Naked Steve Jobs accosted by Greenpeace

We shudder to think how many Apple fanboys that have secretly fantasized about this day. Well, sorry to disappoint, but Steve Jobs wears leafy garments underneath it all. He's also not so sure about this whole "I like Apple, but without toxic substances" thing being postulated by the don't-you-have-bigger-fish-to-fry folks at Greenpeace. What's he pondering? "How can I cram more toxic substances into something as small as the shuffle?" Or perhaps "Where did I put those pants?" We just might never know.

[Andreas @ Apr 1st 2007 5:50AM]

I like Greenpeace, but this is silly. They'd accomplish a more serious impact if they where working biting at the bigger players and in perhaps a more serious manner. Apple is pretty serious about the environment. Shrinking and streamlining packaging to cut unnecessary deliveries and step by step excluding lead and other unhealthy substances from their devices.. etc..

[Dinraj Pradeep @ Apr 1st 2007 6:08AM]

"Pretty cool, huh??" and its patented!

[2Perfect @ Apr 1st 2007 6:41AM]

'biting at the bigger players', 'shrinking', 'packaging', 'cut unnecessary deliveries', 'unhealthy substances'.

Given the topic, many of those words could have double meanings... lol... almost as if you meant them to be there... =X

Anyway, shouldn't this say fangirls? If there really are fanboys that have been wanting this to happen, then... umm... =X God help us...

[Gtoffo @ Apr 1st 2007 7:19AM]

The sign says in italian:"STEVE WE LIKE THE (APPLE), BUT WITHOUT TOXIC SUBSTANCES".

[Sreepranav @ Apr 1st 2007 7:23AM]

Or perhaps, he's really thinking:

"How can I get those leaves off the Amazon Queen? You think she'll take iPods instead of money?"

[Whynot @ Apr 1st 2007 9:41AM]

or maybe he's wondering which will be the most efficient line: "I can be the iPod to your dock anytime" or "I'm sure we're made to be sync'ed, let me plug my cable into your firewire port"

[Michael Bennett @ Apr 1st 2007 9:37AM]

The problem I have with Greenpeace is that Apple is actually doing well compared to other computer companies, and is working to become greener. Greenpeace and such is just mad at Apple for not playing their game and giving them a pretty timeline.

So it isn't that Apple is overly toxic compared to other computer companies, it's that they won't play the Greenpeace's games ---- so they're all getting in a little tiff and doing crap like this and trying to make viral marketing videos.

[Argot @ Apr 1st 2007 10:12AM]

Do you have a source or two for your claim?

[Gary @ Apr 1st 2007 10:31AM]

Actually people, before you all start defending Mr. Jobs please take a look at the facts. Apple was one of the latest companies to the computer recycling game and by most accounts is one of the worst in the industry. Apple only does what is required by law in terms of toxicity levels in their components and have not taken any steps to improve upon things there. Steve Jobs has consistently uses the fact that they "comply" with laws around waste and toxicity as proof that they are not this wasteful company that Greenpeace makes them out to be, but the facts don't lie. They are simply a wasteful company, period.

Please don't mistake the slimmed down packaging as proof that Apple cares about the environment. That is simply a cost and marketing move. While Apple's packaging uses significantly less material than previous Apple versions (as in the case of the iPod packaging moving from the cubed box to the current slimmed down box), their packaging is not better than other players in the industry. It is simply on par with them.

Believe what you want to believe, but Apple is not the caring, loving darling that all you Apple fan-boys want them to be. They are simply very poor on the environment. Additionally, they have one of the worst corporate citizenship records of a Fortune 500 company, but that conversation is for another day.

[Neptune2603 @ Apr 1st 2007 10:40AM]

Please cite a source other then Greenpeaces admittedly biased scores that suggest Apple just merely "complies" and doesn't exceed toxicity requirements.

I believe Apple was one of the first to comply with the newer EU requirements. Apple was also the first to phase out lead in their products --- something some manufactorers still haven't done.

[Neptune2603 @ Apr 1st 2007 10:36AM]

Well, Greenpeace has a political agenda, and they even state that much of their frustration and reason for placing Apple in last is that they haven't provided Greenpeace with a timeline for phasing out certain materials etc etc.

Greenpeace gave Dell VERY high marks, and placed Apple in very last.

In comparison, according to the EPEAT website (whom's research is supported by the US Government) Apple outscores Dell by far.

Apple: http://www.epeat.net/SearchResults.aspx?ProductType=0&manufacturer=32&rating=1

and

Dell: http://www.epeat.net/SearchResults.aspx?ProductType=0&manufacturer=28&rating=1

[Neptune2603 @ Apr 1st 2007 10:48AM]

Further reading...

According to EPEAT

Apple Avg: 16.777778
Toshiba Avg: 16
Dell Avg: 14.8
Hewlett Packard Avg: 14.8
Sony Avg: 14.6
Gateway Avg: 0

Quite a bit different then Greenpeaces story? Yes.

[Gary @ Apr 1st 2007 11:07AM]

As I stated in my post, Apple (and apparently Apple fan boys) cite the proof they they comply to government standards (EPEAT) as proof that Apple is not the evil anti-green company that Greenpeace makes them out to be. If you look at the criteria used for these scores you will see that these EPEAT ratings don't even tell 25% of the story. Government checks only a few things and maintains low levels on those things, which I don't necessrily have a problem with. The problem is when companies feel that that's all that they need to do. Just about every other computer manufacturer (with the exception of IBM before they sold their PC unit) has taken significant steps outside of EPEAT to help the environment.

If you want to see reports from organizations outside of Greenpeace you could do a search for Apple Environment Record with the following to start:

Stanford University
As You Sow
Silicon Valley Toxic Coalition
Green Century Funds

I'm sure all of you will dismiss all of these reports as being biased (especially As You Sow since they have a working relationship with Greenpeace), so after reading these reports I encourage you all to do some more thorough investigation into this. Spend some time researching environmental problems with computer manufacturers in general. From there you could research each company individually without the "bias" of these other groups and make a call on it for yourselves. Hopefully you will do so without this Apple bias that you all have.

[Neptune2603 @ Apr 1st 2007 11:33AM]

It's not so much an Apple bias --- I don't believe Apple to be the greatest thing to ever grace the planet or anything like that.

I just don't feel that Dell, HP, Gateway, Sony, or anyone else is doing anything better than Apple, and that the attacks are undeserved political games.

I'm still looking for any evidence that puts Dell / HP / etc ahead of Apple in the game. All of them could do more to help the enviroment.. but things like "give us $100, we won't match it at all, or donate anything, and we'll pass it on to a charity in order for us to look good." Are just silly gimmicks, they all have them.

They're all companies and they all do what they have to in order to profit.

[Nick R @ Apr 1st 2007 11:33AM]

why am i going to worry about what toxins are in my keyboard when i should be worried about the toxins that go into my body thanks to the great ,a href="http://factoryfarming.com">factory farming food industry? at least i'm not eating my ipod.

[LandMineHare @ Apr 1st 2007 11:52AM]

So, Earth tries to kill us all with global warming, hurricanes, and earthquakes. And now she is losing and sends her flying monkeys to try and defend her?

I think not. "Mother Earth" had her chance, and failed to get us all.

[James @ Apr 1st 2007 12:08PM]

Idiots!

[Cody Turner @ Apr 1st 2007 12:26PM]

Jobs: "...I could hit that."

[Johan S @ Apr 1st 2007 12:34PM]

Maybe greenpeace wants Appple to hire some consultants to fix their environmental problems? And by environmental problems i mean having greenpeace up in their face.

What realistic thing does greenpeace expect from Apple? Now with these silly protests I think greenpeace's stance is that if you pay them a fat donation, then you're not polluting any more.

[Brian @ Apr 1st 2007 2:25PM]

Gary, your tone does more to hurt your argument than the facts themselves.

I think what most people are saying is that if these other companies aren't even on par with Apple on the less stringent EPEAT guidelines, how can one make the argument that they are worse overall?

At which point that's your cue to jump in and say "this is why:" and enumerate the relevant impact of what non-governmental studies (recent ones mind you) have found.

To just rail off and mention studies—without even links, mind you—just makes you look like a jerk. I think you'll find, given rational discourse, people can be pretty open to new ideas.

[bruce steinberg @ Apr 1st 2007 3:03PM]

you idiots.... Apple chooses to use toxic substances in all of their products and this is something that will hurt them dearly in the market in the months to come. They better get on the sustainable bandwagon or they're toast. Your biased and shortsidted website is too stupid to report this... what a shame.

[Jason @ Apr 1st 2007 4:12PM]

Whatcha wanna bet that Greenpeace bought stock/cut a deal with Dell and other recommended companies right before blasting Apple? Environmentalism, just like charity, is basic economics. True believers are pawns of old money.

[LT73 @ Apr 1st 2007 4:35PM]

Excellent! How do you like them Apples Steve?!

There's a very important reason Greenpeace is going after Jobs and Co. Apple is widely viewed as a visionary company, one that demands the respect of the industry. If even Apple cannot get it together environmentally speaking, we're really doomed.

[troy @ Apr 1st 2007 5:48PM]

Actually, reading both EPEAT and Greenpeace criteria, the EPEAT seems far more thorough, consistent, and scientific.

Greenpeace is clearly going after apple for publicity. If you read through their documentation, Apple did not score worse than their competitors on anything quantifiable. Greenpeace literally scored the companies environmental performance from what the companies say about their environmental programs on their web sites! Yes, that is right, they didn't call and interview the companies, they didn't interview suppliers, they didn't do anything factual, quantifiable, or worthwhile.

This is 6th grade quality research folks... and so lame and embarrassing that Greenpeace has totally lost my support. They hammer on issues that aren't even true... like their maniacal obsession with PVC. LEEDs expert group spent 2 years reviewing all of the available data on PVC, and their conclusion? Its not perfect, but its not bad either - certainly not worse than many alternatives.

[whatevas @ Apr 2nd 2007 5:59PM]

I love apple, but in this case I have to side with greenpease. Their existence is crucially important in a world where ignorance towards environment is the style of living. All you ppl who seem to hate GP are venting your frustration of being reminded of the earth, which you decidedly ignore for most of your existence. Seriously, if not for orgs like GP think how rarely we'll be forced to pay attention to these matters!

As for Apple, for all their awesomeness, they are a company with a very strong marketing strategy. If they did put an iota of work in to really exceeding the competition in env friendliness, I believe you'd see that all the time in their campaigns. The fact that you never do alone should signal a lot at the truth.

As for GP 'hating' Apple, I don't believe so, because most of GP followers are liberal hippey type, which is EXACTLY what a large fragment of the mac community is made of. If anything, they'd love to praise Apple, like I would.

[Montrevux @ Apr 2nd 2007 8:24PM]

April Fools.

[Moe Abe @ Apr 7th 2007 6:00PM]

I have very little respect for Greenpeace. Greenpeace is an organization that does not prove real solutions for the issues that they complain about. Greenpeace has made themselves irrelevant, and no one really listens to them other than complain about their irresponsible behaviour. This is only more Greenpeace grandstanding, nothing to see.