... Keep in mind, humanity is just a spec on the timeline of this planet, and nature can flick us off any time she wants ...
Exactly! This is why it bothers me a bit when people talk about how we are hurting the "earth" and we should "take better care of the earth." No, man... sorry, you got it all wrong. We need to take care of ourselves. The Earth will roll on just fine. We are a mere spec. One quick event and we're all toast, and then a few million years later we are replaced by something else maybe even better.
We need not feel any pity for nature. She can take care of herself. We can spew crap in the air all day long without hurting "nature. A lot of life forms will adapt, a lot of life forms will die (maybe including us) and others will hardly be effected. What will be, will be. Mother Nature don't go down easily. Look what she did with an ice age. Our existance is nothing on her time scale.
sebastian, the case would still be cool if the same [obviously very talented] packaging designer were told to make it eco-friendly. and when it did EVENTUALLY go from your shelf to a landfill, maybe it could decompose, too?
I suspect the packaging designer HAS made it eco-friendly. The biggest environmental issue with packaging isn't what it's made of, it's the size/volume of the package. Transporting large, heavy, fragile cardboard boxes around the world is more damaging than small, light, strong plastic boxes.
Greenpeace seem to concentrate on the materials, not how efficient the production and distribution is not to mention power consumption of the final product.
I wonder, do Greenpeace employees use computers at all, either at home or in the office?
If "no," hats off to them. At least, that would be very consistent and honest.
If "yes," then (s)he is simply a third-rate, garden-variety hypocrite. (But nothing in the law says you can't be one.)
Dont be such an apple fan boy (and the other posters) - one can never criticise Apple!!!??
Yes if you are a Greenpeace supporter, you would never drive a car, fly in plane, eat pesticide covered vegetables et al - oh spare me
Computer companies do have a responsibility to produce toxic free (or as close as possible) products and kudos to Greenpeace for being on on the manufacturers' cases and likewise kudos to Apple for any legitimate effort to reduce toxic products and excess waste.
I don't think it's fair to jump on Greenpeace so viciously. They are concerned about the environment and are just trying to make a difference. It's really great to see that Apple is concerned as well. Kind of a bummer to read all these posts boooing what is a very important issue, imo.
I don't think it's fair to jump on Greenpeace so viciously. They are concerned about the environment and are just trying to make a difference. imo.
They might be 'concerned' but they are terminally thick so should be ignored. The complete inanity of most of their positions and arguments about big issues, unfortunately detracts from the few issues that actually should be of concern - like deforestation in the third world.
They believe global warming is caused by mans activities yet are anti-nuclear. They decry landfill and yet oppose waste incineration etc.
Greenpeace is really good at telling everyone what they shouldn't be doing but they never have practical answers or alternatives.
IThe Tsunami in Indonesia and the rapidly increasing hurricanes and global climate change is just a taste of what's to come from man's disrespect of the only planet they call home. Think about that fact very carefully before you anonymously reply with pompous comments. If attitudes similar to what has been displayed here continue, it's only a matter of time...
Please don't use the word 'fact' when the correct word is 'myth'
Explain please the causative link between man's activities and the earthquake that triggered the Tsunami - I am really keen to learn how that works.
I suspect the packaging designer HAS made it eco-friendly. The biggest environmental issue with packaging isn't what it's made of, it's the size/volume of the package. Transporting large, heavy, fragile cardboard boxes around the world is more damaging than small, light, strong plastic boxes.
Greenpeace seem to concentrate on the materials, not how efficient the production and distribution is not to mention power consumption of the final product.
I say they do, they'll have no choice but to switch to Apple now
Please don't use the word 'fact' when the correct word is 'myth'
Explain please the causative link between man's activities and the earthquake that triggered the Tsunami - I am really keen to learn how that works.
Sure, go stand in front of one and see how it works, then tell me all about it later...
I made no reference to causality, I simply demonstrated man's inferiority to nature and that such acts AS the tsunami are an excellent example of how humanity is no match. RAPID global climate change, on the other hand, has been and is quickly being proven a direct result of man's blatant disregard for the planet through pollution and corp. greed. THAT, dear Sir, is a fact.
Greenpeace just take a cheap shot by saying Apple hasn't produced a green product. No technology company ever have or will.
They've got nothin!! Now, thanks to that lame statement, everybody knows it!
You know it's funny, people read, or hear what they want. What Greenpeace said was:
"Apple hasn't gotten an actual green product to market, but no other electronics manufacture has either,"
This is the first part of the statement. You read it as a cheap shot at Apple. First of all, they are not taking a shot at Apple only, they are actually commenting on ALL electronics manufacturers if you read the full thing. And, if you continue reading:
"That's a race worthy of the wizards of Cupertino."
So in fact, I read this as a compliment. They are suggesting that since no one else has managed to do this, perhaps, the clever minds at Apple might actually be able to come up with something, and that they likely can take the lead in that regard.
And to suggest that "no technology company ever will" make a green product is a ludicrous statement. Given enough incentive, given enough desire it will and can be done. How can anyone say something will "never" be invented or done....
I greatly admire both Apple and Greenpeace and think they have both taken mostly positive actions here. I don't think Apple would have released it's environmental policies - even though they are industry leading - unless Greenpeace had done this prodding. And why not? This is not an Apple product announcement, this is about being a good corporate citizen, and that's what Apple has now demonstrated they are. Now, thanks to Greenpeace, Apple is the clear leader in removing toxics, and Dell, and other manufacturers now have to compete with Apple to become even greener. No company wants to be low on the list of toxic manufacturers.
Apple wins by demonstrating it's a leader, and Greenpeace wins by showing it forced Apple mysteriously reluctant hand to be more open.
But neither organization has been perfect. Steve Jobs admitted so in his letter: "we have failed to communicate the things that we are doing well" and "We apologize for leaving you in the dark for this long." And Jobs wasn't only responding to Greenpeace - he admitted "shareholders, employees and the industry... deserve and expect more from us, and they’re right to do so." I think he showed great leadership, owned up, and realized there's no reason to be secretive in this instance.…
Apple's environmental policy has been public for quite a long time. Their Environmental web site (http://www.apple.com/environment/) has been available for a long time and it is not the first time that it has had to be brought to attention.
The fact that Apple seems to walk the talk without fanfare while everyone else is virtually talking the walk, I would suggest that you retrack your comments, in particualar that, "…I don't think Apple would have released it's environmental policies" and "…Greenpeace wins by showing it forced Apple mysteriously reluctant hand to be more open." Obviously, the evidence is to the contrary is overwhelming.
I think that the leasson here is we should all not be so quick to jump to conclusions. And to the likes of Greenpeace, quit acting like a nagging spouse. It only leads to divorce.
A few of you guys have got it right, and a bunch of you are missing the point. Pretty much everybody supporting Greenpeace is missing the point. The point isn't the environmental issue.
The point was the slipshod and reckless way that Greenpeace nailed Apple. They repeatedly criticized Apple for failing to do something, without regard for the fact that they were already doing it, doing it better than Greenpeace reported, and doing it better than other companies Greenpeace applauded.
And then, when this press release came out, Greenpeace completely failed to do the honorable thing and admit they'd criticized Apple unfairly.
It's NOT sufficient to fall back and say "Well, the issue is important." Swing and a miss, people. Apple didn't dispute that, and neither have most of us.
What gets most of us is the sheer level of dishonesty and beligerant self-delusion that's characterized Greenpeace's behavior. To try and repair their shattered image of respectability, they need to be able to say, "Hey, we appear to have been wrong on certain points."
And these things were NOT secret. Roughlydrafted.com talked about all these things in great depth. He had access to the information, and so did Greenpeace. The difference was that he did some honest investigation, and they did not.
That's what's got most Apple fans riled. Greenpeace was relentlessly dishonest and ignorant. These people are supposed to be ambassadors for certain causes. Like all ambassadors, when they behave badly, the anger spills over onto their cause. That's just how it is, and you're seeing it in the above posts. If you don't like it, then please for once go criticize the organization whose misbehavior has created such outrage. It wasn't Apple. Apple, as you should be able to see if you've really bothered to read the letter from SJobs or the roughlydrafted articles, has been doing far far more than Greenpeace has been giving them credit.
I made no reference to causality, I simply demonstrated man's inferiority to nature and that such acts AS the tsunami are an excellent example of how humanity is no match. RAPID global climate change, on the other hand, has been and is quickly being proven a direct result of man's blatant disregard for the planet through pollution and corp. greed. THAT, dear Sir, is a fact.
Your juxtaposition of the tsunami reference and comment on global warming were such that I think most people would interpret that you thought the latter was the cause of the former.
This is getting a bit off-topic (apologies). Nothing you allege is fact or proven. Warming is occurring on Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune and Pluto. How is that caused by man's Co2 emissions? The long term historical record indicates that Co2 levels rise after temperatures have risen. Fairly easy to see which variable is causative and which is dependent.
What Greenpeace have done is just as slimy as the behaviors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
They pick on Apple - probably because they are well aware of of it's own unprompted efforts towards 'greener' products - because they know that is the direction Apple is headed. So they make a lot of noise chastising Apple so they can claim the credit when Apple announces/achieves what it was already intending to do.
So Greenpeace looks good and claims credit for what Apple has done - they make me sick!
How is that caused by man's Co2 emissions? The long term historical record indicates that Co2 levels rise after temperatures have risen. Fairly easy to see which variable is causative and which is dependent.
While this may be true historically, it is clear also from prehistoric ice cores that co2 has a synergistic effect on temperature. That is, heat increases the metabolic cycling of carbon (thus resulting in more co2), and the increase in co2 causes more heat to be trapped. Cause and effect are irrelevant since it is a direct feedback loop.
Ronbo: I could not have said this better or more in a polite way. (I am to much of an opinionated asshole to be so kind). I like your words so much - I hope you don't mind if I quote your entire bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo
A few of you guys have got it right, and a bunch of you are missing the point. Pretty much everybody supporting Greenpeace is missing the point. The point isn't the environmental issue.
The point was the slipshod and reckless way that Greenpeace nailed Apple. They repeatedly criticized Apple for failing to do something, without regard for the fact that they were already doing it, doing it better than Greenpeace reported, and doing it better than other companies Greenpeace applauded.
And then, when this press release came out, Greenpeace completely failed to do the honorable thing and admit they'd criticized Apple unfairly.
It's NOT sufficient to fall back and say "Well, the issue is important." Swing and a miss, people. Apple didn't dispute that, and neither have most of us.
What gets most of us is the sheer level of dishonesty and beligerant self-delusion that's characterized Greenpeace's behavior. To try and repair their shattered image of respectability, they need to be able to say, "Hey, we appear to have been wrong on certain points."
And these things were NOT secret. Roughlydrafted.com talked about all these things in great depth. He had access to the information, and so did Greenpeace. The difference was that he did some honest investigation, and they did not.
That's what's got most Apple fans riled. Greenpeace was relentlessly dishonest and ignorant. These people are supposed to be ambassadors for certain causes. Like all ambassadors, when they behave badly, the anger spills over onto their cause. That's just how it is, and you're seeing it in the above posts. If you don't like it, then please for once go criticize the organization whose misbehavior has created such outrage. It wasn't Apple. Apple, as you should be able to see if you've really bothered to read the letter from SJobs or the roughlydrafted articles, has been doing far far more than Greenpeace has been giving them credit.
However, I do also like his response in Apple, 2005
"… Jobs said that Apple takes its environmental responsibilities seriously and added that the company is leading the industry on environmental issues. He also expressed frustration at Apple being singled out for criticism over its peers, calling it "bullshit."
Comments
... Keep in mind, humanity is just a spec on the timeline of this planet, and nature can flick us off any time she wants ...
Exactly! This is why it bothers me a bit when people talk about how we are hurting the "earth" and we should "take better care of the earth." No, man... sorry, you got it all wrong. We need to take care of ourselves. The Earth will roll on just fine. We are a mere spec. One quick event and we're all toast, and then a few million years later we are replaced by something else maybe even better.
We need not feel any pity for nature. She can take care of herself. We can spew crap in the air all day long without hurting "nature. A lot of life forms will adapt, a lot of life forms will die (maybe including us) and others will hardly be effected. What will be, will be. Mother Nature don't go down easily. Look what she did with an ice age. Our existance is nothing on her time scale.
IQ78
Evo
I wonder, do Greenpeace employees use computers at all, either at home or in the office?
If "no," hats off to them. At least, that would be very consistent and honest.
If "yes," then (s)he is simply a third-rate, garden-variety hypocrite. (But nothing in the law says you can't be one.)
I say they do, they'll have no choice but to switch to Apple now
sebastian, the case would still be cool if the same [obviously very talented] packaging designer were told to make it eco-friendly. and when it did EVENTUALLY go from your shelf to a landfill, maybe it could decompose, too?
I suspect the packaging designer HAS made it eco-friendly. The biggest environmental issue with packaging isn't what it's made of, it's the size/volume of the package. Transporting large, heavy, fragile cardboard boxes around the world is more damaging than small, light, strong plastic boxes.
Greenpeace seem to concentrate on the materials, not how efficient the production and distribution is not to mention power consumption of the final product.
I wonder, do Greenpeace employees use computers at all, either at home or in the office?
If "no," hats off to them. At least, that would be very consistent and honest.
If "yes," then (s)he is simply a third-rate, garden-variety hypocrite. (But nothing in the law says you can't be one.)
Dont be such an apple fan boy (and the other posters) - one can never criticise Apple!!!??
Yes if you are a Greenpeace supporter, you would never drive a car, fly in plane, eat pesticide covered vegetables et al - oh spare me
Computer companies do have a responsibility to produce toxic free (or as close as possible) products and kudos to Greenpeace for being on on the manufacturers' cases and likewise kudos to Apple for any legitimate effort to reduce toxic products and excess waste.
Asshole.
I don't think it's fair to jump on Greenpeace so viciously. They are concerned about the environment and are just trying to make a difference. imo.
They might be 'concerned' but they are terminally thick so should be ignored. The complete inanity of most of their positions and arguments about big issues, unfortunately detracts from the few issues that actually should be of concern - like deforestation in the third world.
They believe global warming is caused by mans activities yet are anti-nuclear. They decry landfill and yet oppose waste incineration etc.
Greenpeace is really good at telling everyone what they shouldn't be doing but they never have practical answers or alternatives.
IThe Tsunami in Indonesia and the rapidly increasing hurricanes and global climate change is just a taste of what's to come from man's disrespect of the only planet they call home. Think about that fact very carefully before you anonymously reply with pompous comments. If attitudes similar to what has been displayed here continue, it's only a matter of time...
Please don't use the word 'fact' when the correct word is 'myth'
Explain please the causative link between man's activities and the earthquake that triggered the Tsunami - I am really keen to learn how that works.
I suspect the packaging designer HAS made it eco-friendly. The biggest environmental issue with packaging isn't what it's made of, it's the size/volume of the package. Transporting large, heavy, fragile cardboard boxes around the world is more damaging than small, light, strong plastic boxes.
Greenpeace seem to concentrate on the materials, not how efficient the production and distribution is not to mention power consumption of the final product.
I say they do, they'll have no choice but to switch to Apple now
Maybe they already are, hence their fustration.
Please don't use the word 'fact' when the correct word is 'myth'
Explain please the causative link between man's activities and the earthquake that triggered the Tsunami - I am really keen to learn how that works.
Sure, go stand in front of one and see how it works, then tell me all about it later...
I made no reference to causality, I simply demonstrated man's inferiority to nature and that such acts AS the tsunami are an excellent example of how humanity is no match. RAPID global climate change, on the other hand, has been and is quickly being proven a direct result of man's blatant disregard for the planet through pollution and corp. greed. THAT, dear Sir, is a fact.
Greenpeace just take a cheap shot by saying Apple hasn't produced a green product. No technology company ever have or will.
They've got nothin!! Now, thanks to that lame statement, everybody knows it!
You know it's funny, people read, or hear what they want. What Greenpeace said was:
"Apple hasn't gotten an actual green product to market, but no other electronics manufacture has either,"
This is the first part of the statement. You read it as a cheap shot at Apple. First of all, they are not taking a shot at Apple only, they are actually commenting on ALL electronics manufacturers if you read the full thing. And, if you continue reading:
"That's a race worthy of the wizards of Cupertino."
So in fact, I read this as a compliment. They are suggesting that since no one else has managed to do this, perhaps, the clever minds at Apple might actually be able to come up with something, and that they likely can take the lead in that regard.
And to suggest that "no technology company ever will" make a green product is a ludicrous statement. Given enough incentive, given enough desire it will and can be done. How can anyone say something will "never" be invented or done....
I greatly admire both Apple and Greenpeace and think they have both taken mostly positive actions here. I don't think Apple would have released it's environmental policies - even though they are industry leading - unless Greenpeace had done this prodding. And why not? This is not an Apple product announcement, this is about being a good corporate citizen, and that's what Apple has now demonstrated they are. Now, thanks to Greenpeace, Apple is the clear leader in removing toxics, and Dell, and other manufacturers now have to compete with Apple to become even greener. No company wants to be low on the list of toxic manufacturers.
Apple wins by demonstrating it's a leader, and Greenpeace wins by showing it forced Apple mysteriously reluctant hand to be more open.
But neither organization has been perfect. Steve Jobs admitted so in his letter: "we have failed to communicate the things that we are doing well" and "We apologize for leaving you in the dark for this long." And Jobs wasn't only responding to Greenpeace - he admitted "shareholders, employees and the industry... deserve and expect more from us, and they’re right to do so." I think he showed great leadership, owned up, and realized there's no reason to be secretive in this instance.…
Apple's environmental policy has been public for quite a long time. Their Environmental web site (http://www.apple.com/environment/) has been available for a long time and it is not the first time that it has had to be brought to attention.
The fact that Apple seems to walk the talk without fanfare while everyone else is virtually talking the walk, I would suggest that you retrack your comments, in particualar that, "…I don't think Apple would have released it's environmental policies" and "…Greenpeace wins by showing it forced Apple mysteriously reluctant hand to be more open." Obviously, the evidence is to the contrary is overwhelming.
I think that the leasson here is we should all not be so quick to jump to conclusions. And to the likes of Greenpeace, quit acting like a nagging spouse. It only leads to divorce.
The point was the slipshod and reckless way that Greenpeace nailed Apple. They repeatedly criticized Apple for failing to do something, without regard for the fact that they were already doing it, doing it better than Greenpeace reported, and doing it better than other companies Greenpeace applauded.
And then, when this press release came out, Greenpeace completely failed to do the honorable thing and admit they'd criticized Apple unfairly.
It's NOT sufficient to fall back and say "Well, the issue is important." Swing and a miss, people. Apple didn't dispute that, and neither have most of us.
What gets most of us is the sheer level of dishonesty and beligerant self-delusion that's characterized Greenpeace's behavior. To try and repair their shattered image of respectability, they need to be able to say, "Hey, we appear to have been wrong on certain points."
And these things were NOT secret. Roughlydrafted.com talked about all these things in great depth. He had access to the information, and so did Greenpeace. The difference was that he did some honest investigation, and they did not.
That's what's got most Apple fans riled. Greenpeace was relentlessly dishonest and ignorant. These people are supposed to be ambassadors for certain causes. Like all ambassadors, when they behave badly, the anger spills over onto their cause. That's just how it is, and you're seeing it in the above posts. If you don't like it, then please for once go criticize the organization whose misbehavior has created such outrage. It wasn't Apple. Apple, as you should be able to see if you've really bothered to read the letter from SJobs or the roughlydrafted articles, has been doing far far more than Greenpeace has been giving them credit.
I made no reference to causality, I simply demonstrated man's inferiority to nature and that such acts AS the tsunami are an excellent example of how humanity is no match. RAPID global climate change, on the other hand, has been and is quickly being proven a direct result of man's blatant disregard for the planet through pollution and corp. greed. THAT, dear Sir, is a fact.
Your juxtaposition of the tsunami reference and comment on global warming were such that I think most people would interpret that you thought the latter was the cause of the former.
This is getting a bit off-topic (apologies). Nothing you allege is fact or proven. Warming is occurring on Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune and Pluto. How is that caused by man's Co2 emissions? The long term historical record indicates that Co2 levels rise after temperatures have risen. Fairly easy to see which variable is causative and which is dependent.
What Greenpeace have done is just as slimy as the behaviors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
They pick on Apple - probably because they are well aware of of it's own unprompted efforts towards 'greener' products - because they know that is the direction Apple is headed. So they make a lot of noise chastising Apple so they can claim the credit when Apple announces/achieves what it was already intending to do.
So Greenpeace looks good and claims credit for what Apple has done - they make me sick!
Greenpeace? What's that? PETA for trees?
Evo
Don't get me started on PeTA!
How is that caused by man's Co2 emissions? The long term historical record indicates that Co2 levels rise after temperatures have risen. Fairly easy to see which variable is causative and which is dependent.
While this may be true historically, it is clear also from prehistoric ice cores that co2 has a synergistic effect on temperature. That is, heat increases the metabolic cycling of carbon (thus resulting in more co2), and the increase in co2 causes more heat to be trapped. Cause and effect are irrelevant since it is a direct feedback loop.
A few of you guys have got it right, and a bunch of you are missing the point. Pretty much everybody supporting Greenpeace is missing the point. The point isn't the environmental issue.
The point was the slipshod and reckless way that Greenpeace nailed Apple. They repeatedly criticized Apple for failing to do something, without regard for the fact that they were already doing it, doing it better than Greenpeace reported, and doing it better than other companies Greenpeace applauded.
And then, when this press release came out, Greenpeace completely failed to do the honorable thing and admit they'd criticized Apple unfairly.
It's NOT sufficient to fall back and say "Well, the issue is important." Swing and a miss, people. Apple didn't dispute that, and neither have most of us.
What gets most of us is the sheer level of dishonesty and beligerant self-delusion that's characterized Greenpeace's behavior. To try and repair their shattered image of respectability, they need to be able to say, "Hey, we appear to have been wrong on certain points."
And these things were NOT secret. Roughlydrafted.com talked about all these things in great depth. He had access to the information, and so did Greenpeace. The difference was that he did some honest investigation, and they did not.
That's what's got most Apple fans riled. Greenpeace was relentlessly dishonest and ignorant. These people are supposed to be ambassadors for certain causes. Like all ambassadors, when they behave badly, the anger spills over onto their cause. That's just how it is, and you're seeing it in the above posts. If you don't like it, then please for once go criticize the organization whose misbehavior has created such outrage. It wasn't Apple. Apple, as you should be able to see if you've really bothered to read the letter from SJobs or the roughlydrafted articles, has been doing far far more than Greenpeace has been giving them credit.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/
However, I do also like his response in Apple, 2005
"… Jobs said that Apple takes its environmental responsibilities seriously and added that the company is leading the industry on environmental issues. He also expressed frustration at Apple being singled out for criticism over its peers, calling it "bullshit."