04/27/2007, 2:20pm, EDT
Friday, April 27th
Apple investors urge company to go green
"The timetable is a number one goal, and something on par with or hopefully better than Dell would be preferred," a Trillium spokesperson said. "But we'd also like to see [Apple] making a broader commitment to getting out of the use of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic chemicals."
The Cupertino-based company has repeatedly come under fire from Greenpeace activists who continue to push for a "greener Apple." The environmental group ranked Apple last in its 'Guide to Greener Electronics,' which followed the company's low score on a Greenpeace environmental report card that detailed the use of toxic chemicals.
Greenpeace even protested Apple by 'greening' the company's flagship Fifth Ave. Store in New York, shining green flood lights into the store's famous glass cube at street level. Activists later projected large images on the wall of Apple's San Francisco store of Asian scrap yards where many electronic products end up when they are finally discarded.
"Apple is a leader in creative thinking and design, and we are encouraging them to expand that innovative know-how to making all of their products green," Greenpeace USA's Toxics campaign Legislative Director Rick Hind said in January.
Filed under: Apple
, 
, 11
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
Top
subscribe to comments
for this article
Every Apple product I have purchased, still has a home within mine (including the original packaging). The same can not be said for my PC components from years of building computers.
If Apples product continue to be built and designed with quality first, I say they have already won in the "green" department. 1 "less green" Apple > 5 "green" Dells in the landfill (in my opinion).
Green can mean a lot of things. Harmful chemicals, no doubt important to address, my question is this: With Apple's low, low tiny 0.00002 one-trillionth of a percent marketshare, are they *proportionately* out-polluting other companies?
In fact, my take, like guest's: hundreds of millions of PCs, produced as throwaways (planned obselescence), is WASTEFUL. How much extra fuel (CO2 emissions) to ship 2 boxes -- monitor + cpu .... the iMac and other all-in-one designs have also eliminated excess factory production of cables, brought down power consumption ...
To be human is to be wasteful; I hardly think Apple is the worst ... others have pointed out one fantastic point: people tend to use their Macs 2-3 times longer ...
While up to individual users: I also think the energy-settings for Macs have always been way better than a PCs, and I manage a small PC lab at work. It's just great that a Mac is so much more intuitive to use (like I need to convince anyone here on this 'board.)
Many folks have balked at Greenpeace ... while I respect their aims, I really, really, really wonder how good the comparisons of "greener" companies are? There's so much to consider. I am glad the discussion is going on, but (ehem, MacNN) the FUD seems fud-dy duddy to me....
Green can mean a lot of things. Harmful chemicals, no doubt important to address, my question is this: With Apple's low, low tiny 0.00002 one-trillionth of a percent marketshare, are they *proportionately* out-polluting other companies?
In fact, my take, like guest's: hundreds of millions of PCs, produced as throwaways (planned obselescence), is WASTEFUL. How much extra fuel (CO2 emissions) to ship 2 boxes -- monitor + cpu .... the iMac and other all-in-one designs have also eliminated excess factory production of cables, brought down power consumption ...
To be human is to be wasteful; I hardly think Apple is the worst ... others have pointed out one fantastic point: people tend to use their Macs 2-3 times longer ...
While up to individual users: I also think the energy-settings for Macs have always been way better than a PCs, and I manage a small PC lab at work. It's just great that a Mac is so much more intuitive to use (like I need to convince anyone here on this 'board.)
Many folks have balked at Greenpeace ... while I respect their aims, I really, really, really wonder how good the comparisons of "greener" companies are? There's so much to consider. I am glad the discussion is going on, but (ehem, MacNN) the FUD seems fud-dy duddy to me....
The #1 goal of being more eco-conservative is to actually *do* something, not to announce that you will do something in the future.
How can this even be a debate? This is why no one takes Greenpeace seriously anymore...
Z
Apple is in the same position as China...not the largest in many categories, but expanding rapidly. Now is the time to make changes for the better, to make a commitment to get rid of the BFRs and PVC plastic. Say it and do it.
I have gone through dozens and maybe hundreds of Macs over the years with different companies. Regardless of whether they are used an extra few years longer than whatever strawman you want to compare them to, all but a few portables stacked up in yonder corner are in some landfill somewhere.
Think of all the post houses that will be changing this year because of the change to FCP and Adobe's new intel offerings. Think of the expanding corporate market and the thousands that are going to schools. Sure, the original iBooks can still crank a page or two, but most have been replacede. It is a lot of landfill and a lot of plastic, and gasous poisons being created...and there is a lot more to come.
I own and have held my stock in Apple because they are leaders. I will write these people and give them my stock's proxy to vote with.