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 236680
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE
by MattPie on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:12 UTC 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 Luminair on Wed 2nd May 2007 21:17 in reply to "RE"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

You're on crazy pills. You're saying the human race is doomed because people are doing something good instead of nothing good. Crazy pills.

Any progress is good progress. That's the long and short of it.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE
by jrlah on Thu 3rd May 2007 05:48 in reply to "RE"
jrlah Member since:
2005-08-09

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.

Yep. And most of those Asians would gladly give away the pride of their small environmental footprint in exchange for the living standard of an Englishman.

Please stop your luddite ranting. You are also probably the kind of person who will blame the West for the poverty of those Asians and expect the West to make that poverty go away. The poverty that is the main cause of their small environmental footprint. Which is it??? Seems that you would like developed countries to NOT eat their cake AND NOT have it, either.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE
by Mordakk on Thu 3rd May 2007 14:31 in reply to "RE"
Mordakk Member since:
2007-03-06

Start acting like you really believe what you are saying. Live off the grid.

No not just off the grid, you need to live without consuming any manufactured goods or argricultural products harvested with manufactured goods such as threshing machines, tractors or even a simple blade. Seriously how much pollution goes into the production of every day gardening tools used by the so-called organic farmers?

You need to raise all your own food and make all your own tools out of wood and stone. Arg! Wait if you did that you would have to pull vegetation out of some small plot of land and plant your own vegetation and that would disrupt the natural order of that plot of land. So instead you can only gather wild berries and nuts and maybe the occasional fruit from a tree. But don't deprive any other animals or insects from those things because that would also have an unnatural and negative impact on the environment.

Well ... good luck

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE
by ma_d on Thu 3rd May 2007 16:38 in reply to "RE"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

How is your gas and electric company going to keep tv's from having intensive stand by modes...

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 Jules on Wed 2nd May 2007 22:24 in reply to "RE"
Jules Member since:
2007-01-30

How much CO2 does uranium mining produce?


And also quite some one you want to get rid of the waste products ;)

Edited 2007-05-02 22:25

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE
by sultanqasim on Wed 2nd May 2007 23:14 in reply to "RE"
sultanqasim Member since:
2006-10-28

Very Little. Mining requires only a bit of energy compared to what is produced. This is not oil drilling.

Though I agree with you point (no electricity is the greenest), Nuclear is much better than the common coal aand oil burning plants. Also, a nuclear plant releases less radiation into the environment than a coal plant!

Sorry if this comment was a bit off topic but nuclear is not too bad.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE
by Mordakk on Thu 3rd May 2007 14:07 in reply to "RE"
Mordakk Member since:
2007-03-06

If only everyone had your amazing telepathic abilities we could drastically cut down on power consumption. After all I assume you posted this without the aide of some sort of manufactured electrical device.

Reply Parent Score: 1

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 Johann Chua on Thu 3rd May 2007 11:16 in reply to "RE"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Fossil fuel pollution is much harder to manage than nuclear waste. There's so much of it, and it goes right into the atmosphere.

Reply Parent Score: 3