04/03/2007, 10:15am, EDT
Tuesday, April 3rd
Apple ranks last in Greenpeace report
"We disagree with Greenpeace's rating and the criteria they chose," said Apple spokeswoman Sheryl Seitz. "Apple has a strong environmental track record and has led the industry in restricting and banning toxic substances such as mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium, as well as many BFRs (brominated flame retardants)."
Greenpeace issued Apple an extra-negative rating, however, for its lack of headway in abandoning the use of BFRs. Kruszewska admitted that the choices of manufacturers and judging criteria are subjective, but said that Greenpeace tries to be "fair and transparent" in offering advanced warning to companies.
The organization elected to "green" Apple's flagship Fifth Avenue New York store in mid-December of last year, following an update of Greenpeace's 'Guide to Greener Electronics' which ranked Apple the worst technology company with regard to environmental issues.
Greenpeace activists were ejected from the Mac Expo in London last year, where the group set up a 'Green my Apple' stall to hand out flyers and organic green Apples to event participants. Event organizers said they received complaints from unnamed sources, and that Greenpeace activists gathered outside the show entrance to hand out flyers depicting Apple as one of the worst computer manufacturers for including harmful materials in its product to attendees entering the event.
Filed under: Apple
,
, 21
,
,
,
,
,

subscribe to comments
for this article
But it won't matter because GP operates outside the usual bounds of propriety to enhance their fund raising operation.
As an envirnmentalist myself, I cringe whenever GP comes out with a new press release because the credibility of the whole movement suffers.
Is MacNN the secret technical arm of Greenpeace?
http://www.apple.com/environment/recycling/
Its this 'ends justifies the means' approach that is killing Greenpeace. If they can't get their point across without lying about the fact the can you really value their point? Do you really know there is a problem or do just rely on organizations like Greempeace? If you do then you relying on liars. Should you??? Can you really tell which of their statements are lies of convenience and which are truth? Try reading 'State of Fear' of an interesting, and reasonably balanced (albeit fictional) take on this.