Apple ranked last in ‘greenness’ | iLounge News

News

Apple ranked last in ‘greenness’

Greenpeace International has Apple placed last in its recent rankings for environmental friendliness among major electronics companies. A spokesperson for Greenpeace claims Apple failed to stop using several types of harmful chemicals in its manufacturing processes, and has yet to make a plan for stopping their use. Apple, meanwhile, is rejecting the rankings, claiming its products are among the “greenest” in the world.

“We disagree with Greenpeace’s rating and the criteria they chose,” Apple spokeswoman Sheryl Seitz said, reading a prepared statement. “Apple has a strong environmental track record and has led the industry in restricting and banning toxic substances such as mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium, as well as many BFRs (brominated flame retardants).”

« New Bose TriPort IE tips arrive, with pictures

DRM-free video from iTunes unlikely »

Related Stories

Comments

1

Come-on guys, It’s Greenpeace! Who cares what they say? They have no credibility in the ‘real world’. None. Apple ohould tell them to take a flying leap.
Bill H.

Posted by Avalon0387 on April 3, 2007 at 10:17 AM (PDT)

2

While I’m not sure who I believe (and I suspect both parties are right and wrong), I’m not sure that Apple should be spinning compliance with international laws as leading environmental awareness. These snippets are from apple.com/environment:

“2006: All Apple products worldwide are compliant with the European Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in electronics, also known as the RoHS Directive.”

“2004: Phase-out of substances restricted by the European Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) initiated.”

“2001: All Apple computers and displays meet applicable ENERGY STAR® requirements. They continue to do so.”

It sounds like Greenpeace’s point is that they are looking for innovative companies to also be innovative in how they treat the environment, not just in compliance.

Posted by Scott on April 3, 2007 at 10:57 AM (PDT)

3

Bill H (or Avalon0387) by dismissing Greenpeace, I think YOU’RE the one who has lost all credibility.

Posted by urbanslaughter on April 3, 2007 at 11:16 AM (PDT)

4

Is Greenpeace going to pull this every other week now? All they demonstrate by that is their lack of understanding of product development cycles. Of course everybody wants Apple to make their products even greener, Apple included, for the obvious reasons. But unless a product violates regulations, one can hardly force them to “stop the press!” mid-circle to sort out some single component. Greenpeace may come and ##### about every new-generation Apple product that is not improved over the last although improvements were possible. This constant nagging however is - at least in my perception - only increasing preoccupations against Greenpeace.

Posted by Bad Beaver on April 3, 2007 at 11:20 AM (PDT)

5

Reducing packaging for the iPods was a step in the right direction.

Posted by Galley in Greenville, SC on April 3, 2007 at 11:33 AM (PDT)

6

Jeese, who really cares! Are there actually people who wouldn’t buy a particular computer based on something this unimportant? Greenpeace…nobody’s listening to you anymore!

Posted by rg_spb on April 3, 2007 at 11:43 AM (PDT)

7

Unimportant?...You are so ignorant.  Ever heard of global warming?

Posted by smiles on April 3, 2007 at 12:00 PM (PDT)

8

was reducing the packaging a step in the right direction.
Its plastic now.  non degradible plastic
it was paper before.

Posted by don711 on April 3, 2007 at 12:12 PM (PDT)

9

for the mini’s and shuffle i mean

Posted by don711 on April 3, 2007 at 12:13 PM (PDT)

10

Greenpeace’s claims have been debunked in a BusinessWeek article and a series of articles at roughlydrafted.com.

Posted by ThomasW on April 3, 2007 at 12:39 PM (PDT)

11

I don’t believe GreenPeace. After all, Al Gore is on Apple’s board and it wouldn’t look good for his environmental message if Apple was that bad.

Posted by will_bc on April 3, 2007 at 1:25 PM (PDT)

12

Just how would Greenpeace know about Apple’s manufacturing process?

Posted by Bonk on April 3, 2007 at 1:36 PM (PDT)

13

@will_bc

Does Al Gore’s excessive home energy use look good for his environmental message?

http://newsbusters.org/node/11073

“Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.”

Posted by dodo on April 3, 2007 at 1:43 PM (PDT)

14

Of course, Al Gore’s home also uses twice as much electricity in one month as the average American home uses in one year, so I don’t know that I would hold him up as an example or think that Apple must be environmentally sound because he is on the board.  He’s just as bad, and probably worse than most of us.  He talks the talk, but he doesn’t walk the walk.

Posted by Brett on April 3, 2007 at 1:52 PM (PDT)

15

It’s always interesting when these comment threads get political. I think I’ll sit this one out, thank you very much.

Posted by BJ Nemeth on April 3, 2007 at 2:19 PM (PDT)

16

I hope the Greenpeacers are enjoying their iPods.

Posted by Bobo714 on April 3, 2007 at 2:23 PM (PDT)

17

Greenpeace…nobody’s listening to you anymore!

When did this place start to get populated by Farkers?

Posted by superape on April 3, 2007 at 2:30 PM (PDT)

18

dodo, I am not a member of the Democratic Party, I am not even American, but nevertheless I feel a wee bit insulted by the blandness of the propaganda behind your link. It’s the same as with Greenpeace. Even if there is “truth” to the cause, the execution buries it under several shovels of shame.

Posted by Bad Beaver on April 3, 2007 at 2:44 PM (PDT)

19

Whether or not Greenpeace’s claims are true, it certainly wouldn’t hurt Apple to look into more environmentally friendly solutions for how they do things. You don’t have to be OMG LIBERAL to care about the environment, and there is always room for improvement.

Posted by gggg on April 3, 2007 at 3:00 PM (PDT)

20

The size of iPod packaging has changed dramatically over the years - this is one small change that must be better on resources. The packaging for my original 1st gen iPod was massive - the newer 5th gen model is tiny in comparison. Plus, the removal of certain iPod items that not everyone uses is better too.

Posted by RobF1 on April 3, 2007 at 3:53 PM (PDT)

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy