I just don't know what's right or wrong anymore. I am very surprised that Greening Apple has got so much attention. Still, consider the amount of hits to the Dell websites globally compared to Apple. \ Whatevs, I'm going back to my Countdown Thread ( http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...=69443&page=14 )
Info overload this Macworld. Totally overloaded.
It's only gotten so much attention because they're attacking the company with the hottest selling product on the market, currently. They're drama-queen-attention-whores, and they go where the most eyes are. Currently, those eyes are trained on Apple, and their iPod. Every company wants to be them, every crackpot wants to be seen around their hype, for the sake of being seen. Websites like this are giving them what they want.
Here is an article from Patrick Moore a founding member who broke ranks and now criticizes Green Peace.
By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism. I became aware of the emerging concept of sustainable development: balancing environmental, social and economic priorities. Converted to the idea that win-win solutions could be found by bringing all interests together, I made the move from confrontation to consensus.
Since then, I have worked under the banner of Greenspirit to develop an environmental policy platform based on science, logic and the recognition that more than six billion people need to survive and prosper every day of the year. The environmental movement has lost its way, favoring political correctness over factual accuracy, stooping to scare tactics to garner support.
If they targetted my company, I'd see their evidence and if it was plausible, work to change business practices for the better. I would act like an adult and not lose my temper or my sense of respect and responsibility. I certainly wouldn't go on AppleInsider about them or hope that some of the fanboys here turned off Bill O'Reilley long enough to waste bandwidth over it.
They are not erratic, they don't need to be stopped, and they have negotiated for years with some corporations with sensible results that don't make the news or Apple discussion groups. They pick a high profile example once every 5 years and I think as long as they don't permenantly ruin a Genius Bar, Jobs will be no worse for wear.
You know you basically need to STFU!, ad hominem attacks are unnecessary, if people don't agree with Greenpeace's tactics, deal with it. Don't accuse those that don't agree with Greenpeace's methods (or you) as FOX addicts. You don't have a clue!
"In its misinformation campaign to vilify Apple in environmental issues, Greenpeace has employed the maxim credited to Abraham Lincoln: ?You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.?
Greenpeace doesn?t have to fool everyone, it only has to fool enough people to create the general impression that Apple?s customers bear a weighty ?green guilt? that can best be assuaged by... donating money to Greenpeace.
RoughlyDrafted presented a series of articles that factually disputed Greenpeace?s claims and demonstrated that the group was willfully publishing bad data and advertising presumptions it knew were not accurate ... "
I wonder if they realize that probably one of the most environmentally influential people in the world right now, Al Gore, is on the board of directors and has been pushing the company within to "Green" themselves already. And the impact has already begun to be made. For instance the packaging for the latest iPods which Jobs specifically admitted that the reason for reducing it is that they can "Dramatically reduce the amount of fossil Fuels" they have to spend to ship iPods.
Of course Apple's packaging being smaller is pretty common through almost every product. You don't see the bigger of the boxes coming from Apple these days.
Without reading all three pages I present my two cents.
While I truely believe our environment is in trouble and our children and their children will be bearing the brunt of the problem, Greenpeace's methods of action leave a little bitter taste for my liking. They could do things in a much more civilized maner, Greening the NYC with lights is still a form of vandalism in my eyes, and if they plan to do something more drastic for tommorrow then that will further deteriorate my view of them.
I have read the GreenMyApple page and agree with some of what they're trying to do, however, as someone else here said, we need to decrease the amount of refuse we have in our Dumps, along-side with the efforts of eliminating all toxic waste from consumer goods.
I'm ignorant to the what companies do AFTER they take a product for "recycling". But I know that a large part of computers that end up in refuse piles can be reused for other tasks. You might have heard of the $100 laptop, well, what about the Free Laptop (or PC)? Try to find alternative uses for them, low-income schools come to mind. Rather than just throwing things away, repurposing them would cost less than recycling and cause no-one harm to anything. Then, in the event the old hardware dies. The maker of that hardware should be responsible of the product it produced, reguardless of age, and take it back, FOR FREE.
Maybe I've re-itterated some of what Greenpeace is trying to do, which means I guess I agree with them, somewhat, but their versions of protests don't strike me as very civil.
i never understand why they don't do something more important! Why don't they go and do something like change us from gas to hydrogen!!!
Your comment clearly shows how much you really understand about the issues at hand. You obviously bought into the hydrogen-is-gonna-save-us-from-global-warming message without haveing the slightest idea of what hydrogen is and more important how it is produced and just how much of it we would need to replace our gas usage. Go on google around and get your facts straight before you post your worthless, uneducated rants here.
Although Greenpeace admits placing Apple under more scrutiny than any other electronics manufacturer, it says it is doing so because the company is seen as the "signature innovative company" in today's market.
If Apple does not lead the charge to go green, the organization argues, the rest of the industry will be reluctant to follow.
That actually makes a lot sense to me. It's a lot better press then "We want to LG to go green and lead the way!"
Even thought they don't have the market share I'd argue that apple right now is the most recognizable computer brand out there.
Well done Greenpeace! I may not like your negative media tactics. Or the way that you single out individual companies when whole industry sectors are acting environmentally questionable.
BUT!... BUT!... You (Greenpeace) got us talking! And that's what needs to happen. We've got to talk about our planet supporting the human race. Without a human sustaining biosphere we are ALL dead in the water/mud/heat/ice/whatever. No more broadband because no one can breath the air any more.
So, thank you Greenpeace for getting us all talking. And after we've stopped talking perhaps we'll start doing!
Well done Greenpeace! I may not like your negative media tactics. Or the way that you single out individual companies when whole industry sectors are acting environmentally questionable.
BUT!... BUT!... You (Greenpeace) got us talking! And that's what needs to happen. We've got to talk about our planet supporting the human race. Without a human sustaining biosphere we are ALL dead in the water/mud/heat/ice/whatever. No more broadband because no one can breath the air any more.
So, thank you Greenpeace for getting us all talking. And after we've stopped talking perhaps we'll start doing!
Hey, Steve, I want a GREEN mac! ;-)
Cheers Daniel
Environmental Movement Has Lost Its Way
By Dr. Patrick Moore
Scare tactics, disinformation go too far
I am often asked why I broke ranks with Greenpeace after 15 years as a founder and full-time environmental activist. I had my personal reasons, but it was on issues of policy that I found it necessary to move on.
By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism. I became aware of the emerging concept of sustainable development: balancing environmental, social and economic priorities. Converted to the idea that win-win solutions could be found by bringing all interests together, I made the move from confrontation to consensus.
Since then, I have worked under the banner of Greenspirit to develop an environmental policy platform based on science, logic and the recognition that more than six billion people need to survive and prosper every day of the year. The environmental movement has lost its way, favoring political correctness over factual accuracy, stooping to scare tactics to garner support.
We're faced with environmental policies that ignore science and result in increased risk to human health and ecology. To borrow from the vernacular, how sick is that?
. Genetic enhancement : Activists persist in their zero-tolerance campaign against genetically enhanced food crops. There is no evidence of harm to human health or the environment, and benefits are measurable and significant. Genetically enhanced (GE) food crops reduce chemical pesticides, boost yield and reduce soil erosion. Enriched with Vitamin A, Golden Rice could prevent blindness in 500,000 children per year in Asia and Africa if activists would stop blocking its introduction. Other food crops contain iron, Vitamin E, enhanced protein and better oils. The anti-GE campaign seeks to deny these environmental and nutritional advances by using ''Frankenfood'' scare tactics and misinformation campaigns.
. Salmon farming : The campaign against salmon farming, based on erroneous and exaggerated claims of environmental damage and chemical contamination, scares us into avoiding one of the most nutritious, heart-friendly foods available. The World Health Organization, the American Heart Association and the Food and Drug Administration say that eating salmon reduces the risk of heart disease and fatal heart attack. Salmon farming takes pressure off wild stocks, yet activists tell us to eat only wild fish. Is this how we save them, by eating more?
. Vinyl : Greenpeace wants to ban the use of chlorine in all industrial processes. The addition of chlorine to drinking water has been the greatest public-health advance in history, and 75 percent of our medicines are based on chlorine chemistry. Greenpeace calls for a ban on polyvinyl chloride (PVC or vinyl), claiming it is the ''poison plastic.'' There is not a shred of evidence that vinyl damages human health or the environment. Apart from lowering construction costs and delivering safe drinking water, vinyl's ease of maintenance and its ability to incorporate anti-microbial properties is critical to fighting germs in hospitals. Banning vinyl would raise the cost of an already struggling healthcare system, denying healthcare to those who can least afford it.
. Hydroelectricity : International activists boast to have blocked more than 200 hydroelectric dams in the developing world and are campaigning to tear down existing dams. Hydro is the largest source of renewable electricity, providing about 12 percent of the global supply. Do activists prefer coal plants? Would they rather ignore the needs of billions of people?
. Wind power : Wind power is commercially feasible, yet activists argue that the turbines kill birds and ruin landscapes. A million times more birds are killed by cats, windows and cars than by all the windmills in the world. As for aesthetics, wind turbines are works of art compared to some of our urban environments.
. Nuclear power : A significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions seems unlikely given our continued heavy reliance on fossil fuel consumption. Even UK environmentalist James Lovelock, who posited the Gaia theory that the Earth operates as a giant, self-regulating super-organism, now sees nuclear energy as key to our planet's future health. ''Civilization is in imminent danger,'' he warns, ``and has to use nuclear -- the one safe, available energy source -- or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.''
Yet environmental activists, notably Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, continue lobbying against clean nuclear energy and for the Band-Aid Kyoto Treaty. Renewable energies, such as wind, geothermal and hydro are part of the solution. Nuclear energy is the only nongreenhouse gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand.
. Forestry : Activists tell us to stop cutting trees and to reduce our use of wood. Deforestation is caused by clearing forests for farms and cities. Forestry operations are geared toward reforestation and the maintenance of forest cover. Forests are stable and growing where people use the most wood and are diminishing where they use less. Using wood sends a signal to the marketplace to plant more trees and produce more wood. North Americans use more wood per capita than any other continent, yet there is about the same forest area in North America as there was 100 years ago.
Trees are the most abundant, renewable and biodegradable resource in the world. If we want to retain healthy forests, we should be growing more trees and using more wood, not less. This logic seems lost on activists who use chilling rhetoric and apocalyptic images to drive us in the wrong direction.
. Prognosis : Environmentalism has become anti-globalization and anti-industry. Activists have abandoned science in favor of sensationalism. Their zero-tolerance, fear-mongering campaigns would ultimately prevent a cure for Vitamin A deficiency blindness, increase pesticide use, increase heart disease, deplete wild salmon stocks, raise the cost and reduce the safety of healthcare, raise construction costs, deprive developing nations of clean electricity, stop renewable wind energy, block a solution to global warming and contribute to deforestation. How sick is that?
Here's my problem with Greenpeace and attacking techonlogy, they wouldn't stop until we all go back to living in caves, wearing animal skins, and foraging for food!
So that no matter what Apple does in terms of the environment and their products, Greenpeace will be Apple bashing as long as Apple has a high public profile.
Now I must be off in my inflatable boat to terrorize humankind!
The founder of greenpeace left them because they stopped being an Enviromental group and became an anti-business group. I think when your founder leaves because the group was taken over by wackos is all you need to know about greenpeace.
The other problem is they want YOU to give it up but not them. They can fly people in from across the globe to protest but you doing that would be waste of fuel. They don't want you to cut down trees but they live in houses made of wood and play acoustic guitars made of rare woods. They want you to protest computer makers but they use the same computers to populate the internet with their propaganda.
The really reason they are going after Apple full steam now is that they were booted from the London MacWorld show. They considered that a slap in the face and consider it was there right to annoy the people who came to the show.
If I were able to attend this years expo I would be at the SF Apple store to counterprotest these yahoos. Maybe throw rotten Apples at them.
Comments
Page 1
Page 2
Sebastian
I love all of the trees that had to give their lives for them to print out all of their propoganda. Awesome.
I just don't know what's right or wrong anymore. I am very surprised that Greening Apple has got so much attention. Still, consider the amount of hits to the Dell websites globally compared to Apple.
Info overload this Macworld. Totally overloaded.
It's only gotten so much attention because they're attacking the company with the hottest selling product on the market, currently. They're drama-queen-attention-whores, and they go where the most eyes are. Currently, those eyes are trained on Apple, and their iPod. Every company wants to be them, every crackpot wants to be seen around their hype, for the sake of being seen. Websites like this are giving them what they want.
By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism. I became aware of the emerging concept of sustainable development: balancing environmental, social and economic priorities. Converted to the idea that win-win solutions could be found by bringing all interests together, I made the move from confrontation to consensus.
Since then, I have worked under the banner of Greenspirit to develop an environmental policy platform based on science, logic and the recognition that more than six billion people need to survive and prosper every day of the year. The environmental movement has lost its way, favoring political correctness over factual accuracy, stooping to scare tactics to garner support.
http://www.ccfassociation.org/moore28jan05.htm
Greenpeace is the PETA of the environmental world.
Dude, don't mess with PETA.
If they targetted my company, I'd see their evidence and if it was plausible, work to change business practices for the better. I would act like an adult and not lose my temper or my sense of respect and responsibility. I certainly wouldn't go on AppleInsider about them or hope that some of the fanboys here turned off Bill O'Reilley long enough to waste bandwidth over it.
They are not erratic, they don't need to be stopped, and they have negotiated for years with some corporations with sensible results that don't make the news or Apple discussion groups. They pick a high profile example once every 5 years and I think as long as they don't permenantly ruin a Genius Bar, Jobs will be no worse for wear.
You know you basically need to STFU!, ad hominem attacks are unnecessary, if people don't agree with Greenpeace's tactics, deal with it. Don't accuse those that don't agree with Greenpeace's methods (or you) as FOX addicts. You don't have a clue!
See Daniel Eran's excellent articles re Greenpeace tactics
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...ech.Q1.07.html
"In its misinformation campaign to vilify
Greenpeace doesn?t have to fool everyone, it only has to fool enough people to create the general impression that Apple?s customers bear a weighty ?green guilt? that can best be assuaged by... donating money to Greenpeace.
RoughlyDrafted presented a series of articles that factually disputed Greenpeace?s claims and demonstrated that the group was willfully publishing bad data and advertising presumptions it knew were not accurate ... "
I love all of the trees that had to give their lives for them to print out all of their propoganda. Awesome.
I recycled mine 8)
Sebastian
Of course Apple's packaging being smaller is pretty common through almost every product. You don't see the bigger of the boxes coming from Apple these days.
While I truely believe our environment is in trouble and our children and their children will be bearing the brunt of the problem, Greenpeace's methods of action leave a little bitter taste for my liking. They could do things in a much more civilized maner, Greening the NYC with lights is still a form of vandalism in my eyes, and if they plan to do something more drastic for tommorrow then that will further deteriorate my view of them.
I have read the GreenMyApple page and agree with some of what they're trying to do, however, as someone else here said, we need to decrease the amount of refuse we have in our Dumps, along-side with the efforts of eliminating all toxic waste from consumer goods.
I'm ignorant to the what companies do AFTER they take a product for "recycling". But I know that a large part of computers that end up in refuse piles can be reused for other tasks. You might have heard of the $100 laptop, well, what about the Free Laptop (or PC)? Try to find alternative uses for them, low-income schools come to mind. Rather than just throwing things away, repurposing them would cost less than recycling and cause no-one harm to anything. Then, in the event the old hardware dies. The maker of that hardware should be responsible of the product it produced, reguardless of age, and take it back, FOR FREE.
Maybe I've re-itterated some of what Greenpeace is trying to do, which means I guess I agree with them, somewhat, but their versions of protests don't strike me as very civil.
But thats just me.
I hope they had energy saving bulbs in those floodlights.
They also use solar to power them!
All in all, just another protest to slow / block traffic.
i never understand why they don't do something more important! Why don't they go and do something like change us from gas to hydrogen!!!
Your comment clearly shows how much you really understand about the issues at hand. You obviously bought into the hydrogen-is-gonna-save-us-from-global-warming message without haveing the slightest idea of what hydrogen is and more important how it is produced and just how much of it we would need to replace our gas usage. Go on google around and get your facts straight before you post your worthless, uneducated rants here.
EPA information should make GreenPeace red-faced over Apple targeting
EPEAT
Although Greenpeace admits placing Apple under more scrutiny than any other electronics manufacturer, it says it is doing so because the company is seen as the "signature innovative company" in today's market.
If Apple does not lead the charge to go green, the organization argues, the rest of the industry will be reluctant to follow.
That actually makes a lot sense to me. It's a lot better press then "We want to LG to go green and lead the way!"
Even thought they don't have the market share I'd argue that apple right now is the most recognizable computer brand out there.
BUT!... BUT!... You (Greenpeace) got us talking! And that's what needs to happen. We've got to talk about our planet supporting the human race. Without a human sustaining biosphere we are ALL dead in the water/mud/heat/ice/whatever. No more broadband because no one can breath the air any more.
So, thank you Greenpeace for getting us all talking. And after we've stopped talking perhaps we'll start doing!
Hey, Steve, I want a GREEN mac! ;-)
Cheers Daniel
educate yourself. For a complete exposure of Greenpeace, read:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...57E98CA39.html
Incidentally, I've been a passionate environmentalist for over 20 years.
I expect Greenpeace will be sued not by Apple but by Apple Corps. Sir Paul will not like this. No, not one bit.
Well done Greenpeace! I may not like your negative media tactics. Or the way that you single out individual companies when whole industry sectors are acting environmentally questionable.
BUT!... BUT!... You (Greenpeace) got us talking! And that's what needs to happen. We've got to talk about our planet supporting the human race. Without a human sustaining biosphere we are ALL dead in the water/mud/heat/ice/whatever. No more broadband because no one can breath the air any more.
So, thank you Greenpeace for getting us all talking. And after we've stopped talking perhaps we'll start doing!
Hey, Steve, I want a GREEN mac! ;-)
Cheers Daniel
Environmental Movement Has Lost Its Way
By Dr. Patrick Moore
Scare tactics, disinformation go too far
I am often asked why I broke ranks with Greenpeace after 15 years as a founder and full-time environmental activist. I had my personal reasons, but it was on issues of policy that I found it necessary to move on.
By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism. I became aware of the emerging concept of sustainable development: balancing environmental, social and economic priorities. Converted to the idea that win-win solutions could be found by bringing all interests together, I made the move from confrontation to consensus.
Since then, I have worked under the banner of Greenspirit to develop an environmental policy platform based on science, logic and the recognition that more than six billion people need to survive and prosper every day of the year. The environmental movement has lost its way, favoring political correctness over factual accuracy, stooping to scare tactics to garner support.
We're faced with environmental policies that ignore science and result in increased risk to human health and ecology. To borrow from the vernacular, how sick is that?
. Genetic enhancement : Activists persist in their zero-tolerance campaign against genetically enhanced food crops. There is no evidence of harm to human health or the environment, and benefits are measurable and significant. Genetically enhanced (GE) food crops reduce chemical pesticides, boost yield and reduce soil erosion. Enriched with Vitamin A, Golden Rice could prevent blindness in 500,000 children per year in Asia and Africa if activists would stop blocking its introduction. Other food crops contain iron, Vitamin E, enhanced protein and better oils. The anti-GE campaign seeks to deny these environmental and nutritional advances by using ''Frankenfood'' scare tactics and misinformation campaigns.
. Salmon farming : The campaign against salmon farming, based on erroneous and exaggerated claims of environmental damage and chemical contamination, scares us into avoiding one of the most nutritious, heart-friendly foods available. The World Health Organization, the American Heart Association and the Food and Drug Administration say that eating salmon reduces the risk of heart disease and fatal heart attack. Salmon farming takes pressure off wild stocks, yet activists tell us to eat only wild fish. Is this how we save them, by eating more?
. Vinyl : Greenpeace wants to ban the use of chlorine in all industrial processes. The addition of chlorine to drinking water has been the greatest public-health advance in history, and 75 percent of our medicines are based on chlorine chemistry. Greenpeace calls for a ban on polyvinyl chloride (PVC or vinyl), claiming it is the ''poison plastic.'' There is not a shred of evidence that vinyl damages human health or the environment. Apart from lowering construction costs and delivering safe drinking water, vinyl's ease of maintenance and its ability to incorporate anti-microbial properties is critical to fighting germs in hospitals. Banning vinyl would raise the cost of an already struggling healthcare system, denying healthcare to those who can least afford it.
. Hydroelectricity : International activists boast to have blocked more than 200 hydroelectric dams in the developing world and are campaigning to tear down existing dams. Hydro is the largest source of renewable electricity, providing about 12 percent of the global supply. Do activists prefer coal plants? Would they rather ignore the needs of billions of people?
. Wind power : Wind power is commercially feasible, yet activists argue that the turbines kill birds and ruin landscapes. A million times more birds are killed by cats, windows and cars than by all the windmills in the world. As for aesthetics, wind turbines are works of art compared to some of our urban environments.
. Nuclear power : A significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions seems unlikely given our continued heavy reliance on fossil fuel consumption. Even UK environmentalist James Lovelock, who posited the Gaia theory that the Earth operates as a giant, self-regulating super-organism, now sees nuclear energy as key to our planet's future health. ''Civilization is in imminent danger,'' he warns, ``and has to use nuclear -- the one safe, available energy source -- or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.''
Yet environmental activists, notably Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, continue lobbying against clean nuclear energy and for the Band-Aid Kyoto Treaty. Renewable energies, such as wind, geothermal and hydro are part of the solution. Nuclear energy is the only nongreenhouse gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand.
. Forestry : Activists tell us to stop cutting trees and to reduce our use of wood. Deforestation is caused by clearing forests for farms and cities. Forestry operations are geared toward reforestation and the maintenance of forest cover. Forests are stable and growing where people use the most wood and are diminishing where they use less. Using wood sends a signal to the marketplace to plant more trees and produce more wood. North Americans use more wood per capita than any other continent, yet there is about the same forest area in North America as there was 100 years ago.
Trees are the most abundant, renewable and biodegradable resource in the world. If we want to retain healthy forests, we should be growing more trees and using more wood, not less. This logic seems lost on activists who use chilling rhetoric and apocalyptic images to drive us in the wrong direction.
. Prognosis : Environmentalism has become anti-globalization and anti-industry. Activists have abandoned science in favor of sensationalism. Their zero-tolerance, fear-mongering campaigns would ultimately prevent a cure for Vitamin A deficiency blindness, increase pesticide use, increase heart disease, deplete wild salmon stocks, raise the cost and reduce the safety of healthcare, raise construction costs, deprive developing nations of clean electricity, stop renewable wind energy, block a solution to global warming and contribute to deforestation. How sick is that?
Here's my problem with Greenpeace and attacking techonlogy, they wouldn't stop until we all go back to living in caves, wearing animal skins, and foraging for food!
So that no matter what Apple does in terms of the environment and their products, Greenpeace will be Apple bashing as long as Apple has a high public profile.
Now I must be off in my inflatable boat to terrorize humankind!
The founder of greenpeace left them because they stopped being an Enviromental group and became an anti-business group. I think when your founder leaves because the group was taken over by wackos is all you need to know about greenpeace.
The other problem is they want YOU to give it up but not them. They can fly people in from across the globe to protest but you doing that would be waste of fuel. They don't want you to cut down trees but they live in houses made of wood and play acoustic guitars made of rare woods. They want you to protest computer makers but they use the same computers to populate the internet with their propaganda.
The really reason they are going after Apple full steam now is that they were booted from the London MacWorld show. They considered that a slap in the face and consider it was there right to annoy the people who came to the show.
If I were able to attend this years expo I would be at the SF Apple store to counterprotest these yahoos. Maybe throw rotten Apples at them.