The problem with Greenpeace
When I was eight my friends and I planned to build a tank. None of us told our mothers why or how we would do this tank project, but once we had it there was no doubt we would be the kings of the neighborhood. We got a bunch of old tires together, broke scissors cutting the treads out, and planned to wrap them around some discarded wheel wells. We gathered wood from an abandoned house development to build the frame, which then we could nail sheet metal too. Then it hit us, we really had no idea how to build a real tank. We had to abort the project in favor of hide and seek for the rest of the afternoon.
Which is exactly my problem with Greenpeace. To rate a company based on the tank they might build over the tank they produce is ridiculous. If anyone can take them seriously, then this green scorecard of theirs needs to be based on facts not promises. Which is why Apple got into the spat they did with them, because the company prefers to promote things they accomplish over things they promise. This policy, as aggravating as it might be at times, keeps Apple out of trouble. I mean, would you like Michael Dell if he kept flipping the switch on distributing Linux? Of course not, which is one of many reasons I am not their customer.
In Job’s letter, he spells out one thing over and over again. Greenpeace, we’re ahead of everyone else in this game while the competition is basing their score on promises. If after all the blasting Greenpeace has done to Apple, perhaps it is time they work on their own scorecard and level the field so we can have a green earth based on fact and not politics.
Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.
Think targeting apple – who is the innovator by which all follow – is the best strategy. Just because one company is as bad or a little less bad (how many CRTs did Dell actually sell in the past two years?) doesn’t mean either one is absolved. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I like pressure on Apple. It gets us a better product and trickles down to everyone getting a better product. Would we be getting LED screens so soon if GP hadn’t hardlined on Apple? Want to bet the rest of the industry adopts LED soon after.
acutally, the whole industry is moving to LED as its become economical.
Lower batter requirements, more brighter screens.
Apple’s decisions to use LED displays has NOTHING to do with Greenepeace.
Greenpeace Drone 1: We are getting less donations now. What can we do to boost our visibility?
Greenpeace Drone 2: Lets attack Apple!
Apple surely had already made the decision to move to LED screens before the pressue from Greenpeace. Jobs went ahead and announced it to get them off his back.
So, essentially, Greenpeace has gone and spoiled our surprise party. Thanks Greenpeace.
Years and years ago, Apple has been working on reducing harmful chemicals in the production of their equipment, as stated in Jobs’ article.
Then Greenpeace, ignoring this, starts the vicious and unjustified “campaign” (read: attack) on Apple seen here:
http://members.greenpeace.org/sites/greenmyapple/about.php
Greenpeace site:
“Right now, poison Apples full of chemicals (like toxic flame retardants, and polyvinyl chloride) are being sold worldwide. When they’re tossed, they usually end up at the fingertips of children in China, India and other developing-world countries. They dismantle them for parts, and are exposed to a dangerous toxic cocktail that threatens their health and the environment.”
Compare with…
Jobs article:
“A note of comparison — In 2007 HP stated that they will remove PVC
from all their packaging. Apple did this 12 years ago. Last year, Dell
began the process of phasing out large quantities of brominated flame
retardants in large plastic enclosure parts. Apple’s plastic enclosure
parts have been bromine-free since 2002.”
“All the e-waste we collect in North America is processed in the U.S.,
and nothing is shipped overseas for disposal.”
Jobs releases his article on how Apple is doing (and has been doing) so much more than the majority of IT companies. Greenpeace writes it off as a victory due to their campain:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/tastygreenapple
“You did it! Thousands of you wrote, called, and sent cards to Steve Jobs, asking him to green your Apples. Because of you, he listened, and just announced a greener Apple.”
I’m dissapointed in Microsofts large donations to Greenpeace with the stipulation that they focus their attack on Apple.
Apple has always been ahead of us and Dell.
I’m concerned that Apple will surpass us in market cap within 3 years.
quote “Which is why Apple got into the spat they did with them, because the company prefers to promote things they accomplish over things they promise”
*cough* iPhone *cough* ;) ..sorry.
The greenpeace vendetta can’t be all what it seems, there must be both money and a hidden agenda behind it all … or maybe they are just out to make asses of them selfs again.
I mean, just look at the picture you are using from Greenpeace, out of all these heap of thrown-away plastic PC keyboards, the only Apple keyboard (and it’s pink too!) is held by the girl in the front. This is all about visibility.
I don’t know if apple is ahead of everyone, I believe HP is the leader in environmental standards, but they are ahead of most, i mean companies like IBM should be the ones getting the heat from Greenpeace.
Completely agree with Mark. The simple fact is that despite what Apple are doing, its still not enough and pressure from Greenpeace is needed. And they have applied pressure on each and every company. companies such as lenovo are doing alot on recycling old computer hardware, apple is not.
Stop trying to bash greenpeace merely because your being a fanboy. The last article on this topic suggested that apple should get let off because they have small market share. That argument is intellectually (and morally) bankrupt.