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 236685
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE
by zbrimhall on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:20 UTC 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 DigitalAxis on Wed 2nd May 2007 22:24 in reply to "RE"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

* 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
The economy AND our government (for failing to do anything about the American Worker). When gas hit $3 per gallon people were calling out for the strategic petroleum reserve to be tapped.

* America would not work with the Kyoto agreement
This has to change. Hopefully with the next election, it will.

* American cars are consistently less fuel efficient than cars of any other country
Few things make me laugh and cry at the same time quite like the 'gas card' incentives GM and Ford were trying to roll out a while back, to entice people to buy their same gigantic gas-guzzling cars during the "OMG $3" gas crisis. I find it hard to believe the desire for more fuel-efficient cars caught them THAT off guard that they didn't have anything decently efficient to promote.

No comment on the others...

I think what you've managed to nail is the difference between "good" and "less bad" (and equivalently, the difference between "better" and "good").

For someone who's definitely going to buy a new computer anyway, greener is better, and Apple is to be commended. At least, as long as Steve Jobs didn't leave out a huge list of other nasty chemicals that Apple refuses to dump but that Dell has...

Reply Parent Score: 3

v RE
by dekernel on Wed 2nd May 2007 23:11 in reply to "RE"
RE
by orfanum on Thu 3rd May 2007 06:37 in reply to "RE"
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

We all need to clean up but if you really want to keep the pressure on you'd best tactically switch your attention to China, India and Brazil: the US, as is Europe, is inhabited to a great extent by a culturally post-industrial population - the *current* US Administration will soon seem like a lot of neutered pussycats once the Chinese dragon starts to dig its heels in over carbon emissions (and then ask yourself where a lot of PC equipment is now produced these days)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE
by tonywob on Thu 3rd May 2007 09:18 in reply to "RE"
tonywob Member since:
2005-07-06

Its not just America, most of the developed world is the same. True, fuel costs less in America, but that doesn't stop people in the UK or France for example, driving down to the shops in a 4x4 vehicle, or buying a petrol guzzling people carrier for one person.

I doubt society will ever change, because 99% of people don't care, because it won't effect them.

Reply Parent Score: 1