In a development that should remind everyone that just because an organisation has green aims, we should exercise some critical thinking and not just take their claims as gospel, the US Environmental Protection Agency tells us that Greenpeace have got it all wrong: Apple products are actually amongst the most environmentally-friendly computers out there.
Greenpeace has been doing a bit of publicity-grabbing recently by slagging Apple off for not being very green, getting themselves ejected from Mac Expo for invading other exhibitors' stands and other unreasonable behaviour, and other stunts designed to try to get their message exposed in the reflected light of Apple's media-friendly halo. If that seems like an overly-harsh assessment, let's consider that Apple, whilst not being whiter-than-iPod-white, is not nearly as bad as companies like HP and Dell which haven't been targeted by Greenpeace.
I won't bore you with the details of the EPA's test, because if you're that interested you can read the arstechnica article. Suffice to say that whilst no computer got the gold standard award during the EPA tests, "Apple has the most eco-friendly notebooks, the 4th most eco-friendly desktop, and monitors that [rate better than HP and Dell]." I'm writing this on a MacBook Pro hooked up to an Apple Cinema Display so I'm pleased I'm not as bad as Greenpeace says. (Not that I'd ever be persuaded to switch to a windows PC.)
Related stories: Greenpeace sez: Apple sucks, Nokia rules | How to Throw Away that Broken iPod | Apple Patents Hybrid Low Power Computer Mouse
EPA information should make GreenPeace red-faced over Apple targeting [via The Unofficial Apple Weblog]
Greenpeace was not wrong. They were putting pressure on Apple not for eco-unfriendly products, but for not making publicly available environmental policies for years ahead. Greenpeace electronics report is not about how much green the computer is today, but how much green it will be in the future.
You can find everything explained here: here:http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/greening-of-apple-310507
This is usually the case. Greenpeace gets it wrong and the US government gets it right. Like that DDT stuff back in the 70s. And nuclear fallout -- perfectly safe! And Greenpeace was crying that sky was falling back in 1986 when they started talking about that Ozone hole and global warming, too.
Thank god we have Hippie Shoppers who know that our government would never lie to us, and that the Bush administration has the highest environmental standards!
"The US Environmental Protection Agency tells us that Greenpeace have got it all wrong: Apple products are actually amongst the most environmentally-friendly computers out there."
Actually, the EPA's environmental standards are among the least environmentally-friendly out there.
Greenpeace's rank was based on higher criteria than the EPA's, and included committments to phase out PVC, for example, which other manufacturers like Dell and HP had agreed to do, and which Apple, until May 2nd, had not.
The EPA itself has acknowledged that you can't compare the two.
IT Week actually called the EPA folks for their take:
http://green.itweek.co.uk/2007/01/greenpeace_defe.html
And the full story of the (successful) Greenpeace campaign is here:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/greening-of-apple-310507
Actually, Greenpeace ran successful campaigns against dell and hp prior to running their apple campaign. Apple has had a more prominent profile because, until recently, they were unwilling to budge.
Just as a side note, does anybody still trust the Bush EPA? I'll put my confidence in Greenpeace before those guys any day of the week.