polluter. Just go about things as rightly as you can.

As for me, I honestly won't make knee-jerk assumptions about an organization that obviously has done more for bringing consciousness to protecting the planet than I have. But like most people (I hope), I do what I can.

I understand about longevity, packaging waste-reduction as a star on Apple's progress chart. However, if no-one is stepping up from Apple to address this more clearly, now, then I think it will be interesting to see how this issue plays out in the future, There's no doubt that the chemicals used in technology are very serious threats, especially when the recycling process is sent off to other countries, where you may not even hear of Greenpeace or their efforts. Who will take a stand then?

I think of this as a positive. A few people here seem a little worked up over an issue, that, really in the big-picture™ . . . would Greenpeace, or Apple, really change much if you didn't support one/the other?

I will continue to support both Apple and Greenpeace; I think Apple probably does more than is really highlighted in the report, yes. I also think, both A & G are noble in what they do. I would rather err on the side of a cleaner environment. There are bigger fish to fry than this article portrays. (Hopefully, free of heavy-metals, mercury, etc.)

Greenpeace is pointing out an issue that needs to be addressed. Landfills are a mess for a lot of reasons, partly because of their increasing mass and partly because they concentrate toxins that leach to the watertable, etc.

Greenpeace has a history filled with issues in which they were ahead of general population, issues that then became mainstream. Problems with electronics and waste are complicated issues. It is good that someone pushes the source of the problems.

And yes, I am an Apple stockholder, and I believe that Apple should lead, not follow, on this issue.

Why should Apple change its manufacturing policies according to Greenpeace's confabulated ranking? Apple's policies are clear and distinct. Some of these Greenpeace scores are not on current performance, but on published expectations. Apple doesn't reveal 'future" products readily and so if Greenpeace can't get the information- they score them low. Guilty until proven innocent. More technical renderings can be derived from: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/E83D58B3-10E0-4A9C-8847-BCE665EE235C.html Meanwhile- The fact that I just sold 2 2001 imacs which still operate fine and dandy accounts for the fact that the longevity factort of an existing product (where's your Dell from year 2000- in a landfill?) might outweigh these whiny Greenpeace attacks.

I don't know what Greenpeace is smoking. I dare you to find a computer or consumer electronics manufacturer who has a better recycling policy.

http://www.apple.com/environment/recycling/

Some highlights: -For customers in the United States, Apple offers a free recycling program of old computers and monitors with the purchase of a new Mac. -A free iPod recycling program, conducted through Apple’s retail stores, offers environmentally friendly disposal and a 10% discount on the purchase of a new iPod. -A trade-in program for educational and business customers in the United States has already diverted more than 60 tons of electronic waste from landfills since August 2005. -Apple’s recycling partnership with the city of Cupertino, California has recycled more than 155 tons of electronics. All electronics products are accepted free of charge, regardless of manufacturer. -We also participate in recycling programs in Asia, including national programs in Japan and Taiwan. -No waste from Apple’s US recycling program is shipped outside North America. All recovered materials are processed domestically, with the exception of some commodity materials that can be recycled for future use.

Next time they show their scabby faces at an Apple event, kick 'em in the balls. Especially if they're elitist prigs like "Christopher Johnson".

Hey, if you flip the list around, Apple's on top!

We're #1! We're #1! We're #1!

All of you sound like you have financial interest that are being hurt by this report. I see more flakiness in your weak arguments than Greenpeace's.

No, its not a financial interest. Its all about just spouting off at anyone or anything that dares say anything negative about Apple (or positive about Microsoft). If MS was last on the list, and Apple tops, they'd be talking about how this was a great organization that does alot of good work....after they finished mocking MS for their poor score, of course.

Monstermind - I don't see anything that Christopher Johnson said that would make him an "elitist prigs".

There's three "Re"s here... they're concentrating on the first.

Reduce Recycle Reuse

Let's say a Mac is 20% worse than a Dell in pollutants and packaging. If Macs stay in use on average 50% longer, they're still greener.

And Macs are probably the most re-used and re-sold personal computers out there. Count the lifespan of the product fairly, Greenpeace, and see where they end up.

Many of the arguments Greenpeace has made on their site just have too many holes to be credible.

My first issue with the thing is statements about TakeBack programs. Honestly, why are they taking the responsibility off the consumer for what they do with their old computers? How many other companies out there take back their products? Look in your yellow pages for computer recyclers and you will easily find probably a page full of places you can take your old equipment everyday rather than say Dell's model which where I live they have one or two days a year where you take it to their distribution center. Whereas my local landfill offers it's own recycling program where they will pick up your system from your home or business.

Next, the toxins issue they discuss. I love how they have pictures of these children in landfills holding an old Apple Keyboard amongst the mountain of PC keyboards. I would guess the Apple ones weren't found there and were instead given to the children to hold for the picture after the picture the children gave the keyboard back to the person so they could take it back home to plug into their computer. Regardless of that, the RoHS standards didn't exist when those particular keyboards were made. But Apple was the first to adopt the RoHS standards completely by the target date.

Percentage of computers taken back. HP pledges to take back 10% of their machines. That 10% is as many computers as Apple is going to sell in an entire year. So HP is likely throwing away 9 times as many computers as Apple manufactures in a year. That 10% that HP is taking back is likely their higher end machines that they are taking back from companies buying 100s at a time, they offer to take the company's old machines as part of the deal. The company is being responsible (and believe me they are bragging in some press release) and HP seals a huge deal.

HP makes $300-$500 machines that are far more dispossible than Apple's products. HP uses the lowest bid boards in their systems at the consumer level and I've seen my fair share of HP boards that are NOT RoHS compliant.

What Is the most glaring issue with the site is the fact that Apple simply didn't disclose their guarded manufacturing techniques to an organization that isn't a governmental entity that they are required to disclose to. So the information in the rating simply isn't complete. Obviously the is a Greenpeace shakedown.

Greenpeace? Shakedown? Naaaah... ;) You know, these ecological groups are starting to look less and less like people who give a c*** about the environment, and more and more like Tony Soprano. I keep getting calls from the Sierra Club, a California "green" organization, and they want me to cough up a $30/month contribution. Their biggest selling point for this level of participation? In their own words: "we won't call you for a whole year". Well, they got a few choice words of my own, and I no longer contribute. Whenever they call I yell at them and hang up. I think it's a sad state of affairs when groups that supposedly represent high ideals are led by common thugs.

The report is based on a loosely defined 10 point scale. Several of Apple's direct losses in its score (in fact you could easily say the majority) are a direct result of Apple's refusal to hand over manufacturing methods to Greenpeace. You can't really blame them. Sure, there are probably altruistic people in Greenpeace, but all it takes is one jerk to obtain that list, no matter what confidentiality agreements are in place, to pass on to another party. Heres a clue Greenpeace: the fact that Apple denied you instead of ignored you probably indicates that they DO have that list, but arent going to show it to you; especially after you start drama at their Expo.

If you look at the second part of the scoring, Apple doesnt even do that badly. And the other points that it lost , not due to releasing manufacturing information, were results of 'committed but no timetable.' OK: The united states is in Iraq...we don't have a timetable for withdrawl etc...does that mean we are not committed to improving the situation and getting our troops home? Give me a break. Giving a timetable for PVC/etc removal actually provides a lot of hints to other companies as to when Apple is going to revamp its manufacturing process...which will effect product releases. Apple's main advantage is its' secret knockout punch. It doesn't want to blow its cover.

Plus , if you ever met anyone who worked for Apple, you would know that they are totally a bunch of hippies and this story is complete BS. The good kind of hippies.

And COMON. Three MONTHS? I don't know any company that can mobilize that kind of change in 3 months time. Just because Dell has something on paper doesn't mean the wheels are rolling. You guys are being a little bit ridiculous.

I love the environment, but the cause isn't helped by clearly baised reports such as this. You only set us back. Jerks.

test test comment for cherry