Apple and Greenpeace haven't exactly been the best of buds. However, MacWorld seems to have changed all that, at least for Greenpeace. In a statement issued on their US website, Greenpeace says the following:

"The MacBook Air is a strong entry in the race to build a green PC. As a mercury and arsenic free laptop it exceeds European Standards (RoHS directive exemptions) and raises the bar for the rest of the industry."

Sure, the Greenies still had their nits to pick with the use of PVC and BFRs. Nevertheless, they did give a nod of approval in noting their reduced usage. Had Greenpeace's statement not been laced with condescending phrases like, "It's a big step for Steve," the whole week might have ended with some herb being passed around the Kumbaya circle -- 'ere 'ippie, gimme a 'ug.

[Via Macworld]

Greenpeace posted the latest edition of its "Guide to Greener Electronics" yesterday, which ranks the top 18 consumer electronics companies by their policies towards toxic chemicals and recycling, and it looks like the rankings have shifted slightly since last time -- Sony Ericsson and Samsung have tied for the lead with a 7.7 out of 10 rating (taking over from Nokia, which fell to number 9 with a 6.7) and Sony is sitting pretty at number 3 with a 7.2. Apple, which has taken some lumps in the past few months, is right in the middle of the pack with a 6, but most surprising is Nintendo, which came in absolutely dead last with a big ol' 0 -- looks like Mario wasted a little too much water in Sunshine, eh?

So hot on the heels of that Greenpeace report (and Apple response) claiming the iPhone contains toxic chemicals, California's Center for Environmental Health filed legal notice of a potential lawsuit against Apple alleging under California's Proposition 65 law that the iPhone's "phthalate" content requires the company to either put warning labels on the device, or, better yet, re-engineer it so it doesn't contain the compounds at all. The notice gives Apple 60 days to respond before CEH can file a lawsuit. We spoke to Charles Margulis, communications director at CEH, and learned a few things about the suit:

• CEH hasn't actually tested an iPhone for the presence of these compounds themselves -- they're working off what they, like everyone else, read in the Greenpeace report. However, they have started testing and expect to be complete before the 60 days are up. Charles wouldn't say what they would do if their tests didn't jive with Greenpeace's results.
• The reason they filed suit so quickly is a function of how the law works. Even though they don't have independent verification of the iPhone's alleged toxic content, CEH will be in a weaker position to sue Apple if another organization or individual files first. According to Charles, CEH would rather have Apple revise the iPhone to be cleaner than get massive damages, and CEH doesn't want other, greedier parties to get in the way.
• The ultimate goal is not necessarily monetary damages -- although Charles called those "a tool we can use" -- but to get Apple to reformulate the iPhone and perhaps send a warning letter to existing customers.

So while we're still going to be skeptical until we see additional verification of that Greenpeace report, it certainly doesn't seem like CEH is simply angling for cash here. In the meantime, it might be wise to avoid blending your baby.

Disclaimer: Although this post was written by an attorney, it is not meant as legal advice or analysis and should not be taken as such.

Read -- PC World article on the suit
Read -- CEH website

Yesterday's battle between Greenpeace and Apple had the former publicly chastising the latter for its continued use of hazardous chemicals in its iPhone. While they conceded that Apple is compliant with Europe's RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) standard, they lambasted Cupertino for its continued use of PVC and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) which, according to Greenpeace, "suggests that Apple is not making early progress towards its 2008 commitment to phase-out all uses of these materials." This morning, an Apple spokesperson told Macworld that, "Like all Apple products worldwide, iPhone complies with RoHS, the world's toughest restrictions on toxic substances in electronics. As we have said, Apple will voluntarily eliminate the use of PVC and BFRs by the end of 2008." Sure, you can fault Apple for not being as environmentally friendly as PVC-free Nokia, or Motorola and Sony Ericsson who offer some devices with BFR-free components. However, Greenpeace shouldn't feign surprise at what they found.

Apple's no stranger to being slammed by Greenpeace, and while Steve certainly spoke of a "Greener Apple," it seems that the iPhone wasn't included. According to tests arranged by the entity, it was found that the iPhone contained "toxic brominated compounds (indicating the presence of brominated flame retardants) and hazardous PVC," which are said to be disallowed across the pond due to RoHS requirements. More specifically, the independent testing found "brominated compounds in half the samples, including in the phone's antenna, in which they made up 10-percent of the total weight of the flexible circuit board." As expected, Greenpeace wasted no time pointing to rival firms that have received pats on the back for their green efforts, and subsequently shook a finger at Apple while murmuring "tsk tsk" -- but we'll leave the actual politicking to you all in comments, cool?

Update: Our bad, Greenpeace does not claim that Apple is in violation of RoHS requirements.

[Via Switched, thanks Laura]

Well well well, it turns out that Apple's new approach of partial openness is starting to pay off for the company as a whole, with Greenpeace increasing Apple's marks for promising to be more green in the future. In Greenpeace's most recent ranking of the technology industry, it put Nokia on top (thanks to its cutting the use of PVC), Dell and Lenovo in second, and Apple at 10th place -- a jump for the latter three companies, who came near bottom last time. At the bottom this time around is Sony, which dropped due to dodgy waste disposal policies: hence, we shall now commence waiting for a pseudo-blog post from Sir. Stringer announcing a "greener Sony." Gotta get on that bandwagon!

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.

Announced back in June, Dell's new free recycling program is now live, meaning you can recycle any Dell product at no cost to you, without any of those pesky requirements to buy a new Dell machine in the process. All you've gotta do is head on over to their site, print out your free shipping voucher, pack and ship your obsolete Dell product and then throw a little environmentally-friendly party for your environmentally-friendly bad self. We can't say even a program like this could get Apple off the Greenpeace naughty list, but it seems worth a shot -- Dell's just making y'all look bad.

[Via Slashdot]

Late last week, Greenpeace issued its latest "Guide to Greener Electronics," which offers a serious takedown of various tech companies' environmental production practices. The organization judged several tech firms mainly on the criteria of "eliminating hazardous substances" from the production phase, and also offering to take back and recycle older products. Dell and Nokia topped the list, but Apple, Motorola and Lenovo were among the worst, who scored 2.7, 1.7 and 1.3 respectively on Greenpeace's 10-point scale. Lenovo, which placed last among the companies evaluated, was knocked mostly because it hasn't committed to phasing out toxic chemmicals like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardant (BFR) from its product line. Motorola was particularly dinged for its recent broken promise of eliminating PVCs and BFRs from its product line, and not having good enough recycling programs. Apple was guilty of many of the same offenses as Lenovo, according to Greenpeace, but have not committed to a firm timetable for PVC and BFR elimination. According to CNET, both Lenovo and Apple disagree with Greenpeace's assesment, saying that they have strong environmental records and follow worldwide regulations. Perhaps Michael Dell and Jorma Ollila need to have a chat with Steve Jobs, Ed Zander and William Amelio to clear the air, so to speak.

[Via CNET]