Greenpeace sold their corporate soul to the devils of the "PR Speach" & "Press Release" years ago. They are more concerned with looking effective and busy, than actually making improvements, or recognizing those who are really striving to become greener companies. They targeted Apple with a FUD campaign despite the evidence of their own research. Apple is an easier target because of the demographic of Apple's core customers.

They praise HP and Dell for promises that are worth less than the paper they are printed on while claiming that Apple isn't doing enough despite actually "DOING" what the others claim to be "PLANNING" to do. I stopped giving them money years ago, and I will object to anyone I know giving them money in the future.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Greenpeace sold their corporate soul to the devils of the "PR Speach" & "Press Release" years ago. They are more concerned with looking effective and busy, than actually making improvements, or recognizing those who are really striving to become greener companies. They targeted Apple with a FUD campaign despite the evidence of their own research. Apple is an easier target because of the demographic of Apple's core customers.

They praise HP and Dell for promises that are worth less than the paper they are printed on while claiming that Apple isn't doing enough despite actually "DOING" what the others claim to be "PLANNING" to do. I stopped giving them money years ago, and I will object to anyone I know giving them money in the future.

You clearly don't even know how the ratings are made. Please read the document and get a clue. The press release addresses many of the concerns that Greenpeace had. If you read the document, you'd know this. Apple didn't respond to the original release of the report in August, now almost a year later when it comes out and Apple is at the bottom of the list Apple finally responds, and some of the information that was lacking is now available. Go look at the ratings, you'll understand instead of being a knee-jerk reactionary. Extremists like you are what make it harder for people trying to affect change.

i wanna start a swing band called the "brominated fire retardants"

Greenpeace has now revealed itself to be an unprincipled, insincere media whore.

Sorry for not logging in before, I've been having issues where I try to login but the page simply reloads. I wrote the first post, and my response to the guest in the second post is, I've read Steve Jobs letter, and half a dozen articles put out by greenpeace in the last couple of months regarding this issue. I'm actually fairly well read up on the topic. My comment about making claims that go against their own research is refering to a study they commistioned looking at the products and policies of various tech firms and their conclusions don't match up with the actual results. I'm still a big fan of environmental protection, I just don't believe that it is the primary concern at Greenpeace anymore. I feel like they care more about media attention and public "promises" than actual, improvments that happen under the radar.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
You clearly don't even know how the ratings are made. Please read the document and get a clue. The press release addresses many of the concerns that Greenpeace had. If you read the document, you'd know this. Apple didn't respond to the original release of the report in August, now almost a year later when it comes out and Apple is at the bottom of the list Apple finally responds, and some of the information that was lacking is now available. Go look at the ratings, you'll understand instead of being a knee-jerk reactionary. Extremists like you are what make it harder for people trying to affect change.

That is exactly the complaint made about the policies and procedures of GreenPeace. They do not bother to do any research. They simply publish their ratings based on incomplete information, and wait for a response. It is then up to the people/companies listed in their reports to prove otherwise.

A responsible organization would have contacted the companies and asked them about the areas where they have concerns. They could have asked/researched the plastic composition of Apple's, Dell's, HP's and other's cases and components. They could have researched the existence and poicy of any recycling programs. In short, they could do a little bit of basic homework before issuing ratings based on (lack of) information, without having done anything to gain the proper information.

I agree with the assessment that the current model of GreenPeace is focussed far more on getting media attention (which in turn increases donations to organization coffers - and thereby the leadership salaries) than actually affecting change.

Quote

marvin wrote:
Sorry for not logging in before, I've been having issues where I try to login but the page simply reloads. I wrote the first post, and my response to the guest in the second post is, I've read Steve Jobs letter, and half a dozen articles put out by greenpeace in the last couple of months regarding this issue. I'm actually fairly well read up on the topic. My comment about making claims that go against their own research is refering to a study they commistioned looking at the products and policies of various tech firms and their conclusions don't match up with the actual results. I'm still a big fan of environmental protection, I just don't believe that it is the primary concern at Greenpeace anymore. I feel like they care more about media attention and public "promises" than actual, improvments that happen under the radar.

So that's a no, you haven't read the document. You're commenting on the commentary and not the substance of the report. Some people prefer to be told what to think instead of going to read the actual document and deciding what to think. You are in that category, at least on this subject based on your own description of how you came to the “conclusions” you have on this subject.

Quote

zewazir wrote:
That is exactly the complaint made about the policies and procedures of GreenPeace. They do not bother to do any research. They simply publish their ratings based on incomplete information, and wait for a response. It is then up to the people/companies listed in their reports to prove otherwise.

A responsible organization would have contacted the companies and asked them about the areas where they have concerns. They could have asked/researched the plastic composition of Apple's, Dell's, HP's and other's cases and components. They could have researched the existence and poicy of any recycling programs. In short, they could do a little bit of basic homework before issuing ratings based on (lack of) information, without having done anything to gain the proper information.

I agree with the assessment that the current model of GreenPeace is focussed far more on getting media attention (which in turn increases donations to organization coffers - and thereby the leadership salaries) than actually affecting change.

That’s exactly the Greenpeace’s point. People should not have to do research in order to utilize any existing programs. Apple doesn’t make it easy for a reason, it costs them money. Prior to this, some of the information was not ever published, that’s the Greenpeace’s point, there was no publicly stated plan. If the information is incomplete, it is not Greenpeace’s fault, but the corporation’s. If you publicly state your plan, you become accountable for it. This letter was the first time some of this information has ever been made public. Get it? This is precisely the changes they were trying to affect. Media attention is the tool through which to affect the changes in the corporations, and also the way to get the attention of the consumer so they know what is really going on. In SJ’s own words, “Today is the first time we have openly discussed our plans to become a greener Apple” Now that he has laid out the timeline, their progress and success can be measured.
“By 2010, Apple may be recycling significantly more than either Dell or HP as a percentage of past sales weight.” Meaning that right now, and for the next three years we are and expect to continue to be behind Dell & HP. In 2010, who knows, but maybe will be ahead of them.

And you haven't followed that whole, sad affair. Greenpeace released a "report" based on companies' marketing bullshit instead of their actions. Since Apple doesn't even try to be good at bullshitting unlike many other companies, they came last in that "report".

Apple has set the record straight now. For example, companies like HP are given good marks by Greenpeace for planning to stop using PVC in packaging over the next two years - Apple gets bad marks for having no such plans, when they got rid of the same PVC in packaging twelve years ago! So what is that nonsense of "being accountable for a plan" when Apple has already done its work?

And it is absolutely Greenpeace's fault for publishing bullshit because a five minute search on Apple's webpage didn't give them everything they were looking for. If you don't have information, you admit that you don't have information and don't publish bullshit. Greenpeace has demonstrated that they don't care for action, just for noise.

'' “By 2010, Apple may be recycling significantly more than either Dell or HP as a percentage of past sales weight.” Meaning that right now, and for the next three years we are and expect to continue to be behind Dell & HP. In 2010, who knows, but maybe will be ahead of them. ''

This is a deliberate misquote and just demonstrates your dishonesty. If you read Apple's report, they are recycling _more_ than Dell and HP today, and expect that by 2010 they will be recycling _significantly more_. You are using the same strategy of deliberate misunderstanding and spreading misinformation that Greenpeace does.

Apple has always had a good environmental policy, which has been publicly available (along with other policies, such as ethical business dealing, etc..)
Apple has also consistently been ahead of its competition on environmental issues - remember the unbleached brown cardboard boxes in the early 90's?

Apple can still improve over time, but Greenpeace should have done their homework!

Greenpeace only grudgingly admitted they were wrong after Steve Jobs publicly shamed them.

Quote

Guest wrote:

And it is absolutely Greenpeace's fault for publishing bullshit because a five minute search on Apple's webpage didn't give them everything they were looking for. If you don't have information, you admit that you don't have information and don't publish bullshit. Greenpeace has demonstrated that they don't care for action, just for noise.

Totally missing the point. There was no publicly stated plan by Apple to do these things. That is what part of the ratings are. Is it Greenpeace's fault that Apple never stated a plan prior to August when the report was released? Is it Greenpeace's fault that Apple STILL didn't have a publicly stated plan until after the report was updated this month? What they are scoring on is not a mystery, what was a mystery was if Apple had these plans, if they did what was the timeline they were planning? SJ has now responded and published the plans, subsequently Greenpeace updated the report and raised Apple's score accordingly.

Greenpeace has given Apple special treatment, they didn't update the report for the previous 9 months anytime another company issued a press release, but Apple is so controlling of its relationship with the media that they had to go and update for Apple.

Quote

Guest wrote:
'' “By 2010, Apple may be recycling significantly more than either Dell or HP as a percentage of past sales weight.” Meaning that right now, and for the next three years we are and expect to continue to be behind Dell & HP. In 2010, who knows, but maybe will be ahead of them. ''

This is a deliberate misquote and just demonstrates your dishonesty. If you read Apple's report, they are recycling _more_ than Dell and HP today, and expect that by 2010 they will be recycling _significantly more_. You are using the same strategy of deliberate misunderstanding and spreading misinformation that Greenpeace does.

Get your facts straight. How about actually going and reading the release! I'll make it easy for you, click the link below, scroll down to almost the bottom and there will be three sentences in italics. The first one reads, "By 2010, Apple may be recycling significantly more than either Dell or HP as a percentage of past sales weight."

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/

Next time read the page before you call someone dishonest. It's not a misquote when it's exactly what was written! Dell & HP are both at around 10% (naturally, being an Apple pre-release those numbers are deflated). Apple is not yet there, they were less than 10% in 2006. All the numbers on that graph for Apple that are above 10% are "estimates" in order to make them look like they will be doing better than Dell & HP currently is. Dell even beat Apple (and everyone else) to the punch, starting their program 3 years before Apple. Not to mention the CO2 offsetting program Dell has, but if that's bad news for Apple, you wouldn't know about it. Apple predicts that 3 years from now they will collect 19 million pounds for recycling, 3 years ago Dell collected 35 million pounds. It's also easy for Apple to hit those higher percentages considering how poor the company was doing 7 years ago sales wise.

I won't accuse you of being dishonest, just ignorant.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Apple has always had a good environmental policy, which has been publicly available (along with other policies, such as ethical business dealing, etc..)
Apple has also consistently been ahead of its competition on environmental issues - remember the unbleached brown cardboard boxes in the early 90's?

Apple can still improve over time, but Greenpeace should have done their homework!

Greenpeace only grudgingly admitted they were wrong after Steve Jobs publicly shamed them.

Wrong. Steve Jobs admitted they didn't post this information previously. Direct quote, "Today is the first time we have openly discussed our plans to become a greener Apple." Meaning that NEVER BEFORE HAS IT BEEN DISCLOSED. Greenpeace couldn't access information Apple never released.

Look, a company is responsible for its actions, So Apple removed PVc's twelve years ago and didnt make a press release about it. Explain to me how a press release would somehow make it a better environment. Explain how or why sudden disclosure of al products used in manufacture of goods would somehow make the planet more "green".You know what I'll answer for you, it won't, information of that nature has little effect on the general consumer, it has a great effect on wallstreet. A great example is the M.I industry, filled with tons of industrial waste and rare wood harvesting, this same market is home to some of the most vocal "environmentalist's who carry around guitars with brazillian rosewood necks, non ROH's compliant elctronics in there vintage tube driven landfill filling amps. Does that industry ever come under the greenpeace gun? The tactic that Greenpeace is using is misplaced, they should concetrate more on legislation and ending NAFTA, GAT and WTO style deals. That is the scary stuff, manufacture of goods with no regulation in third world countries. Is Apple guilty of that , possibly but I dont remeber outcome of the troubles it ran into with that plant in China. Fill the wage and standard of living gap you will find a greener planet. Oh and one little thing Apple products tend to have a longer life than there PC brethren thus you should see less numbers in percentage of recylced product, they aren't in a landfill they are being used. There are several million things that can skew comparitive percentage rankings the whole idea of ranks based upon speculative studies is ridiculous.

damn i should really proofread my own posts

Quote

Guest #2 wrote:
Totally missing the point. There was no publicly stated plan by Apple to do these things. That is what part of the ratings are. <blah blah blah>

No, Guest #2 and Greenpeace apologist, you are the one totally missing the point here. Greenpeace willfully and intentionally lied about Apple, in order to get free publicity to line their coffers. They based their initial report based on what companies said about themselves on their own websites (not exactly a scientific approach), and although Greenpeace disclosed this on their website, they nonetheless presented it to the public in such a way as to give the impression it was based on scientific research. That was deliberately misleading.

Greenpeace even commissioned an independent lab to do some computer tear-downs looking for toxic chemicals and found that Apple was amongst the least toxic. Rather than recant their position, they spun that report in such a way as to suggest it vindicated their previous allegations.

All this in contrast to the Sierra Club’s endorsement of Apple, and high marks from the US DEQ, neither of which made the headlines like Greenpeace’s lies.

This whole debacle over the last few months has sure opened my eyes as to what a pack of conniving, scum sucking media whores Greenpeace really is. I used to think they did some good work. Now i question the motivation behind everything they have ever done.

I am glad i have never contributed to them, and will continue to give to the Sierra Club.

I used to be a (significant) financial supporter of Greenpeace. I have always been particularly keen on their work on whaling, for example.

Unfortunately, over recent years they have become less and less focussed on "facts" and more on hype. Their media-chasing attacks on Apple were the last straw for me. Some in Greenpeace may have reasoned that attacks on Apple were good tactics, because they know that Apple has a high profile, and that quite a few Apple users are likely to have an interest in the environment. The fact that Apple *actually* been ahead for other computer manufacturers in many areas was brushed aside - the "ends justified the means"...

Where have we heard that before? Yea... not a good pedigree..

Anyway, long story short, Greenpeace no longer gets automatic payments from me... and the carry-on around their response to Apple's statements haven't made me any more likely to change that.

I've found other, more directly active environmental groups to give money too; people planting trees, and raming whaling ships

Fastred in NZ

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
That’s exactly the Greenpeace’s point. People should not have to do research in order to utilize any existing programs. Apple doesn’t make it easy for a reason, it costs them money. Prior to this, some of the information was not ever published, that’s the Greenpeace’s point, there was no publicly stated plan. If the information is incomplete, it is not Greenpeace’s fault, but the corporation’s. If you publicly state your plan, you become accountable for it. This letter was the first time some of this information has ever been made public. Get it? This is precisely the changes they were trying to affect. Media attention is the tool through which to affect the changes in the corporations, and also the way to get the attention of the consumer so they know what is really going on. In SJ’s own words, “Today is the first time we have openly discussed our plans to become a greener Apple” Now that he has laid out the timeline, their progress and success can be measured.
“By 2010, Apple may be recycling significantly more than either Dell or HP as a percentage of past sales weight.” Meaning that right now, and for the next three years we are and expect to continue to be behind Dell & HP. In 2010, who knows, but maybe will be ahead of them.

It takes less than a minute to find information on Apple's current recycling program. This is not information that is difficult to find. What are they supposed to do, shout it from the rooftops? Apple has plans to improve their recycling program. But should they advertise what is CURRENTLY available, or confuse people by saying what will be available three years from now?

As for plastics composition, Apple moved away from PVC plastics a long tima ago. Are they supposed to have that piece of info in a marquee banner at the top of their website? As far as Apple is concerned, moving away from PVC plastics is old news. Just because other makers are CURRENTLY advertising PLANS to make the same move 12 years later does not mean Apple is the one remiss for not making the information available to people too lazy to do even a minimal amount of fact finding. Sorry that GreenPeace doesn't have the integrity to make sure their information is up to date when posted.

In short, organizations that want to rate coprorate actions need to do a little homework first. It is NOT the job of coprorations to lead GreenPeace and other attention whores around by the hand. It IS the job of GreenPeace to get their facts straight BEFORE publishing. The information IS available. Why do you think other environmental organizations have the information, and have giving Apple much, much higher marks than GreenPeace?

Bottom line: GreenPeace is a dishonest, headline grabbing group of braindead dweebs who have forgotten their mission in favor of fame.

Quote

Rainy Day wrote:
No, Guest #2 and Greenpeace apologist, you are the one totally missing the point here. Greenpeace willfully and intentionally lied about Apple, in order to get free publicity to line their coffers.

WRONG! The did not. Please, just read SJ's letter, he admitted they did not lie, and admitted it was their fault for not communicating. Do I need to quote it again?

STEVE JOBS SAID, "Today is the first time we have openly discussed our plans to become a greener Apple."
[/quote]

You are worse than an Apple apologist, you take it to the extremist wing.

Quote

zewazir wrote:

It takes less than a minute to find information on Apple's current recycling program. This is not information that is difficult to find.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. It's not the recycling program that the bad grades came from. You people need to learn how to read. You don't even know how the score was made if you make a comment like that. Please go read the report and learn how the scores are made. Having a recycling program is just one small part of it. How do you think Apple got even 2.7 points originally. Please, get your facts straight before you try to claim something.

PVC again, is just one of the many environmentally damaging products used in the manufacturing of PCs. Greenpeace HAD ALL THE FACTS RIGHT. SJ even admitted this. NEVER BEFORE HAS THE INFORMATION THAT THEY WERE SCORED POORLY FOR NOT HAVING AVAILABLE BEEN AVAILABLE. GET A CLUE!

THE TRUTH HURTS WHEN YOU HAVE LOVE IN YOUR HEART FOR A HEARTLESS CORPORTATION.

Guest wrote:

Quote

That’s exactly the Greenpeace’s point. People should not have to do research in order to utilize any existing programs.

It seems to me that Greenpeace is more about slandering than about publishing accurate figures. Just grab headlines!

So you are saying that 1) since Greenpeace wasn't given the info personally by SJ, and 2) since Greenpeace might have to pay a couple of people to do a weeks worth of research work, that 3) it's better to give Apple a low rating for no particular reason other than the fact that Greenpeace is too lazy to do anything else but run over coral reefs and invade off-shore drilling sites. Peace.

Whoopdee flippin' do! Who made Greenpeace god? More like slanderous eco-extortionists. Of course, the epithet “Media Whore” works well too

Quote

burreyeann wrote:

It seems to me that Greenpeace is more about slandering than about publishing accurate figures. Just grab headlines!

Yeah, it only seems that way to the people who are at the bottom of the list. Unless that company's name is Lenovo. They used to be at the bottom of the list, but now they top the list. They changed their ways, made their commitments, etc. and are now at the top of the list. Apple, I am sure will try to do the same thing, in fact, they already have started.

Quote

burreyeann wrote:

So you are saying that 1) since Greenpeace wasn't given the info personally by SJ, and 2) since Greenpeace might have to pay a couple of people to do a weeks worth of research work, that 3) it's better to give Apple a low rating for no particular reason other than the fact that Greenpeace is too lazy to do anything else but run over coral reefs and invade off-shore drilling sites. Peace.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is exactly what SJ is saying. That Apple had never before committed to a roadmap for eliminating certain materials or published this information. SJ didn't need to personally give anyone any information, Apple needed to give the information and make the commitments to the public. SJ said that this month was the first time that Apple has ever done that.

Anyone who says Greenpeace didn't the research hasn't done theirs. If you look at the report, the detailed scoring always has links to the public websites for these companies which provide futher information. It's not Greenpeace's job or ability to go into a company, compile the information and create a publicly stated policy and commitments for the company. It's Greenpeace's job to evaluate the efforts & commitments the company has made available to the public.

Apple's previously publicly available information is what got them the points they had, they got the second highest score for their recycling program, which everyone touts as evidence that Greenpeace didn't do their homework. Clearly anyone who brings that up hasn't even bothered to read the report. Greenpeace