Investors push Apple to meet or beat Dell enviro goals

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 65
    palex9palex9 Posts: 105member
    after all, they pollute cities a million times more than apple. some people have too much time on their hands.
  • Reply 22 of 65
    thecrowthecrow Posts: 11member
    Thanks for posting this URL, Abster2core. Indeed, people need to be well-informed before they grab their torches and pitchforks.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Perhaps some should look at Apple's Environmental policies before leaping on the bonflre.



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



  • Reply 23 of 65
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    An investment group plans to use Apple Inc.'s upcoming shareholder's meeting to press for greener products



    Yeah..... like this will happen for free. And, like Macs aren't too expensive already....
  • Reply 24 of 65
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by palex9 View Post


    after all, they pollute cities a million times more than apple. some people have too much time on their hands.



    Great point!



    Why do I get the feeling that you're wearing a diaper right now?
  • Reply 25 of 65
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    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.



    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.
  • Reply 26 of 65
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by palex9 View Post


    after all, they pollute cities a million times more than apple. some people have too much time on their hands.



    You must have strange pigeons in your cities. Ours produce crap that's generally organic material that they've picked up off the ground already, not lead, BFRs, PVC and metals that won't dissolve in rain for millennia.
  • Reply 27 of 65
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    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.



    You might suffocate if the O2 levels get too low to support respiration, sure. But CO2 is a natural byproduct of that respiration so by definition there must always be a higher concentration of CO2 inside the human body than there is in the surrounding atmosphere.





    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.
  • Reply 28 of 65
    wilcowilco Posts: 985member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheCrow View Post


    Indeed, people need to be well-informed before they grab their torches and pitchforks.



    And basing an opinion on a company's own PR department is being "well-informed"?



    Shell and BP are doing a great job with the environment as well. Just look at their web sites!



  • Reply 29 of 65
    Both Apple and Dell say they will meet the goal, only that Dell has set a date for it. What happens when the time comes and they can't meet it?



    What's the point of setting a date of when you think you'll be ready? Apple couldn't even keep the date with Leopard. Look at Vista.



    No, Apple was right not to set a date.



    Dell can promise anything they want, the shame is on Greenpeace for judging words and not actions.
  • Reply 30 of 65
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    I generally agree with several posters including melgross Abster2core and aegisdesign,



    My thoughts:

    Creating Green products indeed takes far more than hopping on the Greenpeace bandwagon. I agree with Greenpeace that it makes sense to get BFC's and PVC out of computers, as well as eliminating any other harmful materials. However, while Greenpeace is well intentioned, I would say that their idealism and zeal exceeds their knowledge and understanding of the situation by far.



    They obviously have not taken a good look at the full product cycle impact of computer companies. To hold Dell up as the gold standard over Apple is ridiculous. Apple computers tend to last at least twice as long as PCs. The G4 I am using was manufactured in 1999 and is running the latest operating system. I have an even older beige mini-tower that works as a print server and scanning station. Apple has never made the disposable computers that are the norm in the PC world. They also have a computer take-back program, an ipod battery replacement program, and an iPod recycling program with a 10% discount on new ipods (These could be sweetened up and expanded a bit, I'd say.)



    WRT Greenpeace's main gripe, Apple has not committed to eliminating BFC's and PVC because there presently are no alternatives available. They are however actively seeking alternatives. They only have access to the same components as any other computer manufacturer (none of which has yet eliminated BFC's and PVC.) When usable parts are available, they will use them.
  • Reply 31 of 65
    What a lot of sabre rattling BS... Dell has posted a timetable-- great! That does a lot, I must say.
  • Reply 32 of 65
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by badNameErr View Post


    You just keep telling yourself that as your choking to death on CO2.



    Companies need to realize that the planet IS more important than their business.



    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?
  • Reply 33 of 65
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rjwill246 View Post


    What a lot of sabre rattling BS... Dell has posted a timetable-- great! That does a lot, I must say.



    Perhaps Apple is a lot closer to achieving its environmental goals than most are aware. Checking out some of the 'Environmental Attributes listing' shows the current status of their desktops and laptops. Not sure if anyone else is so open and/or has such information.



    http://www.apple.com/environment/resources/specs.html



    For anybody who considers Apple's Environment sites is just PR are blowing smoke out of their ass.



    I would suggest that Apple has a better chance of making sure their goals are attained better than the likes of most cloning companies, Dell included.
  • Reply 34 of 65
    palex9palex9 Posts: 105member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    You must have strange pigeons in your cities. Ours produce crap that's generally organic material that they've picked up off the ground already, not lead, BFRs, PVC and metals that won't dissolve in rain for millennia.



    ok, looks like many of you do not know the perils of pigeon poo. first of all it is corrosive and causes millions in damages to historic treasures like statues in rome. second of all, pigeon poo, like all poo, caries deseases.



    and to britwithgoodteeth who took this to a personal level with his coment, brits all have bad teeth, drink far to much and behave like animals when on vacation.
  • Reply 34 of 65
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by badNameErr View Post


    You just keep telling yourself that as your choking to death on CO2.



    Companies need to realize that the planet IS more important than their business.



    Don't misunderstand me, my point was this--- businesses exist because they can make a profit. When a greener method of doing business meets with the primary goal of making a profit, then everyone wins. I didn't invent the system.
  • Reply 36 of 65
    jupiteronejupiterone Posts: 1,564member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by palex9 View Post


    ok, looks like many of you do not know the perils of pigeon poo. first of all it is corrosive and causes millions in damages to historic treasures like statues in rome. second of all, pigeon poo, like all poo, caries deseases.



    Perils of pigeon poo? (Nice one) However, none of which is considered pollution.
  • Reply 37 of 65
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,509member
    The point to environmental concern is that is is a major problem. A narrow viewpoint would be to say that companies should be allowed to make their profits the way they want to, and shouldn't have to bother with being "greener" if it brings their profit down.



    But that is a terribly short term view. It also shows a lack of understanding of the broader issues.



    The issue isn't whether or not a company should be concerned with this. They must be concerned.



    It also isn't a matter of profitability. It's been shown that going green may have a slight negative effect while changeover is taking place, as it does with any change a company makes, but that in the longer term, it is either neutral or positive.



    Many companies have found that by changing their methods of manufacture, they end up with not only a smaller amount of waste, but waste that is more cheaply recovered, or disposed of. Sometimes they find it to be a new profit center.



    It must be understood that companies have long been responsible for any waste they may produce, and that disposing of it properly is expensive.



    As far as materials used in the product itself goes, there are plenty of alternatives. One of the major reasons given for failure to switch to cleaner materials and methods is not the overall costs per se, but rather an institutional resistance to changeing something that has been working well.



    We here are all like that as well. do we change our diets, or exercise, even though we know it is better for us? Mostly, the answer is no. That's the eternal New Year's promise joke.



    If you think that companies are different, think again.



    But companies, fairly or not, are always concerned that if they spend that one extra penny, and their competitors don't, that they will be on the losing side. There is very little, if any evidence for that, esp. where environmental matters are concerned.



    In the NYTimes this morning is an article about how US citizens are now very concerned about global warming, and other environmental matters, they just can't decide what should be done about it.



    I think that Apple can benefit from this concern if they can show some leadership in this area.



    But, it would have to be real, not just some idea that eventually everything will be fine.



    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.



    I'd much rather Apple emulate Hp, at first, and the gallop past them. Hp is a true leader here.



    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.



    Their products must be as pristine inside as they look outside.



    The free publicity from that would be worth quite a lot, and would gain them sales in environmentally concerned areas of the world.



    Perhaps that is the key to gaining sales in Japan, where there are used battery kiosks in the street, and fines for throwing away batteries are high.



    Certainly, Europeans would look favorably upon it.
  • Reply 38 of 65
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Current US market leader and ages-long nemesis Dell was treated as the gold standard for eco-friendly behavior: while Apple had not even published a schedule, Dell had already pledged to eliminate both BFRs and PVC plastic from its computers no later than 2009.



    and here I thought that all Texans were against all timetables
  • Reply 39 of 65
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Yeah..... like this will happen for free. And, like Macs aren't too expensive already....



    you're just grumpy because of those $100 Apple calls you sold short
  • Reply 40 of 65
    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?
Sign In or Register to comment.