Apple ranked last in ‘greenness’ | iLounge 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




Seriously though, there’s one point overlooked: Mac computers last longer (at least in domestic use) than Windows PCs. Because of this, fewer have to be bought to replace them.

There’s even a market for blue and white G3s and old iMacs. PCs of that era are on the junk pile.

Posted by Pikemann_Urge on April 3, 2007 at 7:42 PM (CDT)


Bad Beaver, I am an American and a member of the Democratic Party.  Heck, I voted for Gore in 2000.  I don’t care for the propaganda behind my link either but it was at the top of my Google search for “Al Gore 20 times” so I linked it first. 

I just wanted to point out the fallacy in will_bc’s argument suggesting that Al Gore’s presence on Apple’s board precludes the possibility that Apple might not be particularly environmentally friendly.

Posted by dodo on April 3, 2007 at 7:44 PM (CDT)


“Of course, Al Gore’s home also uses twice as much electricity in one month as the average American home uses in one year”

Never mind that he buys green energy that cost more than regular electricity or the fact that he has 3 businesses running out of his home in addition to staff and security - sounds hypocritical for a man to say cut your carbon emissions and… oh wait he’s not putting off carbon using green energy - so whats the problem?

Posted by Jeff on April 3, 2007 at 7:49 PM (CDT)


How much more are people willing to pay for their iPods if Apple adopted more green materials which raise the costs of making iPods?

$10 more?  $20?  $50?

Posted by wco81 on April 3, 2007 at 8:49 PM (CDT)


Blow it out your wookie hole Creampeace!!!

Posted by OneWookieToAnother on April 3, 2007 at 9:07 PM (CDT)


Apple is sooooo full of it…

Posted by Me on April 3, 2007 at 10:27 PM (CDT)


I’m guessing that if I had a mansion 20 times larger than the average home then I’d burn 20 times the electricity. My house is bigger than a downtown apartment and I have extended family living with us, consuming more electricity. Its just not a valid argument. Its like saying 10 people drive 10 cars is okay, but 10 people on a big bus is bad.  The key word was “mansion”, not house. If Gore drove a Hummer for himself only, that’s different.

Posted by will_bc on April 4, 2007 at 3:13 AM (CDT)


will_bc- exactly.  Why should he have a house 20x the normal size unless he’s housing 20 families in it?  It’s environmentally irresponsible to have a house that size for 1 family even if he does have some staff in there (I guarantee it’s not the equivalent of 19 additional families).  These gratuitously large houses are the housing equivalent of Hummers.

Posted by dodo on April 4, 2007 at 6:44 AM (CDT)


I just have to respond to dodo, about the link you posted.  It says right at the top “Newsbusters; exposing the liberal media bias”...doesn’t sound like the most objective source.

Posted by Andie on April 4, 2007 at 12:22 PM (CDT)


first of all, Gore is not buying 100% “green” energy. He buys the same as the rest of us, it is only supplemented by “green” energy. what % who knows, but typically that may account for maybe 10%.

second, he is a hypocrite because he tells everyone to conserve, then he will fly all over the place and uses 20x the norm. then when confronted he says that he buys carbon credits that offset his use from his own company no less.

offsets are not conserving, he is a lying hypocritical snake oil salesman and too many people are buying his crap

Posted by hydra-calm on April 4, 2007 at 12:52 PM (CDT)

Page 2 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 channel entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter


Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter


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