How many people would like to see a 'greener' Apple?
Ok, how many people would like to see apple create products which go way beyond other companies in their environmental friendliness?
This is irrespective to whatever Greenpeace are doing, keep your comments to them in that thread.
This is based on apple following this route themselves. I'd like to see if anyone doesn't want a more environmentally apple product and why not.
Again, please keep any Greenpeace comments to that thread, this is about Apple.
This is irrespective to whatever Greenpeace are doing, keep your comments to them in that thread.
This is based on apple following this route themselves. I'd like to see if anyone doesn't want a more environmentally apple product and why not.
Again, please keep any Greenpeace comments to that thread, this is about Apple.
Comments
Also, Apple is in some respects a long way ahead of the rest of the industry since their products produce much less waste, and tend to have a much longer usable life than do PCs.
Apple may make longer lasting products, but that's not the point here. The issue is longer lasting products which are much more environmentally friendly. Imagine if they used hemp to construct all plastic casing instead of petroleum-based plastics? That's something revolutionary for a company of apple's size, but equally viable today.
i politely asked for no discussion of Greenpeace, could you respect that please?
Greenpeace is obviously part of this discussion, whether you like it or not, because at the moment they are defining what it means to be "green." YES, I'd like to see a greener Apple, but NO, I don't think doing whatever greenpeace says is necessarily going to do that much towards environmental conservations. I don't think that their version of "green" is a good one, since in most cases it assumes a static [non]-progression of environmentally-sound technologies. On the contrary, it's not long term thinking at all.
Plastic can be produced from non-drilled petroleum sources (i.e. recycled matter), but it just takes more energy. This looks to be OK since nuclear power seems to have become an available option again. I much rather have iPods made of recycled plastic (or zirconia I suppose) than out of hemp. Hemp is not a miracle product. Plastics are.
i politely asked for no discussion of Greenpeace, could you respect that please?
No, that is a cowardly way of sliding the camels nose under the edge of the tent. It is impossible to openly discuss the green manufacturing policies of apple less than 12 hours after a major Greenpeace protest without openly admitting the political tie-in, whether or not you are sympathetic to Greenpeace.
Apple may make longer lasting products, but that's not the point here. The issue is longer lasting products which are much more environmentally friendly. Imagine if they used hemp to construct all plastic casing instead of petroleum-based plastics? That's something revolutionary for a company of apple's size, but equally viable today.
So, you take the greenest computer manufacturer* and move the goalposts to a more convenient point? One that no other manufacturer has even come close to? Poor way to frame a discussion. Under constraints like that only one viewpoint can be correct since every other one is already defined to be deficient in comparison.
That's not a discussion, that's a time tested propaganda tactic.
I challenge you to actually make it a discussion and add an option along the lines of: "Of course I would like Apple to continue to improve the greeness of their products. But I think they are doing quite well in that department today, despite anything Greenpeace has to say."
*According to US EPA, an unbiased observer of all US manufacturers ACTUAL practices. http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/01/...pple.products/
I asked for no discussion regarding greenpeace because many here seem to think everything 'green' means greenpeace, well in the EU and specifically the UK (where i am) Greenpeace don't play a prominent part in the environmental movement, sure they're significant, but at the moment it's the media (IMHO).
I don't realise how you argue that greenpeace and the geen movement are intrinsically connected, meaning no seperation of the two. yeah greenpeace have raised awareness, they have advised and helped shape many government policies, but they don't define the greenmovement at the present moment because it has grown beyond them, atleast from where i'm standing.
Regarding the comment that hemp isn't a miracle product but plastic is, do you even realise that plastic can be made from hemp? Henry ford designed and built a car made from hemp plastic parts running on hemp fuels, it is more than technologically possible today.
I was trying to start a generic discussion on whether people would like to see apple's track record improve, and how, not whether certain people would prefer to slander greenpeace. if you feel that strongly, start a greenpeace slagging thread. But that isn't the basis of this discussion.
Just wondering why 5 peopel voted No, do thay have an opinion on why apple shouldn't pursue more environmentally sound products or are you just knee jerking?
I would also argue that despite what apple may or may not due with respect to how green their hardware building process is, they are far greener than most in the fact that their computers traditionally havea much longer life cycle than a regular PC and they also have a terrific resale value and a 2nd hand value that other PCs simply don't have. this results in less apple products occupying landfill space.
i politely asked for no discussion of Greenpeace, could you respect that please?
"Respectfully" no. Greenpeace is part of the discussion.
I voted no because you left no option that said Yes, and I believe that Apple already does so (go way beyond other companies). Therefore your poll is politically motivated and highly biased toward Greenpeace's position and you're trolling.
Vinea
I'm not trying to troll, and the very reason I asked for no gp discussion was to prevent trolling comments, from both camps.
I agree apple do do alot, however i'm sure they could do more, and if they did really take environmental'ness to the 'next level' i as a consumer would pay that premium.
I really do resent the opinion you've jumped to Vinea, i wanted to get some insight into the mindset of people that bitched about gp bringing attention to apple, people who seemed to favour the next technological step for apple over protecting our planet.
Resent all you want. Your statement here confirms my opinion. You don't want discussion or insight, you simply want to validate your "superiority" over those that disagree with your mindset.
I'm not trying to troll, and the very reason I asked for no gp discussion was to prevent trolling comments, from both camps.
You're trolling. You make value judgements that folks value technology over the environment when both can co-exist. We can dislike greenpeace, their tactics and their idiocy and yet we CAN be pro-environment. But you characterize that as bitching and insinuate that values our are skewed.
At least own up to it. Do you believe we're so dumb as not to notice?
I agree apple do do alot, however i'm sure they could do more, and if they did really take environmental'ness to the 'next level' i as a consumer would pay that premium.
So very nice for you. Arguably they do better than the rest of the industry so why not go ask this on a Dell or HP forum? Or heck, how about an industry that contributes more to environmental damage than computers?
Because you'd prefer to troll here since you've bought into GP's propaganda. Don't expect folks not to discuss GP in this context and no, we don't have to respect your restrictions to define the discussion in a way to validate your "ethical superiority".
You want some insight? Don't create such a blatantly biased polls and whine that folks see through it.
Vinea
show me how i want to create myself as superior? I want to be proved wrong, i want apple to be the holy grail of consumer electronics environmentalism, but at the moment they are not. no one is, but apple can be, and that is what i want, simply because i want a better world for all of us, both me and you equally.
Can't you see the reason they targetted apple? Could it be because of the image apple create, one of an organic, superior, elite brand, a brand that does no evil, a brand that is the future? See why greenpeace jumped on apple.
(actually, if you look at greenmyapple.com you'll see greenpeace say they love apple too).
Greenpeace want to raise the profile of the issue of our environment, that is their goal, good for them, it's very altruistic of them to attempt to create an aware world.
You have an issue with greenpeace's methods, possibly their goal too, i don't know you havn't mentioned that much. However this thread is in no way linked to greenpeace's methods of activism. Fair enough, i was inspired from reading about greenpeace, but this thread is in no way connected to greenpeaces methods. You guys made the connection, so take the burden of proof.
I explained why i asked for not discussing greenpeace, because i didn't want cicular arguments about gp when there was no need (and there is already a thread for that). i wanted to discuss people's willingness to pay a premium for even more moral apple products (contradiction?), chances are they'll never create a perfect device, but does that mean we shouldn't all chase it?
Lastly, let's look at an example of someone acting 'superior'.
I voted no because you left no option that said Yes, and I believe that Apple already does so (go way beyond other companies). Therefore your poll is politically motivated and highly biased toward Greenpeace's position and you're trolling.
or to paraphrase
I disagree with your argument, therefore you have devious intentions and are here to cause a fuss.
catch my drift....?
Understand, we like the earth, we think Apple isn't doing a sucky job environmentally, we hope they maintain an industry leading stance in that area. But singling them out without dealing with the other manufacturers first is just so much sour grapes and trolling.
I've joined since the run up to macworld because i was desperately hoping for a 12" macbook pro, but i'll be buying a macbook on saturday instead. I can even prove it by posting an image of my reciept to further vindicate my position.
Apple is being used to highlight the issue of conflict between technology and nature purely because of apple's own image, and if apple take on the inevitable, it'll work for them both.
But anyways, i'd like to apologise if i pissed anyone off.... somehow.
show me how i want to create myself as superior?
Please. You create a poll where saying no automatically puts you in a disadvantageous position for discussion. You said so yourself...why would anyone vote no? Because your "yes" answers are biased and suck.
I want to be proved wrong, i want apple to be the holy grail of consumer electronics environmentalism, but at the moment they are not. no one is, but apple can be, and that is what i want, simply because i want a better world for all of us, both me and you equally.
Really? What if people disagree with that unsupported assertion? No, you can't see that as possible therefore you don't want dialog or insight you just want to flog people with guilt from your moral "high ground".
Apple has Al f-ing Gore on the board. Their packaging is tiny compared to the rest of the industry. They typically have no more polluting substances in their products than is required to make any complex electronic equipment (the alternative is simply not to manufacture). Their useful product lifecycle is accepted to be longer than most in the industry due either the advantages of their OS or their niche status and slower refresh times (pick either depending if you are a fan or not).
Who says they aren't the holy grail? Greenpeace? Oh yeah...THOSE guys. And YOU. Gee, amazing that folks see some kind of pattern here.
Can't you see the reason they targetted apple? Could it be because of the image apple create, one of an organic, superior, elite brand, a brand that does no evil, a brand that is the future? See why greenpeace jumped on apple.
Nobody does no evil. Especially ones that tell you they don't *cough*Google*cough*. Greenpeace is not picking environmental battles but popularity ones that generate revenue and continue its raison d'etre.
Apple is a corporation with 2 main goals: make money and make superior products to promote whatever Jobsian vision of the computing lifestyle is. Fortunately Apple does both rather well at the moment. That they are eco-aware and eco-friendly is a nice bonus thing.
(actually, if you look at greenmyapple.com you'll see greenpeace say they love apple too).
BS. As someone pointed out you either drank the kool aid or are astro-turfing. They don't love Apple. They sure do love green though...the green of money.
Greenpeace want to raise the profile of the issue of our environment, that is their goal, good for them, it's very altruistic of them to attempt to create an aware world.
BS. Greenpeace is interested in money and political power. There's no bloody altruism associated with Greenpeace, NRDC, or EDI. John Adams, president of NRDC made $368K in 2001. Their top 9 officers took in $1.7M in compensation in 2001. EDI's top 13 took in $2.1M. Greenpeace Fund paid nine employees $400K in 2001 and GPF is nothing but a shell company that funnels tax deductible money into Greenpeace International and Greenpeace, Inc. Some of those folks double dipped and were also paid by Greenpeace International or GP, Inc.
"Greenpeace Incorporated" is just the right mental picture for that so-called environmental organization. The IRS slammed GPF and GP, Inc for the "illegal nature" of how they do business. How's that for moral or ethical?
In contrast the President of the PETA (whom folks really hate) made $30K in 2001. Their top 5 officers made a combined $300K. The Sierra Club's Executive director made under $140K and a combined $400K for its top officers in 2001.
Excepts for 2004:
John H. Adams, President, NRDC: $704,796 (whew!); Steven Sanderson, CEO Wildlife Conservation Society: $495,422; Mark Van Putten, President, National Wildlife Federation: $477,138; Steven McCormick, CEO, The Nature Conservancy: $399,788; John Flicker, President, National Audubon Society: $362,237; Peter Seligmann, CEO, Conservation International: $336,3353; Russell Mittermeier, Conservation International: $331,515; Kathyrn Fuller, President, WWF: $310,781. Even underlings do well, i.e., "The National Conservancy paid 1,025 salaries above $50,000, with nine above $200,000 and nine more over $150,000."
http://www.worldtwitch.com/animal_charities_2001.htm
Excuse me for being cynical of all the big name eco orgs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9890-2003May3
Steve McCormick. Base salary $275,000. Signing Bonus: $75,000. Yearly living "allowance": $75,000, $1.55M home loan from the Conservancy.
Greenpeace Fund doesn't show on the 2004 big spenders list. Do I believe that they've "changed their ways"? Paint me doubtful.
Even for the run of the mill compensation packages of the Sierra Club the folks ain't starving. Nor do I expect them to but what environmental footprint do you expect from anyone with a 6 figure income? It ain't gonna be that tiny.
I can tell you it takes quite a few BTUs to heat McCormick's house in McLean. Thank goodness for global warming this year.
I explained why i asked for not discussing greenpeace, because i didn't want cicular arguments about gp when there was no need (and there is already a thread for that). i wanted to discuss people's willingness to pay a premium for even more moral apple products (contradiction?), chances are they'll never create a perfect device, but does that mean we shouldn't all chase it?
Even more moral? That's exactly your problem. Apple products are immoral? To couch it in those terms means anyone that doesn't support your position is somehow unethical or immoral. Bollocks. That's not a way to gather insight but pick a fight.
Should Apple continue to be environmentally aware and strive to make environmentally friendly products (as much as making any electronic device can)? Sure. Does part of their current premium cover that cost? Of course or they wouldn't do it.
Should they be "greener"? How and stay in business? By not using PVC? Not using flame retardant chemicals in less quantity than restricted flame retardant chemicals? Are you on crack?
Lastly, let's look at an example of someone acting 'superior'.
No that's someone acting annoyed. Don't go and apologize. If you truly haven't seen anything but GreenMyApple go get more information before mounting your high horse and whining about Apple or whining that folks attack your weak minded position. Otherwise, just go.
Vinea
I naturally would like the most progressive (in terms of design and future-sight) of companies to take the bull by the horns and really be daring with regards to what I think is THE most important issue facing mankind today.
Sebastian