12/06/2006, 4:55pm, EST
Wednesday, December 6th
Apple places last in Greenpeace report
"Despite being a leader in innovation and design, Apple has made absolutely no improvements to its policies or practices since the ranking was first released three months ago," said Rick Hind, Legislative Director of Greenpeace USA's Toxics campaign. "Apple's bad green policy is not a wonderful life for workers in the scrap yards of the developing world, and we can't imagine that Steve Jobs would want to be the Mr. Potter of the high-tech industry this holiday season."
The organization notes that most companies now score above average points on the ranking guide, and only five companies failed to score the average of five points. Greenpeace notably mentions Acer and Lenovo for committing to eliminate the use of the most hazardous chemicals from their products, and honors Nokia which continues to hold the top spot in the ranking for both its chemicals policy and its disposal of electronic waste.
Greenpeace made an appearance at the Apple Expo in late October, handing out green Apple's as well as flyers to raise awareness about the Cupertino-based company's recycling and production methods. Expo organizers ejected the organization on the first day, however, after reportedly receiving numerous complaints about behavior of Greenpeace activists. Greenpeace returned for the duration of the expo without further incident.
Filed under: Apple
, 
, 23
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
Top
subscribe to comments
for this article
I used to like Greenpeace but I think they've hit an all-time low with this one.
No one cares about your petty little "Green Guide"! Your organization has little if any clout. Your science is skewed. Why waste your time?
From what I can tell most of the reason Apple scores so low on this idiotic ranking is that they refuse to disclose to Greenpeace the information that it is based on. As we all know Apple is one of the most secretive companies around and just doesn't like saying anything about its manufacturing processes. It could be the greenest company on the list for all we or Greenpeace know.
Common sense will tell you this-green peacers. Apple's smaller efficient designs use less natural and unnatural resources than their competitors. They last about 2-3 times as long meaning less replacement ergo less use of resources. They are proven to use less power than equivalent PCs-sensing a theme here yet-less resources. I could go on and on with the common sense stuff, but these cats use of pseudo science, bully tactics and questionable personal hygiene, make any complaint they have; laughable.
FYI running an auto through 2 tanks of gas 32 gallons of the stuff will put more toxins into the atmosphere than any residue from any computer-Apple or not!
Greenpeace-go suck eggs.
The split with the former leader is over nuclear energy.
The types of toxins from a car burning gas and a computer in the landfill are different.
Greenpeace makes an effort to "cancel out" their carbon footprint from flying and sailing with other actions.
Honestly, thou dost protest too much. These arguments in the above posts sound more like propaganda than level headed reasoning. I ask the onlookers here to come to their own conclusions and not fall for the "O'Riley" style attacks here.
And I'm not with Greenpeace, but I do think they have educated specialists on their staff who look into these kinds of things. Its what they do.
Christopher Johnson