If Apple were really that bad, Gore would want off the board. Unless he's full of hot air.

Some of these programs would have been in place when greenpeace last talked to Apple and the initial low score published. Just the fact that Apple has gotten rid of the crt and the packing material several years ago and the other companies still sell them should have elevated Apple's scores significantly and lower the scores of the other companies, IMO, and should have place Apple at least on par with the other companies. The fact that Apple cut off ties with Greenpeace, to me, tells me that they thought that Greenpeace had unfairly singled them out.

The good thing about all this, if it has increased Apple's attention on these issues, then that is a good thing. It doesn't change my opinion about Greenpeace though. I still think very poorly of them. It would seem that Apple called them on their bluff and had the juice to back it up to a large degree. I am thinking that Apple probably has pushed up some of their programs for this announcement to show Greenpeace up(and I think they did a good job of it).

Neal

Greenpeace needs Apple for publicity. That was the best free ride they've gotten in a long time.

Quote

nealg wrote:
I still think very poorly of them.

Agreed. Greenpeace just needed something to do after they solved that Whaling problem.

Although I support the cause, I do not particularly like Greenpeace's methods. Nonetheless, it is hard to question it's results. Greenpeace wanted Apple to react to its efforts and it did.

Moreover, Greenpeace has not really been dishonest about anything. It provides its methodology, and has admitted that it is being particular hard on Apple because of its popularity.

However, I am confused how in the post Apple announcement that Dell and HP still come out ahead of Apple. Perhaps it has to do with Apple's recycling efforts, which on Greenpeace's scale is not so good. If anyone can explain that to me in a rational way, I'd appreciate it.

I don’t think Jobs’ Greener Apple letter was in response to Greenpee. It was forced by the shareholder resolution. As luck would have it, Steve was able to kill two birds with one stone. That’s all.

Greenpeace's methodolgy is based on announcement. Read their fluffy piece above: To get a perfect score, Apple is supposed to Announce, Announce, Announce. Maybe Apple can get 12 out of 10 points by crawling a bit more into Greenpeace's arse and Announcing that everything they do is just thanks to Greenpeace's help and how grateful they are.

The reality is that Greenpeace has not the slightest influence on Apple and Steve Jobs, and that is what is really really getting to them. Everything that Apple has Announced it has already done over the last years. And that is what people _really_ want: They want results, not announcements. And Apple has proved that they produce results. Greenpeace is just getting more and more irrelevant.

Really? Who do you think then Steve Jobs refers to when he says 'environmental organization' in his letter? Greenpeace had been also working with major Apple's shareholders...

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Really? Who do you think then Steve Jobs refers to when he says 'environmental organization' in his letter? Greenpeace had been also working with major Apple's shareholders...

Who do _you_ think he was referring to? If Steve Jobs wanted to refer to Greenpeace, he would have referred to Greenpeace. And he didn't. So obviously he wasn't referring to Greenpeace.

And Greenpeace isn't working with anybody. Greenpeace just reminds me of one of the more stupid Dilbert jokes, where the PHB (Pointy Haired Boss) says to Dilbert: "It seems that I am much better at setting targets than you are at reaching them".

Quote

Guest wrote:
Really? Who do you think then Steve Jobs refers to when he says 'environmental organization' in his letter?

Personally, i think it was Warren Beatty.

You misquoted Jobs. What he actually wrote was: “environmental organizations”. That’s plural, and that’s significant. He clearly was not responding to any particular group. His exact words were: “Apple has been criticized by some environmental organizations for not being a leader in removing toxic chemicals from its new products, and for not aggressively or properly recycling its old products.” He then goes on to tell why these unnamed groups are full of s_h_i_t.

I’m sure Greenpee, as Carly Simon might sing, is so vain as to think this letter is about them. It is not, though. Apple’s annual shareholders meeting is next week, and there are a couple environmental proposals on the agenda. That, i am sure, is what is behind the timing of this letter. As i said, it also had the advantage of killing another bird with the same stone.

Apple has consistently done better than Dell and HP based on several environmental criteria. Why then does Greenpeace still rank Apple below Dell and HP?

How much fuel does greenpeace waste with their boats? There are hypocrites amongst us. Not to mention Mr. Gore and his energy use. Oh but do as I say, not as I do.

Quote

Theophilus wrote:
If Apple were really that bad, Gore would want off the board. Unless he's full of hot air.

Or... Since Apple is that bad, Al Gore needs to be on the board in order to help promote the cause. Without him, Apple would never make it where it needs to be.

Quote

Rainy Day wrote:
I don’t think Jobs’ Greener Apple letter was in response to Greenpee. It was forced by the shareholder resolution. As luck would have it, Steve was able to kill two birds with one stone. That’s all.

It was? What was the resolutoin and when was it voted on? How long did it take from the vote on the resolution to letter being released? Did the resolution specifically require an open letter to the public?

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Really? Who do you think then Steve Jobs refers to when he says 'environmental organization' in his letter? Greenpeace had been also working with major Apple's shareholders...

Who do _you_ think he was referring to? If Steve Jobs wanted to refer to Greenpeace, he would have referred to Greenpeace. And he didn't. So obviously he wasn't referring to Greenpeace.

You are saying there are more environmental organizations that are criticizing Apple? Actually, since SJ's letter uses the plural, there must be more orgs that are concerned about Apple's affect on the environment. So it's not Greenpeace, it's the active environmentalist community that has problems with Apple. Interesting.

Who do you think influenced the shareholder resolutions? Greenpeace received support from over 1500 organizations regarding its standoff with Apple.

Moreover, Jobs was cleary referring to Greenpeace because he was specifically debunking Greenpeace's unique methodology used to rank Apple.

Quote

Rainy Day wrote:
I don’t think Jobs’ Greener Apple letter was in response to Greenpee. It was forced by the shareholder resolution. As luck would have it, Steve was able to kill two birds with one stone. That’s all.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Who do you think influenced the shareholder resolutions? Greenpeace received support from over 1500 organizations regarding its standoff with Apple.

Moreover, Jobs was cleary referring to Greenpeace because he was specifically debunking Greenpeace's unique methodology used to rank Apple.

Quote

Rainy Day wrote:
I don’t think Jobs’ Greener Apple letter was in response to Greenpee. It was forced by the shareholder resolution. As luck would have it, Steve was able to kill two birds with one stone. That’s all.

"specifically debunking"... from dictionary.com - debunking. Yeah, I'd say the falseness of Greenpeace's ratings should be known. Nice word that "debunking".

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

Rainy Day wrote:
I don’t think Jobs’ Greener Apple letter was in response to Greenpee. It was forced by the shareholder resolution. As luck would have it, Steve was able to kill two birds with one stone. That’s all.

It was? What was the resolutoin and when was it voted on? How long did it take from the vote on the resolution to letter being released? Did the resolution specifically require an open letter to the public?

Yeah, um, it wasn't. It was purely a response to Greenpeace. The timing was no coincidence, Greenpeace forced SJ's hand.

There was some good news and some lacking information in Steve's statement.

The Good:

For the first time, Apple has publicly committed to specific timelines for phasing out certain toxic chemicals from their products. Jobs said Apple will have phased out all Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) from all products by 2008. This is more aggressive than Dell, HP, and Lenovo’s commitments to date.

For the first time, Apple announced some metrics and goals for their takeback program’s performance, stating that they collected 13 million pounds of e-waste in 2006, which is 9.5% of the products sold 7 years ago (using the metric that Dell uses), which is similar to the percent collected by Dell and HP.


The Bad:

Apple’s announcement did not address other demands by the groups for fixing problems with Apple’s current takeback programs for computers, including making them easier for customers to use. (Free takeback isn’t available to customers buying from Apple resellers, only from Apple directly. Customers need to select the takeback option when they are buying - it’s not retroactive - and they must send back their old equipment in 30 days or the offer expires.)

While Jobs’ statement on not using prison labor was a welcome announcement, it did not dispel environmentalists’ fears that Apple (or their recyclers) may be exporting e-waste to developing countries for processing.

Apple’s statement says they aren’t exporting e-waste for "disposal". Well nobody is exporting electronic waste for disposal. To save a buck, massive quantities of e-waste is sent to China, India, or Africa for "recycling" or "re-use" where it ends up being recycled in horrific primitive operations that include riverbank acid stripping, wire-burning, and circuit board cooking, or simply dumped and burned, Apple’s statement seems deliberately designed as feel-good "greenwash", and makes us really wonder if they even know where their electronic waste goes, or understand that they may well be in perpetuating a violation of international environmental trade law.

Also suspect is the statement, “All e-waste is processed in the U.S.” since there is no smelter in the US that can handle circuit boards in large quantities. Most responsible processors use Canadian or European smelters.