To answer your ‘real question’:

“Does this mean we will see protestors at the headquarters of HP?”

The press release for the Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics led with failure of HP, Dell and Lenovo to stick to their commitment:

“The latest edition of Greenpeace’s “Guide to Greener Electronics” ranking, released today, reveals that the world’s biggest PC makers – Hewlett Packard (HP), Dell and Lenovo – have failed to improve their low scores.”

Followed by the pressure we are putting on HP:

HP has already received a public reminder of the need to re-prioritize toxic chemical phase out, when Greenpeace activists returned “toxic laptops” to the company’s Chinese headquarters last week. Today, staff at HP’s Dutch headquarters were greeted on arrival by Greenpeace activists confronting them with pictures of the pollution that HP’s toxic products cause in Asia and Africa. Greenpeace will continue to escalate pressure on HP and other companies who fail to live up to their voluntary commitments.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/greener-electronics-companie

The images of these HP protests are also prominent on our website:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/hp-lenovo-and-dell-010709

On toxics phase out we are holding up Apple’s positive action as an example to their competitors who are not making good progress, such as HP.

Tom Dowdall
Greenpeace International

Why do you think it would be any different? Apparently those “industrialists” you decry don’t live in the Earth they’re supposedly destroying.

Get over it. If Apple’s products are made even more environmentally friendly because of this report, what’s the problem?

this should also mean that the typical Apple user is more sensitive to ecological questions., maybe, or at least it is supposed to be, therefore all this attention.

But, the holier than thou crowd – frankly – makes me fart in their general direction.

It’s one thing to be secretive about your new products – but about how much renewable energy you use, GHG emissions? Not disclosing such information only makes people think you have something to hide IMHO.

As for Paul, and his demand that this site stop ‘posting crap’, I suggest you take some of your own advice mate. The US is not the world’s biggest polluter, China is (that includes GHGs), and moreover Apple is pretty much non-existent on the list of companies that produce the most pollutants.

And it’s flawed to believe we have environmentalists to thank for not ‘swimming in our own S***’. What’s really happened is that as countries have grown wealthy (a process that requires a dirty and polluting industrial stage), their populations have not only become more discerning, more involved in politics and more likely to demand certain environmental conditions, but companies have been able to transition to more expensive but more hi-tech and efficient manufacturing processes that require less people and pollute less. Their economies also shift towards the greater production of consumer devices and towards a focus on services, both of which result in a reduction in industrial-level pollution. That’s why the air quality in London is at its best level in 400 years, despite having been heavily polluted during the Industrial Revolution.

Because Apple is a leader, not in market-share but in innovation and ideas. If Apple does something you can count on someone else copying it in some form. (Even if it’s a bad idea.)

I also think it’s good that they try to get information more in the open. How can we really know that companies are environmentally friendly if they if we don’t show numbers prooving it.

And one more thing… a small correction to the last post: the biggest polluters are usually known to be the the biggest brands, that’s no secret!! And you know what… the Biggest brands are from the US, which by the way are the biggest polluters on the planet.

I leave you with these thoughts and I recommend you to see a bit further than your noses before posting crap.