Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd May 2007 19:19 UTC, submitted by DevL
Apple Steve Jobs writes about Apple's efforts to become a more enironmental friendly company. "Apple has been criticized by some environmental organizations for not being a leader in removing toxic chemicals from its new products, and for not aggressively or properly recycling its old products. Upon investigating Apple's current practices and progress towards these goals, I was surprised to learn that in many cases Apple is ahead of, or will soon be ahead of, most of its competitors in these areas. Whatever other improvements we need to make, it is certainly clear that we have failed to communicate the things that we are doing well." Among other things, Apple will introduce LEDs in displays to Macs this year.
Thread beginning with comment 236669
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE
by Kroc on Wed 2nd May 2007 19:46 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

I'm sorry but I have to rant.
I really hate how the word "green" is misused so badly. The human race is deluded.

People think that by buying something "green" they are saving the environment. You are not. You are just damaging it a tiny, tiny bit less. A green car, still emits CO2. An electric car still has to be powered by a power station burning coal/wood. A green computer still does massive damage to the environment in the energy the company burns and the energy you burn with it over its lifetime.

Because green is the big new marketing buzz, the marketers are using it with very little understanding, and it should be stopped. The greenest thing you can do is to not buy a computer at all. The greenest car you can buy is none at all, or a bicyle.

Seriously, stop fooling people, and stop being fooled by meaningless "green" marketing.

Reply Score: 5

RE
by MattPie on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:12 in reply to "RE"
MattPie Member since:
2006-04-18

A green car, still emits CO2. An electric car still has to be powered by a power station burning coal/wood.

Not necessarily. Most of the power in my neck of the woods (Souteast PA) comes from nuclear and a little from wind. Who knows, maybe my electric car is being charged by a big solar array in my back yard.

A little improvement is better than none at all.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE
by Kroc on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:22 in reply to "RE"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

A little improvement is good, but dellusional belief of buying something, anything, because it's "greener" is fundamentally backwards.

I have seen adverts from the main gas and electric supplier in England, saying that they have the lowest CO2 emmissions out of their competitiors. That is meaningless diatribe, because as a gas and electric supplier, they burn hundreds of tonnes of fosil fuels everyday, they supply electricity to millions of homes powering TVs on standby. They may emmit less CO2, but that's still relative to the incredible amount they pump out. It's entirely misleading information, false advertising at best, and doesn't tackle the actual problem of the energy we are burning having TVs on standby with legislation to use 0-draw stand-by modes still years away.

Madness, utter madness. We're screwed. The human race is doomed by mankind's fantastic ability to delude itself. Yesterday I heard a fact that by the age of 2, we (in the UK) will have been responsible for more carbon emissions than an asian in their whole lifetime.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE
by stew on Wed 2nd May 2007 21:08 in reply to "RE"
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

How much CO2 does uranium mining produce?

The cleanest electricity is still no electricity. Unplug.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE
by jelway on Wed 2nd May 2007 22:28 in reply to "RE"
jelway Member since:
2006-05-14

Yeah, that sounds right...just like that time when Sony had those supposedly PS3s at E3. When they were really hooked up to computers...okay dumb analogy.

But just because the power comes from sources - does it really mean that it's going towards an end product that contributes to "greener" matters? If it doesn't than how much of an improvement is it?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE
by wirespot on Thu 3rd May 2007 10:22 in reply to "RE"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Most of the power in my neck of the woods (Souteast PA) comes from nuclear and a little from wind.

I hope you don't think that nuclear power is environment-friendly. Because it's not. When the nuclear fuel has to be disposed off, eventually, it's one of the most harmful things ever encountered in nature.

Energy emission and consumption, in most forms, is actually what hurts the environment. No matter how "green" the method you obtain that energy, you end up releasing heat, which in turn contributes to the global warming and screwes up everything. Ecology is a closed system, everything ties to everything else.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE
by iskios on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:14 in reply to "RE"
iskios Member since:
2005-07-06

It's about balance. I own computers, some of which I have gotten from colleges and companies that would have scrapped them right into the local land fills. I do not drive, I use a rather minimal amount of paper, etc.

I do not pretend that I do not pollute the world in my own way, everyone does, but I do hope that by living a certain way I am keeping a certain balancing act going that keeps me polluting the world a little less.

Does that little bit mean much? Maybe not, that one drop in the ocean usually doesn't, but if millions of us try to do it, we start to make a difference.

So, i understand your rant, Green has become as much a buzzword as buying trinkets has become charity, but we can hope to inspire people to make their little difference here and there, and what's wrong with that?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE
by Kroc on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:26 in reply to "RE"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"but if millions of us try to do it, we start to make a difference. "
Indeed, we do, but at the end of the day we just pollute less. We don't reverse the incredible damage we've done to the planet.

Just as we've been discussing this, another couple of acres of rainforest has disappeared. Another 6 species of animal or plantlife has just been made extinct. The cure for cancer could just have been wiped out in the last 10 minutes, and we wouldn't know about it.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that the way the human race is now, it's a downard hill with no way of going back.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE
by Isolationist on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:55 in reply to "RE"
Isolationist Member since:
2006-05-28

Why not use the word 'got' instead of 'gotten', unless you are using stock phrases?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE
by lqsh on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:15 in reply to "RE"
lqsh Member since:
2007-01-01

"Seriously, stop fooling people, and stop being fooled by meaningless "green" marketing."

I agree.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE
by zbrimhall on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:20 in reply to "RE"
zbrimhall Member since:
2006-08-21

So let me get this straight: you would have the whole world stop buying computers, stop driving cars, stop, in effect, using energy that comes from a power plant.

Um, no.

Look, I'm all for people driving less (I don't own a car) and getting off their fat arses to carry their own weight for a while. And I'm all for finding alternatives to energy sources that we know are doing damage to our environment. But the fact is, our society *depends* on the things you would have us give up. There exists this idea of sustainable living--and I believe these "green" products play to this idea--wherein we acknowledge that we don't want to stop our society, but rather change our behavior enough that the impact we have on our environment is mitigated, and ideally eliminated, by the methods of conservation that we adopt.

Now, given that, would you rather fight for a society that doesn't burn fuel (ain't gonna happen), or fight for a society that makes conscientious decisions about what it does with the energy the burnt fuel provides, with the goal of finding ways to affect positive change that balances out the harm we're doing? I for one applaud any company that recognizes the importance of gradual--and voluntary!--adoption of cleaner practices.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE
by Kroc on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:37 in reply to "RE"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I'm all for using our inventions responsibly, but take into fact:

* The oil industry actively prevents innovation in alternative power sources.
* America consumes 75% of the worlds resources for 12% of the landmass.
* Americans also pay the least amount of tax on gas. If gas cost $7.36 per gallon, like it does here in the UK (1 litre = ~£1) there would be riots in the street. The economy would collapse
* America would not work with the Kyoto agreement
* American cars are consitently less fuel efficient than cars of any other country
* American corporate greed actively prevents innovation in less environmentally damaging technologies and products. Europe has been one of the leaders, including the fridge eating machine, better designed housing / materials and construction processes.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE
by A.H. on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:20 in reply to "RE"
A.H. Member since:
2005-11-11

Following your logic the ultimate green solution would be to nuke the entire human population.

The environment is naturally able to dispose our waste at a certain rate. It's when we are producing the waste at higher rate than the nature is able to dispose of it then it becomes a problem. The CO2 on it's own is not a problem, every living thing is exhaling it. It's when CO2 is continuously produced in huge amounts then it becomes "bad", or so they say.

The goal of the green movement is to try establishing an equilibrium with nature by cutting down the rate of waste production. It's basically about efficiency.

Having said that I feel that CO2 production is receiving way too much attention compared to the production and use or other much more dangerous pollutants. Also, seeing the amount of disposable items used and thrown into garbage daily simply p@#$%s me off.

Edited 2007-05-02 20:24

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE
by Kroc on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:39 in reply to "RE"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"Following your logic the ultimate green solution would be to nuke the entire human population. "

To which my reply,

“On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.” Charles Babbage

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE
by jelway on Wed 2nd May 2007 22:30 in reply to "RE"
jelway Member since:
2006-05-14

I think he was using those extremes to make a point. Clearly you missed it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE
by kaiwai on Thu 3rd May 2007 03:12 in reply to "RE"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

People think that by buying something "green" they are saving the environment. You are not. You are just damaging it a tiny, tiny bit less. A green car, still emits CO2. An electric car still has to be powered by a power station burning coal/wood. A green computer still does massive damage to the environment in the energy the company burns and the energy you burn with it over its lifetime.


Actually, an electric car, given that scenario, is actually worse for the environment when you take into account the inefficiencies of large scale power generation and distribution.

In Australia a couple of years ago, Melbourne university boffins did a study on the exact scenario, but using electric trams and bus's; the conclusion reached was that it was more environmentally friendly to just use a diesel bus than the so-called 'green technology'.

Ultimately, as a leading UK environmentalist said about wind farms - it is a nice big project that politicians love to have their name associated with and appear to have some degree of "look what we're doing" when in reality, it doesn't take the full life cycle into account.

Take Nuclear, which is being touted as a 'green' replacement for large scale electricity generation - but what it doesn't take into account is the amount of petrochemicals and emissions given off in the process of mining the Uranium and then from there enrich it for use as fuel - that doesn't taken into account the issue of long term power generation, maintenance of both the station and storage of reprocessing and waste management.

Even so-called 'green' power such as wind power completely ignores the amount of CO2 emitted during the production process of the wind farm itself - infact the last article I read on the matter stated that it would be very optimistic if the amount of CO2 emissions saved were actually met by the amount put out during product.

I find it funny people wanting high tech, visibly noticeable, grand projects to some how say, "hey, look, we're trying!" when in reality there are much simpler ways of saving the environment.

How about this, don't take a car to work, take a bus or some form of public transport, walk and bike rather than taking the car on the weekend, don't have your house lit up like a Christmas tree, don't have your house so warm that its like sitting in a sauna - yes, I've actually been in house that are so warm you could walk around in a g-string and still find it too warm.

Couple that with the 'its someone elses responsibility to cut their emissions' - humanity is ultimately going to kill itself in this age of 'caring for the environment' because no one takes responsibility for their own choices let alone looks at responses to the environmental issues in a responsible way - that is, properly analysing all the facts relating to the so-called 'green technology'.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE
by tyrione on Fri 4th May 2007 04:20 in reply to "RE"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

I'm all for mass transit systems, especially well designed light rails. However, most businesses aren't clustered in easily accessible zones that make just taking a bus or train to work is an option.

Carpooling should have been a standard but people don't like people enough to be in a car every morning with them, on the way to work.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE
by ma_d on Thu 3rd May 2007 16:36 in reply to "RE"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Dude... All of our progressive efforts to save the environment are nothing more than damaging it less. Anything else is just fixing past mistakes, and that's not something any consumer can hope to significantly participate in.

While I'm all for this avoidance of harmful chemicals and such I'd be a much bigger fan of consumers taking some responsibility and disposing of things properly. We have an entire generation who seems to think it's ok to just pile trash near the city.

Reply Parent Score: 2