I Couldn't have said it better myself.

Greenpeace used to be (back when I supported them), an edgy group that made good points and backed it up with good science. Now they are more interested in press and politics and keeping their bank accounts flowing than in accomplishing anything.

Meanwhile Dell makes more pollution in a day than Apple does in a month. More whales are killed every year. And one of the founders of Greenpeace is in favor of nuclear power http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

Talk about losing your way.

And they told me Steve Jobs was in closed door meetings with them to discuss the issues. I really hope Greenpeace learns that:

1. Apple does have a recycling program. http://www.apple.com/environment/recycling/program/index.html

2. Despite the chemicals used, the chances of them ending up in the landfill are disproportionatedly less than those of other PC based manufacturers as an industry. With 10% or less marketshare, and a lifespan of computer 3 to 4 times higher than average PCs (see http://www.macvspc.info/ for a variety of sources proving this), you are 40 times less likely to see parts ending up even if they didn't have a recycling program.

3. An average Mac user typically does not trash their Mac even after it has outlived its usefulness, and usually sells it, gives it to a school, or keeps it for keepsake. I for one have all my Macs since my LC in my computer room!

Their biggest concern is the use of mercury ending up in the landfill, as well flame retardants that are toxic. Hopefully Apple can find some that aren't.

greenpeace just makes themselves look like idiots.

a couple months back, i loved how they were patting themselves on the back for their "powerful" demonstration by shining a bunch of green lights on the manhattan apple cube. what exactly were they "demonstrating"? that slightly translucent glass can be illuminated when a light source is shone on it?

for a company that has al gore on the board of directors, i think greenpeace must be exaggerating things.

Apple should just buy Greenpeace.

Great article with facts not FUD for a change. I'm sure if Apple was pulluting more than any other computer maker like DEll other agencies would have come forward. This article proves just how WRONG Greenpeace is with there bullying practices and just shows you how strong Apple is by not giving them what they want the way they want it. Instead just complying and making things better but no giving in to Greenpeace. I'm waiting for the day when Steve Jobs says that's enough, and takes Greenpeace to court for slander. 12 billion dollars is a lot of backing for a court case. Essentially Apple has always complied with the enviromental laws so if Greenpeace continues there ways they may find themselves in court for sure. Easy win for Apple.

<Insert blatantly obvious observation here.>
<Insert same thing everyone else said but worded slightly differently here.>

What is with this site lately? EVERY afternoon it gets brain dead. Ugh.

Quote

Biff wrote:
<Insert blatantly obvious observation here.>
<Insert same thing everyone else said but worded slightly differently here.>

What is with this site lately? EVERY afternoon it gets brain dead. Ugh.

It's the global warming overheating people's brains.

Actually, nuclear power is very clean.

Nuclear power may just be the only viable option to allow the shutdown of massive coal-fired power plants. How else are you going to replace the terraWatts? Billions of wind turbines? I don't think so.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Nuclear power may just be the only viable option to allow the shutdown of massive coal-fired power plants. How else are you going to replace the terraWatts? Billions of wind turbines? I don't think so.

It wouldn't be billions but a lot more than we have now. Also there are the sources that keep getting mentioned, solar, tide, geothermal, low dam hydro, biomass, etc. etc. We have to stop looking for THE solution and realize that there are LOTS of little solutions. On top of that we can use less. I have Mini,not a Mustang and a Prius, not a Lexus. In the winter my house is set at 50 degrees during the day when no one is home. In the summer I let it drift up to 85. ALL of my lights are fluorescent and when I need to replace them I will get the new crop of high output LED lights that use even less and are Mercury free. Coupled with thee the upgraded windows and other improvements to the house since we moved in twelve years ago our electric bill is around half of what it was when we moved in. What's more we don't feel deprived of anything.
Nuclear will be with us for a long time but people like Patrick Moore have given up and just want to build enough plants to allow us to live the way we do now. That is not viable any more than building more highways will end traffic congestion. The way the US is living is not sustainable in the long run. Either they will learn to live with a lesser footprint or the US will go through some very hard times and then adapt. The idea of a Hummer in every garage, lush lawns in Phoenix, and always wanting more stuff is corrosive and cannot be sustained over the long run. (IMO)

Quote

geoduck wrote:
And one of the founders of Greenpeace is in favor of nuclear power http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

Talk about losing your way.

I agree with the "losing your way" comment. The way I read the statements of Patrick Moore (also here in Wired), he's getting back to the Greenpeace science-driven roots you talked about. As mentioned in other posts, nuclear is the best solution for eliminating the tons (yes, tons) of carbon spewed into the atmosphere by coal electrical plants every day. All the nuclear powerplants put out a grand total of NONE. The potential for meltdown and leaks with current-generation technology (gen 4) is NONE. Pebble bed reactors are all the rage in China, and if we don't jump on the bandwagon it will be a very short time until the West is overcome by the East. They see how our carbon-driven economy has impacted things (tho, not necessarilly global warming, which is for another topic), and they don't want to go there if they can help it. Nuclear is as secure from leaks as is the Mac OS, maybe more so.

I love macs, and used to love apple (when it was less than a corporation), but have never tried fooling myself into thinking that computers were somehow good for the environment (made by apple or anyone). I'm with geoduck - try using less, not justifying what you use and then increasing it. Greenpeace is just another corporation, ignore them, but don't ignore your own footprint on the earth. And for God's sake please don't listen to the nuclear apologists, Ireland (where I live) is just one country suffering from the radioactive effluent of another (England) - politicians and businessmen gain shortterm, but our children lose it all in the end.

Okay, I'm a huge Apple fan, but I'm also an environmentalist and I have to say that some of Apple's actions and positions regarding electronic waste and computer takeback have been disturbing.
Apple has consistently worked behind the scenes to oppose computer takeback legislation in a number of states, whereas Dell and Hewlett-Packard have supported such legislation. In fact, I recently read (and perhaps someone can verify this) that a measure in support of Apple adopting stricter production guidelines with respect to toxic substances, as well as an expanded computer takeback program, is on the upcoming Apple shareholders ballot, but that the Apple board has strongly recommended that shareholders vote against these measures.
Given Apple's image and the kind of emotional relationship that they try to cultivate with their customers, it would really make sense for Apple to be on the cutting edge of sustainability and environmental responsibility in the computer business. Macs ought to be the absolute obvious choice when someone who is concerned about the planet goes out to buy a computer. Why they have adopted a very different stance is hard to fathom.

Apple only makes moves for the good of the consumer or the good of the planet when they are forced to do so by law. Otherwise, it's about their bottom line. This isn't new, Greenpeace has been on them and other companies for years, specifically Apple since 2004.

iWaste: http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2007/03/iwaste.html

Apple's only global end-of-life plans ar ein Europe and Japan where they are forced to have them by law. Clearly Apple has the ability to do it in the US, but they do not because they care about the dollar, not the consumer, not the environment.Apple only makes moves for the good of the consumer or the good of the planet when they are forced to do so by law. Otherwise, it's about their bottom line. This isn't new, Greenpeace has been on them and other companies for years, specifically Apple since 2004.

iWaste: http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2007/03/iwaste.html

Apple's only global end-of-life plans ar ein Europe and Japan where they are forced to have them by law. Clearly Apple has the ability to do it in the US, but they do not because they care about the dollar, not the consumer, not the environment.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-5680152.html