EPA: Apple notebooks are most eco-friendly
updated 09:40 am EST, Mon January 8, 2007
EPA ranks Apple products
The Environmental Protection Agency has ranked Apple notebooks as the most environmentally-friendly portable computers in its EPEAT (Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool), according to a recent New York Times article. Computers ranked in the list must meet 23 mandatory criteria, and can optionally meet up to 28 additional criteria for to receive one of a bronze, silver, or gold medal. While no PC manufacturers scored a gold medal, Apple's MacBook Pro led the way for portables with all models meeting 17 optional criteria and receiving silver medals, according to Ars Technica. The company's Mac Pro met 16 optional criteria above the required 23, and its 20-, 23-, and 30-inch Cinema Displays met 15 optional criteria above the minimum required. The Greenpeace organization in late October of 2006 protested Apple's manufacturing processes at the Apple Expo in London, but was shown the door after Expo organizers reportedly received several complaints from unnamed sources.
Greenpeace recently published a report ranking Apple as the worst technology company with regard to environmental issues, grading 14 top manufacturers of personal computers and cellular phones on manufacturing processes. The organization later 'greened' Apple's flagship Fifth Avenue store in New York City, shining green lights into the glass cube to protest the use of toxic substances as they strive to encourage a 'greener Apple.'
hey Greenpeace...
01/08, 10:01am reply
from now on, your only interest is Apple should be how to make a bong out of one!
eldarkus
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Feb 2004
wrong target...
01/08, 10:17am reply
Seems like GreenPeace should be targetting a lot of 'other' manufactuers if Apple is the 'best'
trevc
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Mar 2000
Greenpeace
01/08, 10:32am reply
just wanted PR. Go after someone big, get attention.
l008com
Professional Poster
Joined: Jan 2000
pathetic greenpeace
01/08, 10:36am reply
You'll never convince Greenpeace of their errors. They're ideologically stunted pseudo-hippies that only listen to people that agree with their misguided views.
Tim_s
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2006
hey eldarkus...
01/08, 10:52am reply
Thank you for making my day. I'm still rotflmao!!!
Sprocket
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: May 2002
fact vs. perspective
01/08, 10:57am reply
Giving both the EPA and Greenpeace some benefit of the doubt - I'd like to know precisely what's so different about their criteria that could lead to such different reports.
cblackmo
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Nov 2006
Contradiction.
01/08, 11:01am reply
Interesting. The complaints of Greenpeace were mostly the use of toxic chemicals. So one of two things is true: Either Greenpeace is talking about an entirely different chemical (very probable), or something is awry in one of the two ranking systems.
(http://www.epeat.net/Criteria.aspx)
One of the things listed "required" is a product take-back. I didn't think Apple had this. They should be disqualified; am I wrong?
Tack
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jun 2006
Apples and Oranges
01/08, 11:03am reply
The EPAs assessment uses various criteria, Greenpeace focused on toxic materials. Interestingly, EPA ratings gave Mac product very good ratings for environmental toxins, even PVCs. That is contrary to Greenpeace's assertions about PVC. The EPA also gave poor Energy Conservation ratings and Materials Selection (recycled sources) to Apple's products.
However, there is one glaring omission and this invalidates that statement that all Apple's laptops have the best rating. The EPAs ratings for Apple laptops DO NOT INCLUDE MACBOOKS, only the MacBook Pros. So, we can't say because those laptops are not included. And they could contain PVCs, as their cases are not metal.
Second, Apple did not get the highest rating on their laptops. They got a Silver rating; the highest would have been a GOLD rating. We can't say their Silver is higher than all other notebook makers, as 140 some other non-Apple notebooks also had Silver ratings. There were no Gold ratings. I suppose you could say since they had equal to 140 others they are among the highest. But Bronze/Silver/Gold categories are not themselves quantitative.
Lastly, Greenpeaces assertions also focus much upon iPods, which have quite a bit more plastic in them. These estimates don't include music players.
Did Greenpeace overstate its claims? Maybe, but without better data we can't completely exhonerate Apple.
umijin
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jun 2004
Apple unecological
01/08, 11:09am reply
I wonder if Greenpeace takes into account the impact of the Itunes Music store and the iPod with respect to the removal of thousands if not millions of plastic discs, paper CD inserts, and Jewel cases that Apple has kept demand for very low by offering a way to keep thousands of songs in the palm of your hand and delivered electrnically. Sometimes its less about materials used and more about the bigger picture.
Guest
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Nov 1999
yup, yup and yup
01/08, 11:16am reply
For every billion songs Apple sells via iTunage, I'd wager they keep at least 100 million CDs from being pressed. Word.
Rezzz
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jan 2006