It would appear that you are the mis-informed one; Greenpeace do acknowledge the U.S. recycling program. They also note (incorrectly) that Apple are required by law to provide a similar service in Europe. The EU passed a directive concerning WEEE ("Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment"), but it hasn't been formalised into U.K. national law yet, not sure about other countries.
I would like to suggest that anyone mouthing off about Greenpeace actually go and read all of the information at http://www.greenmyapple.org/ before passing judgement and making comments. As I said before, I regard much of the "toxic" stuff irrelevant, but their grievances about recycling and product life cycles (e.g. do you really think it's acceptable that Apple designs iPod to last only 3 years? That's according to a quote from Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing in the Guardian a few weeks ago) I find to be valid.
It's law in Scandinavia (but not Finland), but those laws were passed before the EU directive was... i'm not sure what the EU timeframe is for members.
And, judging by the comments left here, I think some of the posters are too busy with their social studies homework to read anything. 7th grade is tough...
No, but they do stuff for political and economic gain that has little to do with advancing the environment. This whole Apple thing is a stunt.
I agree. Going there is one thing, but being disruptive and not being courteous is another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Except that what Greenpeace is pinging Apple on is false. Their own study shows that the levels of TBBPA flame retardant to be 1/4 of the amount of RESTRICTED retardants under RoHS. TBBPA isn't a restricted toxic chemical at all. And they found NO laptops with hexavalent chromium.
Not to mention that TBBPA in hard plastics show very small emissions (ie gas releases) and even if they did the EU Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) reports it:
"agrees with the conclusion that there are no concerns for the carcinogenicity of tetrabromobisphenol A and supports conclusions ii) for all exposure scenarios since the Margin of Safety (MOS) are very large. Due to low systemic biovailability and efficient conjugation of the phenolic groups in tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), bioaccumulation of this compound is not considered to be of concern."
But to read their press releases and campaign these things are more toxic than Chernobyl.
Hah! I read the same thing!
I saw one of their PR guys interviewed and he basically said that they're making an example out of Apple, because Apple's more in the people's heads than a company such as Dell.
By this reasoning it would be your fault if someone jumped in front of your car. Damage on their side, and the front of your car...
NO, where in the world do you come up with a statement like that?
Trying to reanalyze vineas' metaphor of the original post, which clearly stated "It's easy to yell foul when you lay yourself down on the railroad tracks and no one is there to see you!!!" IS truly sophomoric.
The original post did not call for reason, it simply required thought.
A well balanced post - I heartily agree, Greenpeace is only trying to get publicity and improve Apple's environmental record. Apple, along with other companies, needs to be more environmentally friendly. Maybe I'll go to the Expo tomorrow as I have free tickets and see if Greenpeace have camped outside!
Look at the computers Apple makes that use aluminum for the cases--100% recyclable. And, guess who is sponsoring our e-waste day this month--Greenpeace? Ha! Guess again...
To All Members of the UH Community:
This is a final notice that UH's eWaste disposal program has kicked off and will be taking place through Saturday, October 28. This is a one-time chance for you to take advantage of a free opportunity to dispose of qualifying electronic equipment that is broken or has reached the end of its useful lifetime. All equipment collected will be recycled to the extent possible and then disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner.
There are dropoff sites at UH-Manoa, UH-Hilo, Kauai CC, Leeward CC, Maui CC and Windward CC. You can get more information about the program including campus dropoff locations and eligible items of eWaste at:
Monday through Friday is our educational eCycling period for UH campuses as well as Hawaii's public and private schools. However, UH students, faculty and students may also dispose of your personal eWaste from 9am to 3pm on any weekday. We recommend that you take advantage of this opportunity to drop off your eWaste. No special registration is needed to drop off your personal eWaste.
As noted at the public website at http://www.hawaii.edu/ewaste, members of the public are invited to dispose of their eWaste on Saturday (only), so we expect to be very busy that day and therefore encourage members of the UH community to avoid the rush by dropping off your personal eWaste during the week.
Our thanks to Apple Computer for sponsoring this activity and helping us all preserve Hawaii's environment.
Allthough Greenapeace really does some good things, like making people aware of toxics in computers, but the methods they use are not really correct. If they would have behaved nicely they would have earned a lot more respect. As well, the moey they paid to be at the expo wouldn't be wasted after being kicked out in half a day.
And ofcourse, they want to free ride on all the attention that Apple gets these days. Aren't many companies trying the same?
I got to know them a long time ago, when they were founded over the issue of the baby seals. Are the seals endangered, or were they ever endangered? No. Was the method of killing them especially cruel? No. The club is sudden. Just like a slaughterhouse, folks. It doesn't look good, when there's red all over the ice, and the animals being killed are cutesy-wutesy. However, it's a good way to raise money. This is the way they've always operated. They're publicity hounds.
So they made their fortune, they put up their multi-million-dollar headquarters in New England, with the seal hunt, and they've followed wherever they can get publicity ever since. The iPod's "hot"? Well, let's picket Apple. Then we get pictures with cool Apple gear. Maybe Steve will outfit us with MacBook Pros!
In 1989, the seal hunt had been cancelled for 6 or 7 years. No hunt. No baby seals dying for our sins. The market had been destroyed. A lot more Newfoundland fishermen on the dole. But on a trip to L.A., I went to Venice Beach, and there it was: the picture of the baby seal, still filling cans full of donations.
The problem with the world is much more defined by the low wages and terrible working conditions of our meatpackers. They used to be unionized, and there were safety rules. Now, they barely get paid minimum wage. No health coverage. The line is sped up. Workers slice themselves up all the time. That's why the meatpackers recruit illegals, because nobody else will do it.
Please. No pictures of sad wittle seal pups. The most important issues we have to face are right at home.
It's not a matter of being an Apple fanboy or not to me. My reaction would be totally different if an organization other than Greenpeace was the one raising the alarm.
But Greenpeace is, as Swift noted, not an organization to be trusted for thoughtful analysis, nor commended for respectful behavior.
Most of the organization (if not all) is geared to getting publicity through high-profile confrontation. Based on their past behavior, I wouldn't be surprised if they provoked this confrontation in order to get their name in the news and more media coverage on Friday. That's their usual modus operandi. Their deception gets no sympathy from me.
Maybe Greenpeace is right? Maybe Apple is the worst? Then again ive never seen the r4easons why apple is so bad compared to other computer companies... so it could also be a lie... id be curious to REALLY know... i think Greenpeace is too biased at this point to fairly tell me though.
Maybe Greenpeace is right? Maybe Apple is the worst? Then again ive never seen the r4easons why apple is so bad compared to other computer companies... so it could also be a lie... id be curious to REALLY know... i think Greenpeace is too biased at this point to fairly tell me though.
It really doesn't matter how good or bad Apple is, they are a high profile target, and Greenpeace needs publicity in order to generate revenue. Apple could be the best in class, and still get targeted.
I came to this discussion late...wow! what a painful 75 posts. Every other post screeming and trying to misrepresent somebody else's position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike12309
Maybe Greenpeace is right? Maybe Apple is the worst? Then again ive never seen the r4easons why apple is so bad compared to other computer companies... so it could also be a lie... id be curious to REALLY know... i think Greenpeace is too biased at this point to fairly tell me though.
Case in point, when did GP say Apple was the worst? If you dont think the computer industry in general uses literaly tons of toxic chemicals and solvents and heavy metals...well, you just arn't thinking.
And to those of you who whine that GP should be lobbying the governments in stead of Apple customers: Lobbying governments is hard if you are not made of money. This is simply an intelligent way to increase public awarness of the issues, which, in the long run could lead to public interest in new envirnmental regulations.
Do I doubt that Apple is being unfairy picked on? No, but that is the price of being the media and public darling of the computer world.
Do I doubt that GP is exaggerating some of their claims? No. But that doesn't mean that computers are a clean technology.
Do I think that Apple can go "green" alone? No, they would be killed in the marketplace if they were compeating against other computer makers who didn't have to pay for green research and manufacturing changes.
Do I think that GP making us all aware of a real problem could help to lead to changes in regulation that would fairly relieve some of the problem? Yes.
I would like to suggest that anyone mouthing off about Greenpeace actually go and read all of the information at http://www.greenmyapple.org/ before passing judgement and making comments. As I said before, I regard much of the "toxic" stuff irrelevant, but their grievances about recycling and product life cycles (e.g. do you really think it's acceptable that Apple designs iPod to last only 3 years? That's according to a quote from Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing in the Guardian a few weeks ago) I find to be valid.
It's crap. They don't show an iPod up there, they show a Mac and they whine about a fire retardent chemical that's embedded in hard plastic and even it outgassed the chemical isn't restricted or considered toxic.
They claim that apple is shortening the lives of children in China and India. Apple doesn't use PVC in any part more than 25 grams except for cable enclosures and the BFC that apple uses isn't restricted at all.
You may think the "toxic stuff is irrelevant" but its the basis of their whole website. The difference between Dell/HP and Apple is that Dell and HP are willing to make up dates where they will comply and miss. Apple simply says they're going to try. I doubt Apple uses more PVC per computer than HP...most will be in the wiring.
So what's the deal? How can the Sierra Club rank Apple so high but Greenpeace so low? Based on Greenpeace's shoddy record I'm going to guess that GP is wrong again.
What I don't get is that if Greenpeace are a bunch of morons and the only thing they want is to profit from their organization and shut down businesses and so on—why do they give Dell relatively high scores?
What I don't get is that if Greenpeace are a bunch of morons and the only thing they want is to profit from their organization and shut down businesses and so on?why do they give Dell relatively high scores?
If Dell can do it then Apple can too!
Because they can get more donations by bashing Apple, because the publicity is higher. They aren't morons, they are just evil marketeers who do whatever they can to drive up donations.
I have several old apple computers (sorry don't have other brands cause only ever used apples) which i wanted to dispose of properly . I live in regional town in northern Australia and there is no easily available means for proper disposal of these items . I contacted local apple store for suggestions they had none . I contacted apple via email received no response . I then attempted to contact the apple Australia public relations team for a formal response to the question what is Apple's recycling policy for their computers in Australia. I was stonewalled . We all know that Apple commonly never admits any faults or problems with its computers until it is blatantly obvious, with many users having the problem or os bug and pressure building , that there is a problem.
(I could get no repsonse from Apple Australia as to what their recycling policy was in Australia . They wouldn't even say sorry we don't have one ! )
Why can't apple be seen to be doing the same here . Fact is that there are poisonous ingredients in apple computers . Fact is that it is better to be prudent than sorry with this . Fact is that Apple does have more toxic ingredients in current generation of computers than some other manufacturers . They won't admit it . Just like they won't admit many other problems until the last minute or there is a public outcry about it .
Isn't this what greenpeace is doing. Ok maybe the greenpeace activists at the convention used questionable tactics or were obnoxious . But were they violent . Did they harm anyone physically . I don't think so . They are using Ghandian tactics .And generating publicity for themselves .Could the same be said of Apple . How many colored imacs were sold in Australia and elsewhere How many tonnes of lead are going to end up in landfills . Somewhere sometime at least some of this is going to enter into the food chain and is going to harm people . Apple can't ignore this fact .
Fact is Apple has started a recycling programme in its own home country . Fact is it has none for the rest of the planet . Oh so we don't count . Our lives are worth less than U.S.A. lives . Its one planet and they better take responsibility for for the lead and other toxins they have put into the environment . Their computers should now and should always have been able to classed as the most recyclable and toxin free available of their current generation of computers . If they don't well they can't claim to be at the bleeding edge of design no matter how many other things they have got right .
Well apple markets itself as the progressive company that has the best design and materials and quality . Well SJ compares apple to BMW . Don't BMW have recylability of their components designed in to maximize their recycling value and ease ? I believe I have read this somewhere . Does / did Apples computers have this claim as well ?
Lets not forget that Apple just made record profits and is set to make more . Its about time they allocated some of those profits to taking care of the discards of their previous generations of computers and into bringing about maximum recylability of their current computers .
Things I can say in apples favour are their computers do last well and their energy management software seems good . Also they have moved the intel dual core which is comparitively low power consumption when compared to previous generation G5's . The G4 and G3 computers I beiieve were always low energy consumption computers in comparison to equivalent pentiums .
So in terms of carbon emmisions I would say apple deserves a slight credit or nuetral .
But in terms of openess on this issue and recyblability of current and past generations of computers they are in a negative , and in their recyling policy outside the U.S.A. they deserve a big negative .
Since most of the readers here are americans . I encourage them to lobby their government and apple directly to ensure that U.S.A. based corporations have exactly the same policy on environm,ent for all citizens of the planet as they do for the U.S.A. . Just cause you live outside the U.S.A. doesn't mean you are disposable .
DON'T DUMP ON PEOPLES OUTSIDE THE U.S.A. APPLE AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR RECYLING YOUR COMPUTERS FOR THE WHOLE PLANET NOT JUST THE U.S.A. . ONE PEOPLE ONE PLANET . ENVIROMENTAL PROBLEMS DON'T UNDERSTAND BORDERS .
Comments
Fine, but they don't even acknowledge it.
It would appear that you are the mis-informed one; Greenpeace do acknowledge the U.S. recycling program. They also note (incorrectly) that Apple are required by law to provide a similar service in Europe. The EU passed a directive concerning WEEE ("Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment"), but it hasn't been formalised into U.K. national law yet, not sure about other countries.
I would like to suggest that anyone mouthing off about Greenpeace actually go and read all of the information at http://www.greenmyapple.org/ before passing judgement and making comments. As I said before, I regard much of the "toxic" stuff irrelevant, but their grievances about recycling and product life cycles (e.g. do you really think it's acceptable that Apple designs iPod to last only 3 years? That's according to a quote from Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing in the Guardian a few weeks ago) I find to be valid.
not sure about other countries.
It's law in Scandinavia (but not Finland), but those laws were passed before the EU directive was... i'm not sure what the EU timeframe is for members.
And, judging by the comments left here, I think some of the posters are too busy with their social studies homework to read anything. 7th grade is tough...
No, but they do stuff for political and economic gain that has little to do with advancing the environment. This whole Apple thing is a stunt.
I agree. Going there is one thing, but being disruptive and not being courteous is another.
Except that what Greenpeace is pinging Apple on is false. Their own study shows that the levels of TBBPA flame retardant to be 1/4 of the amount of RESTRICTED retardants under RoHS. TBBPA isn't a restricted toxic chemical at all. And they found NO laptops with hexavalent chromium.
Not to mention that TBBPA in hard plastics show very small emissions (ie gas releases) and even if they did the EU Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) reports it:
"agrees with the conclusion that there are no concerns for the carcinogenicity of tetrabromobisphenol A and supports conclusions ii) for all exposure scenarios since the Margin of Safety (MOS) are very large. Due to low systemic biovailability and efficient conjugation of the phenolic groups in tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), bioaccumulation of this compound is not considered to be of concern."
(copied from http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Hom...665EE235C.html)
But to read their press releases and campaign these things are more toxic than Chernobyl.
Hah! I read the same thing!
I saw one of their PR guys interviewed and he basically said that they're making an example out of Apple, because Apple's more in the people's heads than a company such as Dell.
By this reasoning it would be your fault if someone jumped in front of your car. Damage on their side, and the front of your car...
NO, where in the world do you come up with a statement like that?
Trying to reanalyze vineas' metaphor of the original post, which clearly stated "It's easy to yell foul when you lay yourself down on the railroad tracks and no one is there to see you!!!" IS truly sophomoric.
The original post did not call for reason, it simply required thought.
Regards
A well balanced post - I heartily agree, Greenpeace is only trying to get publicity and improve Apple's environmental record. Apple, along with other companies, needs to be more environmentally friendly. Maybe I'll go to the Expo tomorrow as I have free tickets and see if Greenpeace have camped outside!
Look at the computers Apple makes that use aluminum for the cases--100% recyclable. And, guess who is sponsoring our e-waste day this month--Greenpeace? Ha! Guess again...
To All Members of the UH Community:
This is a final notice that UH's eWaste disposal program has kicked off and will be taking place through Saturday, October 28. This is a one-time chance for you to take advantage of a free opportunity to dispose of qualifying electronic equipment that is broken or has reached the end of its useful lifetime. All equipment collected will be recycled to the extent possible and then disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner.
There are dropoff sites at UH-Manoa, UH-Hilo, Kauai CC, Leeward CC, Maui CC and Windward CC. You can get more information about the program including campus dropoff locations and eligible items of eWaste at:
http://www.hawaii.edu/ecycle
Monday through Friday is our educational eCycling period for UH campuses as well as Hawaii's public and private schools. However, UH students, faculty and students may also dispose of your personal eWaste from 9am to 3pm on any weekday. We recommend that you take advantage of this opportunity to drop off your eWaste. No special registration is needed to drop off your personal eWaste.
As noted at the public website at http://www.hawaii.edu/ewaste, members of the public are invited to dispose of their eWaste on Saturday (only), so we expect to be very busy that day and therefore encourage members of the UH community to avoid the rush by dropping off your personal eWaste during the week.
Our thanks to Apple Computer for sponsoring this activity and helping us all preserve Hawaii's environment.
Aloha, David
David Lassner
UH Chief Information Officer
Did any one really read the report at Macworld?
Allthough Greenapeace really does some good things, like making people aware of toxics in computers, but the methods they use are not really correct. If they would have behaved nicely they would have earned a lot more respect. As well, the moey they paid to be at the expo wouldn't be wasted after being kicked out in half a day.
And ofcourse, they want to free ride on all the attention that Apple gets these days. Aren't many companies trying the same?
So they made their fortune, they put up their multi-million-dollar headquarters in New England, with the seal hunt, and they've followed wherever they can get publicity ever since. The iPod's "hot"? Well, let's picket Apple. Then we get pictures with cool Apple gear. Maybe Steve will outfit us with MacBook Pros!
In 1989, the seal hunt had been cancelled for 6 or 7 years. No hunt. No baby seals dying for our sins. The market had been destroyed. A lot more Newfoundland fishermen on the dole. But on a trip to L.A., I went to Venice Beach, and there it was: the picture of the baby seal, still filling cans full of donations.
The problem with the world is much more defined by the low wages and terrible working conditions of our meatpackers. They used to be unionized, and there were safety rules. Now, they barely get paid minimum wage. No health coverage. The line is sped up. Workers slice themselves up all the time. That's why the meatpackers recruit illegals, because nobody else will do it.
Please. No pictures of sad wittle seal pups. The most important issues we have to face are right at home.
But Greenpeace is, as Swift noted, not an organization to be trusted for thoughtful analysis, nor commended for respectful behavior.
Most of the organization (if not all) is geared to getting publicity through high-profile confrontation. Based on their past behavior, I wouldn't be surprised if they provoked this confrontation in order to get their name in the news and more media coverage on Friday. That's their usual modus operandi. Their deception gets no sympathy from me.
More like murdering sensible discourse by painting the opposing side as the epitome of evil itself.
Yup. The fun part will be when the Democrats retake the House in a week and a half. Then he'll have a lot more to cry about and mistake as evil.
.
Maybe Greenpeace is right? Maybe Apple is the worst? Then again ive never seen the r4easons why apple is so bad compared to other computer companies... so it could also be a lie... id be curious to REALLY know... i think Greenpeace is too biased at this point to fairly tell me though.
It really doesn't matter how good or bad Apple is, they are a high profile target, and Greenpeace needs publicity in order to generate revenue. Apple could be the best in class, and still get targeted.
.
Typical liberal spin....save a beast and murder a child.
nuff said...
duuuuuuuuuuuuuumb sentiment. 'nuff said.
.
Maybe Greenpeace is right? Maybe Apple is the worst? Then again ive never seen the r4easons why apple is so bad compared to other computer companies... so it could also be a lie... id be curious to REALLY know... i think Greenpeace is too biased at this point to fairly tell me though.
Case in point, when did GP say Apple was the worst? If you dont think the computer industry in general uses literaly tons of toxic chemicals and solvents and heavy metals...well, you just arn't thinking.
And to those of you who whine that GP should be lobbying the governments in stead of Apple customers: Lobbying governments is hard if you are not made of money. This is simply an intelligent way to increase public awarness of the issues, which, in the long run could lead to public interest in new envirnmental regulations.
Do I doubt that Apple is being unfairy picked on? No, but that is the price of being the media and public darling of the computer world.
Do I doubt that GP is exaggerating some of their claims? No. But that doesn't mean that computers are a clean technology.
Do I think that Apple can go "green" alone? No, they would be killed in the marketplace if they were compeating against other computer makers who didn't have to pay for green research and manufacturing changes.
Do I think that GP making us all aware of a real problem could help to lead to changes in regulation that would fairly relieve some of the problem? Yes.
[CENTER]Go Greenpeace!
Go Apple![/CENTER]
The recycling program is US-only.
Apple apparently has little share outside the US given the numbers. I suppose they ought to do a UK programme.
Vinea
I would like to suggest that anyone mouthing off about Greenpeace actually go and read all of the information at http://www.greenmyapple.org/ before passing judgement and making comments. As I said before, I regard much of the "toxic" stuff irrelevant, but their grievances about recycling and product life cycles (e.g. do you really think it's acceptable that Apple designs iPod to last only 3 years? That's according to a quote from Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing in the Guardian a few weeks ago) I find to be valid.
It's crap. They don't show an iPod up there, they show a Mac and they whine about a fire retardent chemical that's embedded in hard plastic and even it outgassed the chemical isn't restricted or considered toxic.
They claim that apple is shortening the lives of children in China and India. Apple doesn't use PVC in any part more than 25 grams except for cable enclosures and the BFC that apple uses isn't restricted at all.
You may think the "toxic stuff is irrelevant" but its the basis of their whole website. The difference between Dell/HP and Apple is that Dell and HP are willing to make up dates where they will comply and miss. Apple simply says they're going to try. I doubt Apple uses more PVC per computer than HP...most will be in the wiring.
So what's the deal? How can the Sierra Club rank Apple so high but Greenpeace so low? Based on Greenpeace's shoddy record I'm going to guess that GP is wrong again.
Vinea
If Dell can do it then Apple can too!
What I don't get is that if Greenpeace are a bunch of morons and the only thing they want is to profit from their organization and shut down businesses and so on?why do they give Dell relatively high scores?
If Dell can do it then Apple can too!
Because they can get more donations by bashing Apple, because the publicity is higher. They aren't morons, they are just evil marketeers who do whatever they can to drive up donations.
(I could get no repsonse from Apple Australia as to what their recycling policy was in Australia . They wouldn't even say sorry we don't have one ! )
Why can't apple be seen to be doing the same here . Fact is that there are poisonous ingredients in apple computers . Fact is that it is better to be prudent than sorry with this . Fact is that Apple does have more toxic ingredients in current generation of computers than some other manufacturers . They won't admit it . Just like they won't admit many other problems until the last minute or there is a public outcry about it .
Isn't this what greenpeace is doing. Ok maybe the greenpeace activists at the convention used questionable tactics or were obnoxious . But were they violent . Did they harm anyone physically . I don't think so . They are using Ghandian tactics .And generating publicity for themselves .Could the same be said of Apple . How many colored imacs were sold in Australia and elsewhere How many tonnes of lead are going to end up in landfills . Somewhere sometime at least some of this is going to enter into the food chain and is going to harm people . Apple can't ignore this fact .
Fact is Apple has started a recycling programme in its own home country . Fact is it has none for the rest of the planet . Oh so we don't count . Our lives are worth less than U.S.A. lives . Its one planet and they better take responsibility for for the lead and other toxins they have put into the environment . Their computers should now and should always have been able to classed as the most recyclable and toxin free available of their current generation of computers . If they don't well they can't claim to be at the bleeding edge of design no matter how many other things they have got right .
Well apple markets itself as the progressive company that has the best design and materials and quality . Well SJ compares apple to BMW . Don't BMW have recylability of their components designed in to maximize their recycling value and ease ? I believe I have read this somewhere . Does / did Apples computers have this claim as well ?
Lets not forget that Apple just made record profits and is set to make more . Its about time they allocated some of those profits to taking care of the discards of their previous generations of computers and into bringing about maximum recylability of their current computers .
Things I can say in apples favour are their computers do last well and their energy management software seems good . Also they have moved the intel dual core which is comparitively low power consumption when compared to previous generation G5's . The G4 and G3 computers I beiieve were always low energy consumption computers in comparison to equivalent pentiums .
So in terms of carbon emmisions I would say apple deserves a slight credit or nuetral .
But in terms of openess on this issue and recyblability of current and past generations of computers they are in a negative , and in their recyling policy outside the U.S.A. they deserve a big negative .
Since most of the readers here are americans . I encourage them to lobby their government and apple directly to ensure that U.S.A. based corporations have exactly the same policy on environm,ent for all citizens of the planet as they do for the U.S.A. . Just cause you live outside the U.S.A. doesn't mean you are disposable .
DON'T DUMP ON PEOPLES OUTSIDE THE U.S.A. APPLE AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR RECYLING YOUR COMPUTERS FOR THE WHOLE PLANET NOT JUST THE U.S.A. . ONE PEOPLE ONE PLANET . ENVIROMENTAL PROBLEMS DON'T UNDERSTAND BORDERS .