Greenpeace slams HP, Lenovo, and Dell in latest report
By Donald Melanson 
posted Mar 31st 2009 3:33PM
posted Mar 31st 2009 3:33PM
HP, Lenovo, and Dell haven't fared too badly in some of Greenpeace's previous e-waste reports, but it looks like three companies have fallen well short of the organization's expectations this time around, with each getting called out for failing to live up to their promises. Specifically, all three had said that they would eliminate vinyl plastic (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in their products by the end of this year, but they've now apparently told Greenpeace that they won't be able to meet that timeline, and only Lenovo has come forward set a new deadline (the end of 2010). The big winner, on the other hand, is Philips, which has jumped from 15th place to 4th as a result of some new recycling initiatives, prompted at least in part by public pressure. And, as you can see above, Nintendo is once again dead last, although we're pretty sure that's simply a result of sheer mass at this point.
Not that I trust Greenpeace all that much but...
WTF Dell? You were high up. Guess when you need to improve margins you get rid of all of those luxuries like "safety" and "non-toxicity."
At least with Apple in the orange area I can feel confident in my hatred for their new commercials. "Greenest laptop in the world" my (_!_).
It would be unwise to believe ANYTHING that Apple run in their ads as they are outright lying at least 20% of the time and with the other 80% not being even close to the truth.
In the next ad, John Hodges will be replaced by a coal-fired smokestack wearing a brown suit and horn-rimmed glasses.
I think Apple has a tiny asterisk next to their Greenest claim with tiny type at the bottom of the screen that describes their Greenwashing process including how long they leave it in their spin cycle.
The laptop may be the greenest in the world. It may be just that the other products aren't as green.
I sense a lot of PC fanboy damage control coming. I predict a mixture of "Apple LIES" and "Greenpeace can't be trusted"
I think that's a scam. With the EPA's gold rating for them, I don't think so. The only reason they don't like Apple is because they refuse to give away who recycles their merchandise. Apparently, if you don't tell trade secrets to Greenpeace, you're a bad company. Think of Nokia. The top? Really? Cheap plastic that gets thrown away and batteries for the same? I don't think so.
From Greenpeace's release: "Apple doesn't have certified PVC-free power cords yet, but in EVERY OTHER WAY (emphasis added) its products are now PVC and BFR free. If Apple can do it, then so should the other leading PC manufacturers."
Sorry, what was your point?
We get it. You guys hate Apple, and that's perfectly alright, but get over it already, for Christ's sake. I'm tired of scanning the comments and see this bulllllshit Mac vs. PC argument trotted out with every single mother-fucking post. Grow the fuck up.
And that goes for the Apple zealots, too, but most of the time I notice one of these idiotic conversations start up, it's because some douchebag Apple-hater started it.
oh wait, too late. damage control already started ^
You know that this particular chart rates companies LOW for not revealing to Greenpeace proprietary environmental information right?
Who died and made Greenpeace the King of England? "Tell us all about your manufacturing processes and spare absolutely no details, otherwise we'll slander you in the press."?
Nintendo was last (or close to it) last time also - not because they were provably making toxic crap, but because they refused to tell their processes to Greenpeace.
Fuck Greenpeace.
Forget Dell, HP and Lenovo, what’s up with Nintendo? Yea, a friend said that “the Wii kills Chinese babies” but I didn’t know what he was talking about ;^/...
Standards change and Greenpeace typically changes with them. I doubt the companies have changed at all.
@ Dingo
If that was directed at me I wasn't intending to be overtly anti-Apple. Every corporation does it, especcially in America where advertising standards are surprisingly lax - but just take a look at Apples ads from an objective standpoint it's pretty obvious that they are 'taking liberties' with the truth if not outright lying.
I think its safe to say that "Greenpeace" is a misnomer.
Case in point, this thread.
So according to you (and let's face it, the majority of Engadget commentors), Apple is a company made of lying, cheating SOBs who sell overpriced products and are destroying the Earth.
Darn. I always fall for the villians. I might as well get it over with and become a henchman to a mob boss or something.
And +1 to Gordon. He really nailed the sentiments I have.
@dingo
Guess what? Apple makes PCs. Macs ARE PCs.
Apple never said they made the "Greenest laptop". They said the "Greenest FAMILY of laptops". which is true. And this Greenpeace report is not only based on the product. Its based on the entire process of the company i.e. Waste, shipping, materials used, etc.
how did this post lead up to Apple vs. PC flame war again?
@facebookfake
That's just semantics.
I remember last year when applets were screaming hatred at Greenpeace. This year it's pc fanboys. And the level of hatred. Gotta love the hatred. Lick spittle whingers. Greenpeace is merely a frame of reference. It's the direction manufacturing is ever increasingly going. Out of sheer necessity. Don't like it? Too bad. It's not going away.
As a mixed shop owner and home user as well, congrats to Apple. It's an achievement in moving towards more responsible engineering and production. All you haters ... take your SUV's out in rush hour traffic and let your rage flow. It's STILL not going to change the fact some companies are doing a hell of a lot better than others in this arena.
"It would be unwise to believe ANYTHING that Apple run in their ads as they are outright lying at least 20% of the time and with the other 80% not being even close to the truth." - Gnormie
Ah, sorta like Microsoft hiring an ACTRESS to pretend to be a regular gal shopping for a laptop for herself? Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se. But then PROHIBITING HER FROM SAYING ANYTHING about that laptop, or Windows itself, after the purchase?
Yep. That's honesty for you.
The Apple haterade flows freely here on the Engadget comments board. Bottoms up!
but dont let those green apple electronics dry up otherwise they'll catch on fire much easier!
There are pros and cons for every subject, item, pcs, and gaming devices. Voicing you don't like a product or anything is just a matter of that persons opinion and experiences. Not smart to slender someone for not liking a product. Low rank me, i don't care. I still hate Apple. This is to misterslikeeverything and hates peeps who hates things.
@ Quix
"Every corporation does it"
-me later that very comment
Almost everyone lies in ads, especially so it seems in America why do people defend Apple when they do it? Especially when there is so much evidence on youtube (again not to say other corporations aren't guilty of the same thing).
There's sony too, out of pc makes, beating apple.
If you look at cellphone makers apple is pretty mutch the last.
But it really doesnt mean anything. Greenpeaces this years favorite boogieman is pvc, or more correctly flatates that are added into pvc. Neither pvc or flatates are harmful for people or nature, but greenpeace needs a bogeyman so they make one.
There's no standard for this ranking. Each year greenpeace makes it they just decide how to make it up, shuffling manufacturers whichever way, trying to make them hop by their command. But there's no point with this list as the placement is completely arbitrary.
If you want good greenpeace ranking the money is better spent on pr department than greener iniatitives as ranking is more influenced by what you seem to do than what you do
. As usual, greenpeace gives us more rubbish.
I only eat whales because I hate Greenpeace.
Do we really care? Can't say that I even consider this when purchasing electronics. Now with all the hype around being "green" are we suppose to believe that anyone really pays any attention. I think we like to talk about it but in the end it makes no difference at all in your purchasing.
i'm not really for "haterade" against any company, but Apple kinda deserves it for crap like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPa0RI6umDQ
ACtually, this chart represent how much green each company has contributed to "Greenpeace".
End of discussion.
Nokia get very high because they did a lot of tiny stuffs that counts,
See how much they promote the idea:
Stamping the word "Recycle!" on the innerside of back cover,
tell you to unplug from wall when recharge completes,
recycling handsets and batteries in Nokia stores,
Providing app for users to pay for Carbon Offset,
Trying to sell N79 with no charger(Don't ask why giving 3 covers, it's XpressOn)
And that smart charger that reduces standby power consumtionb
They don't Ad these things but they did it.
Does anybody really care?
Honestly?
Not a fucking bit.
Ok well I'm glad I've got at least one person that completely agrees with me lol that's all I need
I do.
Nope.
Greenpeace rating "greenness" is like the Taliban rating your "devotion" to God.
Greenpeace will only be satisfied when Michael Dell becomes a vegan and shits out a computer that runs off gummy bears and emits magical unicorn gas that cures global warming. I will also be pretty impressed.
Dude i think you just made me shit my pants a little with your Taliban comment. well played
If I have to make a decision which product I want to buy: NO. I don't care if they are green or not green.
But all in all I'm somehow happy that some organsiation at least tries to compare companies and show them how to improve. Not that I like Greenpeace, 90% of their memebs are idiots, have no clue what they are really doing, but without such comparisons the companies wouldn't even try to make their products 'greener'.
"I care" - Luke Skywalker
"Of the world's five top PC makers, only Apple is truly kicking the habit. "
Apple ain't in the top 5.
Toshiba, however, are and I note that they seem to be quite a bit ahead of our fruit friends.
Apple don't even make PCs
...or do they?
:-P
I thought Apple was #3 last year behind Dell and HP. I thought it went Dell, HP, Apple, Acer
Nope...
Table 3 refers:
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?symbol=US:IT&feed=BW&date=20090114&id=9515218
Fourth in the US, mind. Not that anyone really cares about that.
Who knew Nokia has the title as the greenest electronics supplier? I would never have guessed that.....
Why else do you think conglomerates want Nokia out of the US?
Oh! You never need to recycle a Lenovo, because they rarely breakdown.
Why does Greenpeace even have a Green-O-Meter, anyway? Everyone knows those sanctimonious yahoos will never give anyone a 10/10.
I like the meter and can easily see a couple brands in the green.
bet you the heads of Greenpeace would be down the "red" end of the scale for their household "greenness" too.
Wow, people even take Greenpeace seriously? LOL.
I do and I bet you would if you thought about it.
required: Greenpeace consistently misrepresents themselves and others, and this particular chart is a perfect example. Companies that are rated low are NOT rated because there is evidence that they are using toxic manufacturing processes. They are bumped down if they refuse to reveal TO GREENPEACE every last detail about their manufacturing process.
So because companies refuse to reveal their secret, proprietary processes to Greenpeace, they see fit to slander them, despite having no real proof that any toxic chemicals are being used.
Potato: None of this information was revealed "TO GREENPEACE." It is all freely available on the internet. The highly-scored companies provide this information to everybody, which is what Greenpeace wants.
@ Gordon
So what you're saying is that it's not okay to give away general knowledge to sate Greenpeace, but you should be giving away trade secrets?
this is such sensationalist bs. i'm all about going green but this list is completely arbitrary, with no real research to back it up. last year's list had apple right above a 6. in the year since, apple have cut out pvc and bfr from most of their products. yet this year's list has them sitting below a 5.
and why list nintendo at the bottom? greenpeace's website doesn't even say! their website lacks any reference to credible academic studies.
biased, unquantified bs like this only serves to hurt the green movement, not help it.
The linked page is a press release. No shit, it's not going to explain everything. But everything you're complaining about is explained in rather solid detail — it's 35 pages — in the PDF here, one click further in:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/reports4/guide-to-greener-electronics-11
Take it or leave it if you want, but at least pretend like you did half a second of research before you accuse them of being biased and arbitrary.
Gordon, why don't you read your own link? Let's take a look at Nintendo (who happens to be at the bottom) - all but 2 of their bad marks are due to Nintendo not disclosing information to Greenpeace. As stated previously, the approach here seems to be tell us all your trade secrets or we'll give you a crappy score!
Mark, I did read my own link, and it's hardly a trade secret to say that you're NOT using PVCs or BFRs in your products, or to say how much renewable energy you use, or how energy efficient your new products are...
None of these categories could possibly be considered a trade secret. It's a fair criticism.
And, incidentally, it's not disclosing information "to Greenpeace." All of the information they cite is freely available to anybody, and most of it is linked to IN THE PDF.
@gordon:
you might want to read the pdf you linked to. any and all information about the various companies came from the companies themselves. greenpeace simply took that information and formed its own opinions (hence my accusation of being arbitrary - here's the definition so you have some idea of what i'm talking about: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=arbitrary)
nothing personal, it doesn't bother me that you like defending greenpeace, but you should realize that these guys don't seem to do any of the research you claim to know so much about. i'll repeat myself for you: there was no outside research referenced in the guide or pdf you were nice enough to include.
the lack of research and abundance of bias basically discredits the "green guide" for any logical person. you might want to do some homework before blindly jumping to the defense of anything in the future.
Couldn't care less about greenpeace.
Greenpeace cares about shattered ice, particularly at the poles.
I would have thought that Nintendo would have been higher up with the low power usage of the Wii itself. Yet, it somehow makes me smile to see them so far down the list. More kudos for Nintendo for flat out not caring! *cheers*
Not that I have anything against Greenpeace, I just think they take themselves far too seriously at times.
Isn't the Wii a glutton for disposable batteries?
"Nintendo would have been higher up with the low power usage of the Wii itself. "
Greenpeace dosnt take into account anything so meaningfull as power consumption. (or energy used to make the system, transport, and repair it)
Greenpeaces two critisms with Nintendo are;
a) Not making public their material sources etc.
b) Not having a console desposal POLICY.
Seriously, the first I get, but the second is crazy....the only reason you send a console back is to have to repaired. NO ONE sends their consoles back purely once they are finnished with them.
Hahaha Apple. Thats great!
N41
meh what does it matter Greenpeace is one of the most hypocritical organizations out there.
Use less power its bad... Buy an electric car
Remove mercury from electronics its toxic... put a mercury bulb in every light socket
Carbon bad... ??? But wait isnt almost everything carbon???
recycling good emissions bad... but recycling produces WAY more emissions than manufacturing a new product. Does that mean recycling bad???
Greenpeace is turning into a organization with too much time, too many beaurocrats, and too little intelligence.
Clean is always good. Whether it comes from Greenpeace or Al Gore. It keeps people talking and keeps things changing. Less harmful STUFF is always better. Who cares where the info comes from as long as it's doing good? Keeps companies honest - if you can say that.
This "meter" gives an idea where companies are with the whole green movement. It's up to you as the consumer to get more info. If you don't care, sucks to be you.
I don't give a shit. And sorry to burst your bubble, but it doesn't suck to be me.
Here Here CJ
Greenpeace suck ass, Having known several members including one of the heads of Greenpeace in N. Ireland I can honestly say they are seriously misinformed judgmental idiots who rarely care about actual facts.
A bit like Apple fanbois actually !
Greenpeace can fuck off.
That is all.
liamf555, I see where you are coming from but I think that depends on what definition of laptop is used. The thing they should say, which would be accurate is that it's the most environmentally sound laptop that they have ever made.
F Greenpeace...The whole green movement is a scam.
The problem isn't the materials used, it's how they dispose of it. If they develop controlled waste management facilities, who really cares if there's lead, bromine, or PVC in electronics? As long as it's not going into your lungs or water, it's no big deal.
Given their graphic designer, well paid out of charity income, doesn't understand common versioning schemes, the difference between O and zero, nor about linear scales, and there's no indication of what the units are, I'm guessing that there isn't rigorous science behind this.
Bullshit. My Lenovo ThinkPad X200s carries the same endorsements than the current-gen MacBooks carry in terms of environmental awareness or whatever the hell this shit is supposed to promote. Actually, it should be even HIGHER than the MacBook, because it is made OF recycled material, not recyclABLE material.
Now I know to buy more Nintendo, HP, Microsoft, Lenovo, and Dell gear.
Hippies.They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad.
That is an odd scale. Why isn't 5 in the middle?
The Greenpeace supporters who built the graphic got confused while drawing a logarithmic scale. :P
wow, greenpeace's opinion is relevant?
they're insane, misguided hippies who base their entire world-view on anti-corporatism first and actual science second, just like the bulk of the 'green' movement. they also support bans on genetically modified crops (a nicer way of saying 'starving people in third world countries') and organic farming, which in opposition to their overall goal leads to deforestation.
greenpeace can take their pvcs and crms and asaps and bbqs and shove them up their compost-loving asses.
EXACTLY! Why do we care what they think anymore? They're clearly out of their minds and these guys on their list are just the target of the week. I personally love the way Apple spun this with their latest batch of "green" ads. Take that, Greenpeace! Ya crazy bastards.
"Apple doesn't have certified PVC-free power cords yet, but in every other way its products are now PVC and BFR free. If Apple can do it, then so should the other leading PC manufacturers. "
Surely Apple shouldn't be so low beacuse of their Power chords...
They're not. The full 35-page report goes into more details and provides links to where they're getting their information. There's a lot of really good information in it (and the links).
Most of Apple's lowest scores seems to be for not providing information… which is pretty typical of Apple. It's possible they would have scored a bit higher if they were more forthcoming. On the "bright" side, they get an automatic 0 in the categories they don't provide enough data for, it couldn't be any lower.
It pains me to see Nintendo as the least green of the companies listed, because the Wii is the best thing since pretty much ever.
In other news, Greenpeace is regarded as a bunch of tree-hugging pinko commies that nobody believes due to their overtly criminal actions. Other than that, I trust them implicitly.
If you read the full report, Nintendo is taking massive hits for not providing any information about most of the categories, or just "aiming to reduce..." blah blah and not providing any firm commitment (like a timetable).
Now that Apple has ramped up their "greenness" far beyond anyone in the industry, Greenpeace is now forced to slam the other companies instead of Apple for attention. Hmm, how did these other big companies drop in ratings so fast?
Who gives a fuck what they think? If it were up to them innovation and technological leaps would not occur!! We shouldnt let the judgement of idiotic liberal fools determine what we do.
You'll care after your idiotic conservative fool family all dies of cancer from all the pollutants that all this wonderful "innovation and technological leaps" have introduced into the drinking water, air, and soil we grow our food in, all in the name of the might dollar.
Gordon: Sounds about right. For a -total tool-. Yeah, you can assume all you want that you're in the moral right because you're anti-corporate but what tends to make you look more intelligent, or perhaps concerned, is actually bothering to research your opinions before you form them.
People like you are constantly bitching and moaning about how progress 'is destroying the earth' simply because people are profiting from it. This is wrong. This is dead wrong. And before you go slamming me for being conservative, I'm not. Not one bit. I'm just intelligent.
First off, in the time that we've become conscious about how our actions affect the environment we have taken great leaps and bounds in reducing the damage everything we do does to the environment. Companies that legitimately stretch the envelope of what they're allowed to do are reprimanded... by the MARKET. If there was reliable evidence that, say, for every Wii nintendo makes some guy storms out onto the tundra and clubs a baby seal, or someone sprays an acre of forest with arsenic, yeah. That would be a concern. And people would quickly stop buying from them - remember the Nestle baby formula incident in the 90's?
This is almost completely non-scientific pandering to idiots like you based on the 'potential for harm' with no actual evidence of harm done. If someone challenged you to point out the damage done to the environment by Apple laptops, could you? Could you point out a single creature's life that was made worse by apple products? (Please, hold back your fanboy rants.) Yeah, you could say 'well they contain this compound and the batteries are made of this' but that's nothing. Nothing at all. Apple offers a free recycling program designed to neutralize harmful components BEFORE they're disposed of in the wild, and that's a huge step forward. If they just had a huge field out back full of Li-Ion batteries, that would be a different story. What individual users do is not really Apple's problem - the tools are in place.
Shut up and think before you ever speak up against progress. Thanks to idiots like you, THOUSANDS of people and animals die each year from carcinogens released into the atmosphere from coal and oil power plants, and that's a verifiable fact. Just like every other bit of progress you reject because it happened in the name of the 'almighty dollar,' we have a solution in nuclear power which has been completely neutered by morons like you.
If you're not going to bother to learn shit, don't drag your opinions into my facts.
@teeth weasel: Was that long-winded ramble supposed to be evidence of your "intelligence"? Please.
I support nuclear power — JUST LIKE YOU, you presumptuous ass — the fact that I disagree with you doesn't make me whatever stereotype you want to conjure up in your empty little head.
Jerk off into your hand, not your keyboard.
I'm gonna have to buy more Nintendo products.
If it pisses off just one bark-humping hippie, it'll be worth it.
Well DELL stays competitive by offering cheap models of PCs compared to the rest. You cannot be profitable and be green. People have to choose, whether they'll pay $$$ for a new greener computer (New Apple Slogan) or a cheaper better model but of course when you take cheap into account then you don't necessarily get green. And with the world economy the way it is and the way it's getting people are going to demand more for their money and that of course means that the green shift has come to an end.
"You cannot be profitable and be green."
Wrong.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/05/eric-schmidt-green-energy_n_172062.html
http://thehill.com/op-eds/going-green-is-patriotic-and-profitable-2007-06-27.html
http://ecotality.com/life/2009/01/07/recycling-e-waste-is-profitable-for-everyone/
GreenPeace is BS. Look at how that chart is manipulated, look at the one from 2007. There's no way that everyone has gone down a bunch in the past 2 years. The "scores" were higher than.
Pfft.
Greenpeace is just as truthful as PETA. And just as useful. Stupid hippies.
I think you meant worthless, stupid, smelly, hippies.
Who cares? This makes me love Nintendo even more
Am I reading this correctly (from page 21 of the report):
"Apple states that every Mac it ships is Energy Star 4.0 compliant as a standard feature.
More information. All Apple desktop computers, portable computers and displays exceed the Energy Star version 4.0 standard and the iPod and iPhone power adapters exceed Energy Star efficiency requirements. But Apple is too modest to report the percentage by which they exceed the standard. For full marks, Apple needs to make its information more accessible."
So... Apple exceeds the Energy Star requirement, but because they won't say by how much, they lost points.
Is this a correct interpretation?
This is a good system?
"Lost POINTS" is an overstatement: it was a negligible deduction — from 2.5+ to 2+ in just the one category — but yes, it's correct that they were downgraded.
I could care less if this is a good system or not, because their score and how it ranks compared to Microsoft or Lenovo doesn't matter to me. There is a lot of good information in this report (or, rather, linked from it), all straight from the companies themselves. That's what people should be focusing on here, not the stupid numbers or the pretty little graphic.
But people with an axe to grind about Greenpeace or Apple or whoever will bitch about whatever the hell they want, for whatever reason they want, even if it's completely imaginary.
A broken ruler isn't good for measuring anything.
If not declaring how green you are results in a lower score AT ALL, it should probably be the "how green you say you are" meter, rather than anything useful about how each company impacts the environment. I'm also going to bet that the Wii is the only current console that's energy star 4.0 approved, and see what that got nintendo?
"Tell us exactly everything about your enviro policies, or we're going to slander you."
Nevermind that one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace left the organization because they were becoming detached from science and more into propaganda and passive terrorism.
Don't forget about the sailors who died when they sank that ship.
Greenpeace = domestic terrorism, just like the sierra club. Peta may be a bunch of hippie jacka$$es, but they're not costing anyone their livelyhoods, or worse, their lives.