Actually, there is a Taurus car club called the Taurus Car Club of America.

The kind that forgave their parents for lying to them about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny (and who can therefore forgive Greenpeace anything, because it is in their view intentions that matter); and the rest of us, who think that honesty and integrity are what really should take priority.

We can look at this another way, being 14th isn't bad :)

I'd love to see if *any* Greenpeace members use Macs or if they live up to their own rhetoric and boycott Apple products?

Doemel,

I agree there is a problem. However, Greenpeace's grading method hurts its credibility. For starters, it says its methodology is totally subjective. This is by design because this lets it go after companies, such as Apple, with high profiles even if the companies are not the worst offenders.

Next, Greenpeace's major concern with Apple is that Apple, unlike companies like Dell and HP, has not publicly came up with some artificial time line years in the future when it will allegedly stop using the complained of materials. That is BS because as many other credible sources have noted Apple actually is in the fore front of some environmental efforts, and its small market share makes it a far less concern then companies like Dell. Nonetheless, Dell gets a better rating, even though it is a far worse polluter then Apple, just because it publicly says it will stop polluting in the future. Come on, how can you support an organization like that? You can find articles where Jobs acknowledge years ago that CRT monitors would be a major environmental concern, and is one of the reasons Apple put them to rest early.

If Greenpeace has any credibility it would pick the company that ships the most polluting product, and go after it. Traditionally, you go after the most significant source of a problem, which in this case would be HP or Dell.

Dscottbuch:

Greenpeace is not lying. There is a problem. It is just Greenpeace is is using wholly subjective criteria to go after Apple even though Apple is more environmentally responsible then the competition, and a small contributor of the over all problem. Greenpeace tells you its methods are subjective, and why Apple is graded low. As poor as I find Greenpeace's methods of addressing the problem, it is beyond dispute, however, that the complained of chemicals are a major health concern.

at the report, you'll see what they are complaining about... go ahead and look, I'll wait...

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-apple-rank-2.pdf

They majority of their complaints center around Apple not publicizing exactly what they are doing. Around there not being any publicly available timelines, comprehensive lists, etc.

The funny thing is that Apple could make up some imaginary timelines and a few lists of controlled substances and jump to the top of the list without actually doing anything of consequence.

That's why no one is buying into what Greenpeace is saying, because their ratings system is all fluff. It's about what the companies say they will do, not necessarily what they are actually doing. Apple could commit to remove all remotely toxic chemicals in use today from their manufacturing by 2015 and the rating would jump 5 points. Somehow, I find that makes for a rather useless statistic.

ANd I guess my Apple contributes to Global Warming too!

And Al Gore is on their board. OH GOD the worlds coming to the end, the sky is falling.