Apple lays claim to greenest notebooks ever in new ad campaign

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 73
    cubertcubert Posts: 728member
    I actually think that the most important part of the ad is that they refer to a "family of notebooks" - combating beliefs that Apple has a very limited product line.
  • Reply 22 of 73
    sandorsandor Posts: 659member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dontlookleft View Post


    Oh, I see what you did there. The chain on the tree around your waste. I see it.



    It is important to recycle, I guess, but think about those gas guzzling diesel piles of crap that pick up your recyclable material. The machines that run to get your crap recycled. OH and the part where you put your recyclables in a PLASTIC bin. I laughed a little there.



    I'm open to counter arguments. Go on. It doesn't mean I'll reply, but I do like to read.





    i could go point by point, but that takes too much time. eh, oh well.



    municipal waste collection is engrained, and it is by far the most efficient process. Could you imagine if every individual household tried to take their waste, individually, to a landfill/recycling center? In Philadelphia, these trucks are multi-use as well - they plow the streets in the winter. Furthermore, diesel engines are far more efficient than gasoline, and can run, unmodified, off of non-petroleum based diesel fuels (cellulosic/cane/trap grease/etc based diesels). You get rid of the petroleum, and you keep the higher efficiency and lose the horrid sulfur.







    Landfills ("waste management areas") in the Philadelphia area actually recapture the methane off put by the decomposing waste, and use it to run not only the plants, but send millions of cubic feet of "natural gas" out to surrounding business parks, etc. The technology is most definitely there, and in use, to have a closed loop system much like Brazil's cane-produced ethanol. Down there, the ethanol plants are self-sufficient, and capture waste energy (heat, etc) to be used in the process.





    And plastic bins? well, plastic, especially recyclable plastics, are not necessarily bad. These containers tend to last a very very long time, and if they end up needing to be disposed of, can be recycled into various other items.







    Reduce Reuse Recycle



    I've always figured they are in order of importance.
  • Reply 23 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by otwayross View Post


    well a good place to start finding out is here in wiki



    a notable point is the quote that "Electronic waste represents 2 percent of America's trash in landfills, but it equals 70 percent of overall toxic waste."



    and this: "In the United States, an estimated 70% of heavy metals in landfills come from discarded electronics."



    agreed that if a machine is built better it'll last longer before being recycled, and that recycling is the last action in the environmental push (materials selection and reduction of materials use should come first)



    ...but anyone who thinks recycling doesn't matter has obviously been living a little too long

    near one of the aforementioned landfills (on top in the case of some housing estates)

    and has lost a few brain cells in the process \



    I'll go with you on the rest of this but this delusional idea that the "toxic waste" has any realistic affect on humans living near the landfill is complete and utter FUD - same goes for Nuclear plants...
  • Reply 24 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BjK View Post


    Does this mean that the trash icon will be replaced with a recycle bin in my dock?



    That's right. I mean, c'mon, they've been recycling for years now on Windows!
  • Reply 25 of 73
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cwfrederick View Post


    i love the environment and think we should do more to protect it, but whining about minute amounts of toxic chemicals in consumer electronics



    Good point. It's such a tiny amount of toxins perhaps we should add a bit more?

    300,000,000 computers will have been sold in 2008. Think about it!
  • Reply 26 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    I'll go with you on the rest of this but this delusional idea that the "toxic waste" has any realistic affect on humans living near the landfill is complete and utter FUD - same goes for Nuclear plants...



    have a look at these two articles

    where ewaste ends up

    how dangerous to live near a landfill

    there are plenty more articles/reports if you care to look for them...



    you're welcome to live near a landfill if you really want to \

    but you might want to think of others (like pregnant women and/or children)

    some stages of human development are more fragile to heavy metals and carcinogens than others



    it does depend on the way the landfill was constructed in the first place and the risk of contaminants getting into the water table.

    either way it's not a good model to mine, refine, use, bury, mine etc.
  • Reply 27 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    I'll go with you on the rest of this but this delusional idea that the "toxic waste" has any realistic affect on humans living near the landfill is complete and utter FUD - same goes for Nuclear plants...



    oh and this one

    know your landfill poisons



    remembering that most ewaste ends up in some 3rd world country with lower

    landfill construction standards than the US



    ...so it can only be a good thing that Apple removes these components right !?
  • Reply 28 of 73
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Phizz View Post


    Well then please, buy one of those light dispersing anti reflection films to cover your screen and quit whining.



    If you're going to tell people off like that, please come up with a better solution than a lame one than that. Seriously, an add-on film? Unless you've actually put one on successfully, you're best off not recommending it. It's not easy to do well.
  • Reply 29 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    No it will be replaced with 4 bins and you have to put the right stuff in each one. Just one wrong item will prevent you from emptying them.



    Generally, recycling is little more than another marketing angle. It can't hurt for people to do it but Apple have so little marketshare, the impact is minimal. What it does is increase costs same as printing on recyclable paper.



    I'm not entirely sure how a computer gets recycled to be honest. I've seen computers from 10 years ago still in use so where is the point someone takes it to be recycled? Judging by the build quality of the Macbook line, I reckon they won't be getting recycled for a good few years.



    We have single stream here in Austin, one can for all types. And, the bin is bigger, made out of recycled plastic, and the trucks come around every 2 weeks to save the fuel and emissions. Nice system, someone put some thought into it.
  • Reply 30 of 73
    ronboronbo Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anilsudhakaran View Post


    I totally disagree about the glossy screen. It is beautiful. I hardly notice any reflection or glare, even when there is any.



    TFTFY.



    The poster you're replying to apparently can notice reflection. So can I. Many's the time that I have to adjust my screen or reposition my laptop to try and get the screen to behave more like a monitor and less like a mirror. That's not to say the picture isn't beautiful in the right setting. But it's also a pain in the wrong one.
  • Reply 31 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by otwayross View Post


    oh and this one

    know your landfill poisons



    remembering that most ewaste ends up in some 3rd world country with lower

    landfill construction standards than the US



    ...so it can only be a good thing that Apple removes these components right !?



    Great - you found some stuff on the internet for me to read. But it's on the internet so it must be true! And I'm 100% sure they don't overestimate the effects at all... Do you go down to the stream and drink the water? Yes, we should keep the water clean but that (in todays advanced water treatment process) isn't doing anything to humans - if you want to argue it's bad for animals I'm with ya on that but when people don't drink water out of the lake/river and going swimming isn't enough to kill you (although the site would lead you to believe that) it's not really as big a concern as people would have you believe, for humans anyway (again, I'll give you the animal arugment as they don't have the benefit of modern technology, obviously).



    Back to nuclear power - do you know how many people died from the 3 mile island incident?



    Answer: 0
  • Reply 32 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rbonner View Post


    We have single stream here in Austin, one can for all types. And, the bin is bigger, made out of recycled plastic, and the trucks come around every 2 weeks to save the fuel and emissions. Nice system, someone put some thought into it.



    Same in Fort Worth - but it's every week. They give you this huge blue can for free. I'd say, at least for me, at least half of all the waste I create goes into the recycle bin (still bummed I can't put pizza boxes in there...)
  • Reply 33 of 73
    "Its advanced aluminum and glass enclosure is completely recyclable."



    What about the electronics enclosed, are those recyclable?



    "It runs on a quarter of the power of a single light bulb."



    What size light bulb?
  • Reply 34 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by andyapple View Post




    "It runs on a quarter of the power of a single light bulb."



    What size light bulb?



    The one in Times Square for NYE
  • Reply 35 of 73
    daseindasein Posts: 139member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    Same in Fort Worth - but it's every week. They give you this huge blue can for free. I'd say, at least for me, at least half of all the waste I create goes into the recycle bin (still bummed I can't put pizza boxes in there...)



    Here too. What a shame it took us so long to get this far. I lay the blame at the feed of religious environ groups who spend too much time with lawyers, courts, politicians and the like instead of engineers and business people. We could've been at this point and much further a generation ago had it been approached correctly. There's good money in trash....seriously. These people become too dogmatic for our own good sometimes, failing to think outside their catechism box. When I was a kid we'd go around collecting things like newspaper (we had school newspaper drives) and such.
  • Reply 36 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    Great - you found some stuff on the internet for me to read. But it's on the internet so it must be true! And I'm 100% sure they don't overestimate the effects at all... Do you go down to the stream and drink the water? Yes, we should keep the water clean but that (in todays advanced water treatment process) isn't doing anything to humans - if you want to argue it's bad for animals I'm with ya on that but when people don't drink water out of the lake/river and going swimming isn't enough to kill you (although the site would lead you to believe that) it's not really as big a concern as people would have you believe, for humans anyway (again, I'll give you the animal arugment as they don't have the benefit of modern technology, obviously).



    Back to nuclear power - do you know how many people died from the 3 mile island incident?



    Answer: 0



    yes i totally agree the very small 3MI incident is indicative of all possible accidents

    and following that logic apple should install nuclear reactors in all macbooks



    no seriously - check out some pictures of genetic mutations surrounding chernobyl

    national geographic has a beautifully disturbing collection...



    how did we get onto nuclear ?
  • Reply 37 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    Great - you found some stuff on the internet for me to read. But it's on the internet so it must be true! And I'm 100% sure they don't overestimate the effects at all... Do you go down to the stream and drink the water? Yes, we should keep the water clean but that (in todays advanced water treatment process) isn't doing anything to humans - if you want to argue it's bad for animals I'm with ya on that but when people don't drink water out of the lake/river and going swimming isn't enough to kill you (although the site would lead you to believe that) it's not really as big a concern as people would have you believe, for humans anyway (again, I'll give you the animal arugment as they don't have the benefit of modern technology, obviously).



    Back to nuclear power - do you know how many people died from the 3 mile island incident?



    Answer: 0



    You have no idea how many people eventually died from being exposed to radiation from that incidient. Just because people didn't instantly die from that doesn't mean that people didn't die form that accident. Pull your head out of the sand for a little while and think about what your saying. You'll relent to the 'animal argument' but considering 90+% of the population eats animals you couldn't possibly see how that effects humans also? Wow, I'm amazed how short sited and outright dumb some people can be.
  • Reply 38 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by otwayross View Post


    yes i totally agree the very small 3MI incident is indicative of all possible accidents

    and following that logic apple should install nuclear reactors in all macbooks



    no seriously - check out some pictures of genetic mutations surrounding chernobyl

    national geographic has a beautifully disturbing collection...



    how did we get onto nuclear ?



    Yes, Chernobyl was bad, very, very bad but it's flat out impossible for something like that to happen in todays world. I point out 3 mile island because it's by far the worst US nuclear disaster and not a single person died from it but we're all worried the old NIMBY crap. Now we're freakin' out about where to put it and the EPA is requiring scientific data for 1 million years...



    I threw nuclear in there because it's another one of those NIMBY things.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob..._safety_device



    Also, one of your links says don't live within 2 miles of a dump. 2 miles - that's it? We're arguing about 2 miles?? I'm from a fairly rural area of the country - 2 miles was considered a fairly close neighbor for me...
  • Reply 39 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by steviet02 View Post


    You have no idea how many people eventually died from being exposed to radiation from that incidient. Just because people didn't instantly die from that doesn't mean that people didn't die form that accident. Pull your head out of the sand for a little while and think about what your saying. You'll relent to the 'animal argument' but considering 90+% of the population eats animals you couldn't possibly see how that effects humans also? Wow, I'm amazed how short sited and outright dumb some people can be.



    And you have no idea how many people die from eating bananas...

    (hint - they contain a radioactive isotope of potassium, same with that salt substitute potassium chloride)



    When was the last time you ate wild game? The animals you eat are all bred and slaughtered (with extremely few exceptions) in controlled environments. Heck - you probably think mad-cow is an epidemic where there has been, in fact 0 US born cases of it, ever.



    EDIT: That 8 millirems they were exposed to (if you'll read the wiki entry otwayross linked to) is the equivalent of having a banana for breakfast for a year...
  • Reply 40 of 73
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,736member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dontlookleft View Post


    It is important to recycle, I guess, but think about those gas guzzling diesel piles of crap that pick up your recyclable material.



    The very same ones that pick up your trash. Given that it takes the same amount of fossil fuel to haul garbage as it does to haul recyclables, it's still an overall environmental gain to have them reused rather than in a landfill.

    Quote:

    OH and the part where you put your recyclables in a PLASTIC bin. I laughed a little there.



    You mean the same plastic bin I've had for the past 10 years and will likely have for the rest of my life? One piece of plastic vs thousands of cubic meters/feet of waste, which do you think is worse for the environment?



    I guess people will always find reasons not to change their habits. What are you going to complain about when recyclables can be teleported directly from your house to the processing facility? The potential effects of the teleportation beam on the environment?
Sign In or Register to comment.