Greenpeace
Latest
Is Greenpeace's report bogus?
Ars Technica seems to be crying foul over Greenpeace's latest findings regarding Nintendo's eco-conscious actions. Turns out, "Penalty points can be deducted" if Greenpeace sees fit. Why would they deduct points? They're taken "from overall scores if Greenpeace finds a company lying, practicing double standards or other corporate misconduct."Ars Technica seems to think that Nintendo's score is based entirely on a mission statement via Nintendo's website and less on an in-depth look at the company's practices. So, it's likely that Nintendo isn't as bad on the environment as they've been made out to be.
Greenpeace posts latest Guide to Greener Electronics: Sony Ericsson first, Nintendo in dead last
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?
Sony called most green games company by Greenpeace
Do you love the earth? How about the PSP and PS3? Good, because your loves are one and the same. Sony is called the most green games manufacturer by environmental group Greenpeace. Sony scored an impressive 7.3 from the organization, making it the third most green company in the list. Compare that to Microsoft at 2.7 and Nintendo at a shocking 0. Sony fans certainly can be proud of their company's efforts to truly go green.Read the full report here.[Via Joystiq]
Nintendo dead last in Greenpeace 'Guide to Greener Electronics'
How can a little white box be so bad? Nintendo has become the first electronics manufacturer to post a goose egg in Greenpeace's sixth issue of the 'Guide to Greener Electronics,' which ranks 18 top manufacturers according to their policies on toxic chemicals and recycling. While Wii may come out pure and petite, the console is berthed from a foul process mired in substances like brominated flame retardants (the kinda stuff that turns turtles to ninjas). According to the report Nintendo has no timeline for toxic chemical elimination and makes little effort to recycle its products. Tsk, tsk.Also anchoring the rear, Microsoft has scored a pathetic 2.7/10 for delaying its plans to eliminate harmful chemicals from its production process to 2011 and maintaining a subpar recycling program. And Sony? Well PlayStation faithful, there is finally something to cheer about: Sony ranks #3 in the Greenpeace guide with a promising 7.3/10, backed by a strong US recycling campaign. It may be the biggest, blackest behemoth on your shelf, but in the games industry, appearances can be deceptive.
Greenpeace: Nintendo bad for the environment
Greenpeace took a look at major companies and their output on the environment, recently. And, for all of us who love the Big N, it's sad that Greenpeace ranked them dead last. Yup, turns out Nintendo doesn't have favorable policies toward managing their toxic chemicals and recycling, according to Greenpeace's Guide to Greener Electronics.Due to the addition of television manufacturers and gaming consoles, some companies are finding themselves on the list for the first time. Such a company is Nintendo, who also found themselves to be the first company to score a zero out of possible ten points. Nintendo's competitors in the gaming space fared a bit better, with Microsoft scoring a 2.7 and Sony scoring an incredible 7.3.
Apple gets sued over Greenpeace iPhone report
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 suitRead -- CEH website
Apple responds to Greenpeace: what part of "end of 2008" didn't you understand?
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.
Greenpeace dismantles iPhone, discovers "hazardous chemicals"
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: Greenpeace does not claim that Apple is in violation of RoHS.[Via Switched, thanks Laura]
Greenpeace rates Apple, Lenovo higher: Sony drops to least green position
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!
Greenpeace at Apple Store Roma Est
Continental Europe's first Apple Store - Italy's Roma Est - received a huge number of visitors this past weekend, including Greenpeace. One representative, dressed as "Eva," offered a fig leaf-wearing "Ecco Steve Jobs" a green, eco-friendly Apple. The couple also brought two large, "green" iPod cutouts. If Google's Italian-to-English translation is accurate, they were eventually asked to leave.Greenpeace has been after Apple to stop using toxic materials in manufacturing of their machines for quite a while now. If there's one thing you can say about these folks, it's that they're persistent.
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.
Apple to address environmental policies?
The Greenpeace activists behind GreenMyApple.org claim that Apple may begin taking steps to address several of the company's environmental issues, despite their denial of said concerns because of a disagreement with Greenpeace's ratings and criteria. In particular, Greenpeace is concerned with Apple's use of several hazardous chemicals in its products which can have adverse effects on the environment and people's health once the equipment is disassembled. Other manufacturers have already begun to ditch some of these same toxic chemicals, and Greenpeace claims Steve Jobs recently met with a Social Responsibility Fund investor to discuss some of these environmental matters. Apple has not yet responded to this claim of meeting with Greenpeace, but they did issue a statement to a new report, which ranks Apple lower than HP, Dell, Nokia, and Sony for its global policies and practices on eliminating dangerous chemicals and on taking responsibility for products once they are thrown away by consumers. ``We disagree with Greenpeace's rating and the criteria they chose. Apple has a strong environmental track record and has led the industry in restricting and banning toxic substances such as mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium, as well as many BFRs (brominated flame retardants)." Despite the arguments, let's hope Apple can come to terms with stronger and more effective policies in this delicate day and age of increasing environmental concerns.[via MacNN]
How Apple helps the environment
Are you paying attention, Greenpeace?Blogger Chiggs at Torents examines the iTunes Store's impact on the environment, and it's a favorable one. The production of a single CD results in aluminum, nickel, dyes, polycarbonates and more. At this month's Macworld Expo, Steve Jobs announced that the iTunes Store had sold 2 billion songs. At an average of 12 tracks per disc, Chiggs figures, that's the equivalent of 166 million CDs worth of those dangerous materials. What's more, that many CDs would cover 1,050 miles when laid flat. That's quite a chunk of landfill.He also considers the results of transporting all of those CDs by truck. It's certainly a good article, and worth your time. So buy your music from the iTunes store...and save a tree, hippie.[Via MacNN]
Greenpeace Greens Apple Store San Francisco
Greenpeace today, as part of its GreenMyApple.org initiative, "greened" Apple's flagship San Francisco retail store to raise awareness of toxic substances present in electronics manufactured and sold by the Cupertino, CA company. Greenpeace members handed our flyers while a large-scale projector was set to RGB 0,255,0 and pointed at the iconic glowing Apple on the stores facade. This TUAW reporter was there, camera ready, to document the dramatic display. Click through to the gallery.
Apple versus Greenpeace
Is Apple environmentally friendly? They certainly seem to think so. Their Apple and the Environment webpage says that Apple recognizes "its responsibility as a global citizen and is continually striving to reduce the environmental impact of the work we do and the products we create." They've set up a free recycling program for purchasers of their products. They strive for energy efficiency and are continuing to reduce idle power consumption. Their products use recyclable materials and conform to a set of environmental specifications. Most of all, they claim their goal is to reduce or eliminate environmentally harmful substances from the manufacturing process. So is Greenpeace completely off the mark when it claims that the production of Macs, iPods and iBooks is exposing children in India and China to dangerous chemicals? Greenpeace is lobbying for a greener Apple and has set up a lobbying group at .mAct to make this happen. So what do you think, TUAWers? Is Apple doing enough? Does Greanpeace have a point? Does Apple deserve the low e-Waste score assigned to it today by Greenpeace? Let us know in the comments.Thanks Gyve
The real reason Greenpeace was ejected from MacExpo
A few days ago we mentioned that Greenpeace had gotten kicked out of MacExpo in London and I hinted that it was the Apple Goon Squad that was responsible for their eviction. I was being cheeky, of course, as I am wont to do - but it turns out that Apple wasn't the sole complainant. In fact, it was Greenpeace's refusal to play by the rules that got them escorted out. Macworld UK has the scoop...According to Bob Denton, Event Director, the removal of Greenpeace had nothing to do its message or the materials being handed out. Bob said: "They paid money and had the right to be at the show." The problem started when a group of 12 Greenpeace activists gathered outside the show entrance and started handing out flyers and apples to attendees. Bob Denton said: "We want people to be cool and calm as they enter the show".He explained to the Greenpeace organisers that it would be acceptable for two activists to stand by the stairs inside the show and hand out flyers, but the event management would not allow a gathering outside the main door.There then followed a number of complaints about the behaviour of Greenpeace activists from four visitors and five exhibitors, one of which was Apple. Allegedly, Greenpeace attendees were invading other stands for mock photo shoots and replacing other exhibitors' promotional material with their own.The problem came to a head when one woman complained that they had placed an apple in her child's pram and were taking photographs of him without her permission. Despite several warnings, Greenpeace continued behaving badly and after two more visitors and two more exhibitors complained later in the day, Denton ejected the activists, citing clause 13 of the terms and conditions that Greenpeace signed, which prohibits deliberate and unprovoked attempts to create conflict as well as drunk and/or abusive conduct.So there you have it. Radical activists taking the peace out of Greenpeace.Thanks, Mike!
Dell starts up their free recycling program
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]
Greenpeace creates mock Apple homepage
Apple is not Greenpeace's favorite computer company, as we all know (though I'm not sure what company Greenpeace actually likes, but that is a subject for a different blog). Continuing their 'Why must Apple sell poison' campaign Greenpeace has launched a site that parodies Apple.com. While this is a clever idea, I have to wonder why there is no Dell page. They explain that Dell has pretty good standards and that Apple would force them to be even better, but somehow I doubt that (the forcing bit, I know nothing of Dell's environmental record).Ah, right, in their FAQ they say, 'No - this is not a campaign against Apple - it's a campaign to change Apple for the better,' and 'Apple should be setting the trend for a green future.' I just hope that Greenpeace isn't targeting a sexy computer company (probably the only computer company on the planet that can be called sexy) to get attention. I'm sure they are just concerned for us all. [via Daring Fireball]
Greenpeace slams Apple, Motorola and Lenovo for toxic chemicals
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]
Nokia gets nod for being green
Greenpeace's "Green Electronics Guide," which ranks global electronics companies quarterly on environmental friendliness, has Nokia coming out on top among ranked phone manufacturers and ties Dell for best manufacturer overall. The guide apparently takes into account a variety of factors, including corporate policy, quantity of environmentally destructive chemicals used in production, and recycling programs. Sony Ericsson, Samsung, and LG are all bunched up in the middle of the pack, with Motorola finishing a distant last, besting only Lenovo. According to Greenpeace, all of the manufacturers have room for improvement -- Nokia included -- but hopefully this serves as a stark reminder to Moto that they need to, uh, start taking back our worn-out RAZRs and replacing them with MOTORAZR MAXXes. Yeah, that's it.[Thanks, Abdul]
