfounded opinions.
  • Reply 4 of 28
    Not interested in the politically fueled pseudo-science of Greenpeace.
  • Reply 5 of 28
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    The good news is I now an example of a review company I rank lower than Consumer Reports.
  • Reply 6 of 28
    grmacgrmac Posts: 67member
    I haven't forgiven GP since they tried to push me back in the water on the beaches of Malibu...
  • Reply 7 of 28
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Why would they start basing things on facts? They've got a great scam going now.

    Greenpeace has always been about show. ...



    I have to dispute this part.



    Only in the last ten years or so has Greenpeace been like this. For most of their existence they were a well-run, hard-working and very relevant group that was actively working to better the world and did a lot of good.



    Sadly, they have turned into this.

    I'm sure the founders are rolling in their graves.
  • Reply 8 of 28
    eideardeideard Posts: 428member
    End of the year fundraising time for Greenpeace. Want a better place on the list? Donate!
  • Reply 9 of 28
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    I have to dispute this part.



    Only in the last ten years or so has Greenpeace been like this. For most of their existence they were a well-run, hard-working and very relevant group that was actively working to better the world and did a lot of good.



    Sadly, they have turned into this.

    I'm sure the founders are rolling in their graves.



    Not rolling in their graves, speaking out against Greenpeace



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHZ9lZHW4



    I can't believe Dell is better than Apple, maybe better at talking about it.
  • Reply 10 of 28
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Beauty of Bath View Post


    Not rolling in their graves, speaking out against Greenpeace



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHZ9lZHW4



    I can't believe Dell is better than Apple, maybe better at talking about it.



    Dell isn't better than Apple. Look at the quote above. Apple has 3 times the recycling rate of Dell. Admittedly, we don't know how that was measured, but Apple says that they used Dell's own protocol.
  • Reply 11 of 28
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Beauty of Bath View Post


    I can't believe Dell is better than Apple, ...



    You and me both. This obviously discredits Greenpeace. Dell and HP who both make plastic laden junk with an effective life span of 3 years, their computers are terrible power hogs, and have little to no value on the resale market; are ranked higher than Apple who makes things out of metal and glass which can be recycled, have much longer effective life spans, are power efficient, and have value on the resale market (recycle/reuse)? This is madness, corruption, greed, or dope smoking on Greenpeace's part!
  • Reply 12 of 28
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Why would they start basing things on facts? They've got a great scam going now.



    Greenpeace has always been about show. The companies who talk the most about their 'green' efforts (and who publicly make donations to environmental groups) get good marks. Companies who do great things but don't issue weekly press releases or invite Greenpeace members to lunch do poorly in their rankings.



    Just look at their individual marks:



    "Clean Electricity Plan". Apple ranks 'Low'. I guess Greenpeace missed the article that says that Apple's NC data center will be powered by solar.



    "Clean Energy Policy Advocacy". Apple ranks 'Zero'. They never sent a check to Greenpeace.



    "Recycling" (paper and plastics). Apple ranks 'Zero'. But look at the facts:

    http://www.apple.com/environment/#recycling





    Given that 66.4% recycling rate (which is probably higher than 99% of companies out there), how in the world do they give Apple a 'Zero'????



    "Measure and Reduce Energy Use in the Supply Chain". Apple ranks 'Low'. Apple clearly measures this - and works hard to reduce it. For example, the following web site is illustrative:

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



    Greenpeace people are idiots. They are all about 'show' and never let the facts distract them from their agenda. I'd love to see someone stand up to them and demand that they support their claims with more than their own unfounded opinions.



    FWIW: You don't get high marks for Clean Energy consumption before the Green Energy [Solar Plant] is operational and being the source of your Energy draw.
  • Reply 13 of 28
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Why would they start basing things on facts? They've got a great scam going now.



    Greenpeace has always been about show. The companies who talk the most about their 'green' efforts (and who publicly make donations to environmental groups) get good marks. Companies who do great things but don't issue weekly press releases or invite Greenpeace members to lunch do poorly in their rankings.



    Just look at their individual marks:



    "Clean Electricity Plan". Apple ranks 'Low'. I guess Greenpeace missed the article that says that Apple's NC data center will be powered by solar.



    "Clean Energy Policy Advocacy". Apple ranks 'Zero'. They never sent a check to Greenpeace.



    "Recycling" (paper and plastics). Apple ranks 'Zero'. But look at the facts:

    http://www.apple.com/environment/#recycling





    Given that 66.4% recycling rate (which is probably higher than 99% of companies out there), how in the world do they give Apple a 'Zero'????



    "Measure and Reduce Energy Use in the Supply Chain". Apple ranks 'Low'. Apple clearly measures this - and works hard to reduce it. For example, the following web site is illustrative:

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



    Greenpeace people are idiots. They are all about 'show' and never let the facts distract them from their agenda. I'd love to see someone stand up to them and demand that they support their claims with more than their own unfounded opinions.



    Thanks man. Still just a load of hot air then. Greenpeace really tick me off. Wen you pull BS like they do you damage the whole environmental movement.
  • Reply 14 of 28
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jensonb View Post


    Are Greenpeace still using their flawed methodology or have they decided to start grading based on, you know, facts?



    Heh. You knew the answer before you even asked the question...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SixnaHalfFeet View Post


    This is madness, corruption, greed, or dope smoking on Greenpeace's part!



    "or"?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Only in the last ten years or so has Greenpeace been like this. For most of their existence they were a well-run, hard-working and very relevant group that was actively working to better the world and did a lot of good.



    Sadly, they have turned into this.

    I'm sure the founders are rolling in their graves.



    All true, except the last bit. The founders ain't rolling in their graves - they're rolling over Greenpeace in the press. (And YouTube.)
  • Reply 15 of 28
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,397member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    "Clean Electricity Plan". Apple ranks 'Low'. I guess Greenpeace missed the article that says that Apple's NC data center will be powered by solar.



    Solar isn't purely clean, it produces a large amount of visual pollution
  • Reply 16 of 28
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


    Solar isn't purely clean, it produces a large amount of visual pollution



    If this is an attempt at a clever condemnation of its aesthetic, then this is a terrible post. If its not, can you explain to me what visual pollution is?
  • Reply 17 of 28
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post


    If this is an attempt at a clever condemnation of its aesthetic, then this is a terrible post. If its not, can you explain to me what visual pollution is?



    It's not light pollution/photopollution/luminous pollution that produces excessive or obtrusive artificial light. It's pollution of visually seeing things that are unpleasant and crappy. just look at any post made by jfanning for an example of such crap.
  • Reply 18 of 28
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SixnaHalfFeet View Post


    Y... Apple who makes things out of metal and glass which can be recycled, have much longer effective life spans, are power efficient, and have value on the resale market (recycle/reuse)? This is madness, corruption, greed, or dope smoking on Greenpeace's part!



    Just because apple's products are made out of recyclable parts doesn't mean they are going to be dismantled for recycling. Ipods go straight to the chipper. And those were the ones that weren't tossed in the garbage.

    If you look at product lifecycle, apple obsoletes them every year to maximize profit (read GREED). That much more are being dumped.
  • Reply 19 of 28
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    FWIW: You don't get high marks for Clean Energy consumption before the Green Energy [Solar Plant] is operational and being the source of your Energy draw.



    WRONG. The category was "Clean Electricity PLAN". Seems to me that placing an order for hundreds of millions of dollars of solar energy equipment is a pretty strong plan. (And that even assumes that Apple doesn't do anything else - which isn't likely).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


    Solar isn't purely clean, it produces a large amount of visual pollution



    Apple puts in solar energy to reduce the impact of their data center on the environment and get accused of "visual pollution".
  • Reply 20 of 28
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Oh, great. Here come the trolls again. Apple puts in solar energy to reduce the impact of their data center on the environment and get accused of "visual pollution".



    Apple should stick to coal¡ It natural, it comes from the ground and creates jobs for hardworking Americans¡
Sign In or Register to comment.