Actions, not words.
Look at Apple's actions.
Words (cf. Hillary Clinton, George Bush) don't count.

Let's see,

I can buy innovative software that is tightly integrated with its hardware, or I can buy MS/Wintel junk.

Oh, and If I think about CO2, I will plant another tree in my yard.

"On a positive note, Apple's low score of 11 is nine points higher than it received in the 2007 Scorecard."

So I guess Apple doesn't care either...

A thought, a company that lies or misreports what it is actually doing could get a high score. Consumers who then buy that company's products could do more environmental harm than if they bought from a company that didn't report their environmental approaches, got a low score, yet was more responsible environmentally.

Given that no effort is madeto check the validity of a company's claims, this is a highly irresponsible approach to take. Reminds me a lot of Greenpeace...

I've never heard of them. I wonder if some of these organizations are just invented for the purpose of attacking Al Gore.

Will the scores be changed when it is found out global warming is not man made, but an act of nature? Mother Nature that is.

Stonyfield Farms produces MOUNTAINS of plastic cups to send out yogurt, and this guy talks trash abot a durable goods manufacturer? Asshat.

Seems Climate Counts is rewarding words, not actions. Huh? Who'd a thunk that?

I think they need to find a way to acknowledge actions taken, otherwise it's just a bunch of hot air (haw! haw!).

Great... I am having flashbacks to that Greenpeace fiasco.

I wonder if I should stop smoking that "gift" that the nice folks at Climate Counts gave me?

Maybe that is what causing these flashbacks...

Who is raising a stink here?

Whose button is "CLimate Counts" pushing and why? What do they get out of dissing Apple, because Apple doesn't wear its "Green" on its sleeves? We know that Apple has one of the best recycling policies in the computer industry and has changed its policies for parts in its computer materials in an effort to protect the planet.

They need to read my article on "Global Warming, the Cult of Gaia and 'Edidence' " in the Greenware section of the May 2008 issue of macCompanion magazine. http://www.maccompanion.com

So here we are at Climate Counts. Nobody's ever heard of us. Lessee... um.... Apple Inc. gets a lot of headlines. Maybe if we say they're doing something good for the environment, we'll get our name out. But wait, Apple is already pretty popular with the eco-conscious crowd. What if we put their name at the BOTTOM of our list. Then we'd be sure to get headlines all over the place! It just might work!

(Insert sarcastic tongue-in-cheek smiley here.)

So the First company to default screen savers and sleep mode into all their PCs, the fist to eliminate CRTs, reducing power consumption by 30%, the first to cross the 50% notebook (Which use 50% less power per function and desk tops)... HP PCs use on average 15% MORE Power than Apples...Yet they give Apple a low score? Would they rather have people by HPs and produce MORE Grass house gasses?

This isn't the first time Apple's been ranked poorly by a green group. It's time they took the environment seriously.

Okay, I went to ClimateCounts.org to see what these guys are about. They have a staff of one (yes, you read correctly) and a board of directors. They’ve appear to have been in business less than two years. Their blog has ONE entry in it. They were founded by the “CE-Yo” (give me a break) of Stonyfield Farm, a small New Hampshire farm that mostly makes organic yogurts. In other words, Climate Counts has no credibility whatsoever.

Nonetheless…

Four times in their analysis of Apple, they write “Climate Counts [has] found…” In other words one guy in Manchester, Hew Hampshire, surfing the net could not find public information about Apple as he filled out their survey on Apple’s behalf. Join the club. Millions would like to know what Apple is up to. That doesn’t mean they aren’t doing anything. This is a secretive company!

ClimateCounts was “guided” through the development of this survey by a company called GreenOrder, a New York City based marketing firm that helps corporations, like Apple, greenwash their public image. One wonders whether public ridicule of Apple and other corporations isn’t designed to drive business to GreenOrder.

Like Fernando (aka Billy Crystal) said, “Remember, my friends. It’s better to look good than to feel good.”

I am a dedicated Apple user but also an environmentalist, and despite the fact that I love Apple's computers, they discouraged shareholders from creating a sustainability board and their computers are made in mega-polluter factories in China. They "wear" green on their sleeve via Macbook Air, etc., but it is a greenwashed product - a product made to look more environmentally friendly than it is.

While Apple has done a lot to raise awareness via things like MacBook Air, their contribution to the emissions cloud is bigger than a responsible company's should be.

Also, Stonyfield Yogurt is not a small New Hampshire farm...

How much of these companies stuff fill the landfills? Personally, I go through cell phones yearly and I've contributed HP, Compaq, and Dell computers to the trash/recycle services...not to mention the loads of consumer electronics.

Hmmm...I still have my original Apple computer. I don't see it going to waste anytime soon.

Make better products and THAT will reduce the footprint as well as reduce sales which could be a problem for them...

Quote

Guest wrote:
Also, Stonyfield Yogurt is not a small New Hampshire farm...

It’s what their web site says. I guess they were being modest.

But that’s beside the point. Climate Counts has no expertise or credentials in business or environmental science. Are they atmospheric chemists? No. Are they meteorologists? Physicists? Geologist? No. No. No. They aren’t scientists or experts of any sort.

The company’s sole staff member, Wood Turner, is the “editor/publisher/researcher/communications director/web producer” for GoodThings.com. He claims to have a “serious relationship with [his] computer” and he likes to ride his bicycle. And this qualifies him as an expert?

He’s just a guy with a keyboard like you or me who knows no more about Apple, IBM or the environment than any of the rest of us. Their scorecard is a sham. Their conclusions don’t hold up under scrutiny. And they certainly don’t merit the media attention they are getting from news outlets that don’t do their own homework.

Apple _does_ take the environment serious. However, they don't take Greenpeace serious, and the definitely don't take Mr. Climate Counts serious.

Two years ago when Greenpeace complained, it turned out for example that one company was given extra points for promising to get rid of some pollutants in their packaging materials that Apple had removed several years ago. So points for promises, no points for action.

Or just compare the amount of packaging that is used for a MacMini or for a MacBook Air with the packaging of any other computer.

It doesn't matter if the guy is a climate expert. It doesn't matter what Apple does or doesn't do.

The entire point of the operation is that consumers must have a means to make decisions. Rational decisions can only be made when information is presented. Apple does not present that information to consumers in a way that allows them to decide what they do. Apple loses. It's rather simple.

Once Apple starts documenting their policies and efforts, political and lobbying contributions, etc. then people have a basis on which to make decisions. Then the score should be updated.

This is a score that is more about getting companies to disclose information that's pertinent to environmentally conscious consumers for decision making purposes than it is about whether or not a particular company is currently (but secretly) doing the right thing.

To make a decision, you need to KNOW, having a good HUNCH is not good enough. So dear Apple fanboys, yes, Apple failed the test of documenting their deeds. The fact that between the lines you can read that at least a lot of Apple employees care about such things and do helpful things in that regards for Apple products is not enough.
e.g. you don't know if it's just the result of green-thinking Apple employees that certain ecologically sound decisions are made, or if there's a corporate policy that requires people to make the environmentally best choice.

How many people REALLY make their purchasing decisions based on a published (or unpublished) environmental stance of a company? Did you research GEs environment policy before buying that refrigerator?

People pay far more attention to the energy efficiency/water usage efficiency/whatever of their purchases than to the obscure published environmental position papers of corporations.

Climate Counts has an interesting attitude. Talk is more important than deeds.
Big or admired companies must voice climate change concerns publicly; not
because it will affect the climate, but because it will cause some to think that
"If Apple is so concerned about carbon footprints, I should be too." It is a
recruitment tool for weak-minded individuals to join the global warming cult.

Has anyone else noticed that all comments with names attached are skeptical?

who cares?

screw the tree huggers.