I can't testify as to how many missing facts led to Apple ranking low compared to the other companies (something that has been claimed), but the over all truth remains:

There are ways of living that *cannot* continue indefinitely and there are ways of living that *can* continue indefinitely. Its called "sustainability".

Many of the comments from above show no awareness of this knowledge. You may not like the style or statistical science of Greenpeace in particular, but the larger sentiment (removing or containing toxins from electronics) is not just some "hippy idea", its a prerequisite for your grandchildren living a healthy life.

Its just like an alcoholic being confronted about his abuse of the bottle: sarcastic, intellectually vacuous, rancorous language that refuses to fly above the fray and really look at the big picture.

It also reminds me of folks who are probably concerned about their Apple stock portfolio first and foremost.

Please join us in the 21st century, where both sustainability and profitability are both possible.

-Christopher S. Johnson in Los Angeles, USA

I like to think I'm relatively 'green.' I'd tend to be friendly toward Greenpeace and their activities. I use Macs for work and home. But I sense that this report is really dodgy, in a sort of Weapons of Mass Disappearance sort of way.

The only info I've found which sheds any light on the report is here: Greenpeace Report Misleading and Incompetent http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/29C5599A-FCD8-4E30-9AD5-5497999ABA1B.html

I also suspect that this PR campaign focuses on Apple because they are one of the top brands, they have strong graphic ID that lends itself to parody, and because the iPod is extremely popular. http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/

I feel really disgruntled about this campaign. My trust of Greenpeace began to crumble after listening to one of their founders talk about the Brent Spar fiasco. With the Apple campaign, they seem to be losing whatever credibility they had remaining. Few in the media seem to care enough to take Greenpeace to task and force any kind of debate: a sound report? Another Brent Spar? Maybe Greenpeace just isn't relevant to environmentalism any more.

Sigh... what a waste of youthful energy that is.

Apple may only have 5% of the marketshare, but is far more recognizable than any of the other manufacturers. So, GP cares little that Apple takes a very active role in reducing their carbon and toxocity footprint (in fact, far more active than the top 5 'good' companies in GP's report) and that Macs and iPods are already 'greener' than their PC counterparts - GP cares that they can ride of the popularity coat tails of Apple, and they are doing so by, plainly, misrepresenting facts (i.e. "lying") in their statements.

Wouldn't have anything to do with GP also receiving sizable contributions from those companies they labeled as 'green' while receiving zero $$$ from Apple, could it?

It's ridiculous that Apple scored less than Dell. I did IT work for a company that bought all Dell stuff and felt sick every time I unpacked an LCD monitor 'cause of the crazy amount of packaging that was used. Are they considering how much styrofoam and plastic is used in packaging? Or is Apple just getting hassled 'cause they're the most popular and visible of the companies?

Every Apple I've owned has been passed on to someone when I've stopped using it and lasted years longer than any PC. So, with longer life-spans, less is going into landfills, unlike the disposable PC.

These sadcase leftist dumbf_cks need to have their faces repeatedly mashed against the Apple Store's tastefully designed glass cube (apologies to whoever has to clean up the smears).

Greenpeace is very definitely a terrorist group, no better than the Earth Liberation Front (LI's very own pack of eco-terror loonies). Anyone who IDs themselves as a member of Greenpeace should be brick-batted just to prevent their genes from spreading...

Monstermind, you are either from Greenpeace and trying to illicit sympathy by creating a fake "bully", or you are just a sad cartoon of a human being. Either way, nobody is paying you mind. Go have another drink. Merry Christmas.

I find the action delightfully creative. It's non-violent, on-topic, visually appealing, and exploits the target's own weakness. Pure aesthetic brilliance. Misguided, but brilliant. Unfortunately, by using bogus data to unfairly single out a company passionately loved by its customers, they end up weakening the very cause they claim to defend.

And just for the record: global warming is no longer up to debate. Its status in the scientific community is currently similar to that of "does smoking cause cancer": you can find a few "scientists" to dispute it, but all of them have been bought off.

I'm in favor of a cleaner environment; I'm not willing to ruin everyone's lives to see it.

Need another protestor with red lights to complete the Christmas theme over Apple Store's glass cube.

What ruined lives?

Have you read the report? The Biggest thing I came away after reading it is that basically Apple didn't put a date when X Y Z item would be replaced with more friendly items, not that the other companies had replaced them either but gave a date.

Doing some reading it appears there arn't replacements that are feasible to use yet. So basically the 'good' companies listed are giving an imaginary date, we know how those dates will hold up.

Just an opinion

Did you mean monstermind is a cartoon or a cretin? And I guess you really meant elicit instead of illicit. BTW in my opinion, GP is nothing more than a group of eco-terrorists and as relevant as MTV.

Z

No, I really meant "cartoon". As in a pale resemblance to an actual thinking human critic of the report from Greenpeace.

And my opinion is that I disagree with your opinion because it just doesn't hold water.

If there are problems with the report in an academic way, then that is a legitimate thing to consider. But this neanderthal Rush-Limbaugh-tough-bully-small-brain stuff is idiotic fluff that holds no value here. And it denies the good intentions behind the GP report in the first place -- which is undeniable.

There WILL be changes in the way electronics are made and recycled -- and even ignorant folks will have to comply. Just like one has to use a catalytic converter on your car today. All of the moaning about that just crumbled in the face of logic, morality, and common sense. The same will happen in other areas.

-Christopher S. Johnson

Its amazing the amount of venom being spouted just because the target happens to be Apple. "Corporations can do no wrong" yeah right... even Apple isn't perfect.

I'm an Apple fan and don't always agree with Greenpeace's tactics.... but as rule I believe the Greenpeaces of the world are necessary and beneficial to society.

While they may be- and sometimes are on the extreme side-people on the "fringes" are necessary in society to maintain balance and for the disimination of new ideas.

Greenpeace has been talking about Global Warning and the dangers of fossil feuls for years- long before it was fashionable! They were called nuts and cooks etc.. then but they were right. If these "extremest" don't call out corporations on environemental and labor practices- who will? The gov't? don't count on it.

The only pressure that will change Apple's practices or any other companies is the mighty dollar and public pressure. If Apple doesn't like protestors in front of their stores- they should deal with this issue.

Since when is a person who peacefully and legally protests a corporation a terrorist?

quote---------------------------------------------- define terrorism CIA - The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

You'd have to use the term "voilence" very losely and in business terms.. but yea. youre dead on using Terrorism to describe Greenpeace. :) -------------------------------end quote----------------

This definition was never intended to be used in "business terms " This is a democracy not a fascist stat where corporations need to be protected from consumers.

Who are the lemmings now?

So who is paying GP to target Apple? They must have a hidden agenda driven and funded by some large corporation threatened by Apple.

Have they not heard of light pollution? I think I am going to start an utterly obnoxious organization that protests against light pollution. They are infringing on the rites of those of us who like a darker atmosphere and messing up the environment with all those lights. That is artificial light and its unnatural, there is nothing green about that.

that greenpeace is targeting apple because apple is the media's darling/punching bag. if they were truly serious about their cause, they'd be lobbying for stricter controls on all electronics manufacturing from the source all the way down the line to the big box retailers.

"This definition was never intended to be used in "business terms "

So was the word p**** intended for something other than cats and willows? is it able to adapt and take on other meanings like female body parts or whimps? Get a clue...

The definition still fits.. bottom line.

premeditated - Yes politically motivated - Yes violence - No perpetrated against noncombatant targets - Yes by subnational groups or clandestine agents - yes intended to influence an audience - Yes

It's amazing how people can't accept a little criticism. The way you guys complain makes it seem that you personally have been attacked by GP or that you own Apple. Don't worry, this won't stop the next generation of toys from being released at Macworld.

Sure, there are other computer makers that put just as many toxins into their products but many of them have committed to reducing those chemicals--Apple is a little behind but not horrible. Otherwise, GP would be splattering green paint on the Sacred Cube.

Electronic waste is a growing problem and the shiny expensive little machines you buy at Apple go straight into the ground somewhere when you've moved on to the next one. Would you drink from a well in the same field that 10,000 macbook batteries were leeching their contents into the soil?

There is not an immediate solution to these question but shining green lights onto a store goes a long way to starting the conversation. Green lights, for God's sake, they didn't burn the store down.

a green Apple but not with GP. I would not care if any otehr organization cared for the environment but would appreciate if Apple did so.

WRT GP, I have been a former supporter but I do not believe in their ideology anymore. I stopped my subscription when GP never turned up or voiced concern against a decision by the local authorities to cut down 7000 tree (mostly 100+ year old) to build a super highway without replantation plans. Thanks to the local people and a few dedicated people the situation was averted but GP where were you? You, were running after coporate entities and finding "DEEPER" issues. Yes the environment issues you bring up are related to money and you are after money. No more said. I rest my case.

I request Apple to commit to a greener earth by themselves and not be pressured by GP.

I work for a LEED certified firm that designs "green" buildings, I've done the studies and am just appalled at what Greenpeae is doing here. I cannot figure out how it is that Apple is the focus of their attacks right now. It isn't like Apple uses any more or less harmful materials than the other computer companies, heck in many cases the components are manufactured in the same place as HP, or Dell components. Apple was one of the first to adopt RoHS standards. But it is a volume issue that brings the Greenpeace argument to a halt in my eyes, Because Apple didn't pledge that they will take back 10% of the computers they sell like HP pledged to do, they are bad. Unfortunatley, the 10% of computers that HP is taking back is more than the total number of computers Apple sells in a year. This means that 9 times as many HPs are being thrown away than the total number of Apple's production in a year.

Personally, I feel it it up to the consumer to recycle these systems, not the company, GE doesn't offer refrigerator take back programs, Honda doesn't take back junk cars. And there are plenty of computer recyclers out there that don't restrict when they take computers. Dell's take back program is 2 days a year you can take a unit to a distribution center. The computer store I work part time in will take old computers and dispose of them properly also.

This just feels to me like a corporate shakedown by Greenpeace because Apple might not have donated enough to their efforts this year. I just can't see how in their statistical research they can come up with this. My business declined to donate money to Greenpeace this year and perhaps forever.

Take advantage of what is left of democracy and go protest about the half off sale of K-Mart or complain about your overly sweet Mocha from Starbucks -- oh wait, that's nearly identical to protesting Apple's use of toxic plastics, better not do that now or we'll be a new wave of democrats who can point out the obvious!

They have rights. We have rights. It's obvious many of you are too preoccupied and self-centered to notice.

Although I disagree with GP's methods (and not just when my favorite computer company is targeted), I have to say that it was a droll protest. [comical in an odd or whimsical manner] Not to mention seasonal. Now only if Apple had strung some red iPods on the store front, we'd have a very seasonal effort!

As for terrorism. Folks, get a grip. All those flashlights are about as capable of illiciting fear as Buzz Lightyear's laser. Let's just hope the greenies used rechargable batteries.

Cheers,

BB

eldarkus,

Your liberal use of sterotypes and general intolerant demeanor do not help you make a point. They only reveal that it is highly probable that you're frightened bigot.

I can't believe that other computer manufacturers are better than Apple. Is Dell really more environmentally friendly? Or has Green Peace tunred it's attention towards Apple simply due to Aplle's increased popularity.

I guess GP only wanted to piss off certain people and not those who are overly religion-sensitive.

Then again, I'm SURE they do have a big problem with Xmas trees because these are cut down for display in or outside of a house.

I don't support the actions of any sort of ZEALOTS -- environmental or otherwise. And to me, that is all GP is. Environmental zealots. I too, like many here, would like to see Apple be more environmentally friendly, and I believe they will get there in time. But badgering them like this won't get Apple to move any faster and will only do more to add to GP's already spoilt-brat reputation. I for one, will NOT stop buying Apple products just because their self-absorbed manifest says I should. They failed to resonate with me. (and apparently the first 2-3 posters here too!)

You sound like you drank Tsudo's koolaid.

Read the GreenPeace site: . They went to Apple many times asking, explaining alternatives...and guess what, Dell and HP came to the plate first. If Apple doesn't announce something at MacWorld about this, I will start a campaign and be the first one to announce that GreenPeace can vote my shares at the next Apple stockholders meeting. Announcing RoHS compliance is nice, but it was mandatory...don't comply and you don't see in the EU. That was only one chemical. Enough pressure from HP and Dell and Apple and there will be ways to change everything. As was pointed out, GreenPeace is doing something that our grandchildren will thank us for. And yes, in Europe there is a mandatory 'return of goods' protocol called WEEE - see the site: ...including refrigerators and whatever else the snark was about.

Hoepfully you won't be too embarrassed for speaking on the wrong side of this issue when education changes your perspective. As usual, Greenpeace is ahead of their time and bringing this issue to our attention is not zealotry but common sense. Don't issue an apology for demeaning their good intentions, just send a donation.

It's painfully obvious that the pursuit of a clean and healthy environment is worth the while. However, some people and organizations take the methodology into the extreme, and downright to an abusive level.

Protesting to make their point is simply childish and idealistic (not to be confused with "realistic").