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 236749
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE
by jelway on Wed 2nd May 2007 22:30 UTC 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 A.H. on Thu 3rd May 2007 14:00 in reply to "RE"
A.H. Member since:
2005-11-11

"I think he was using those extremes to make a point."

Which extremes exactly? Are you referring to those words: "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."? If that is the case then yes, I did fail to interpret it as an extreme because to me it did sound like he was seriously suggesting it.

"Clearly you missed it."

Clearly, I did. What exactly was the point? That instead of trying to create more efficient computers and cars we should abandon them altogether, along with all other achievements of the civilization? Bicycling btw, is not perfectly green either. Think of all the metal, rubber, paint and lubricants that were used during the manufacturing of that bike.

Do you realize that any living organism's activity is inherently damaging to it's environment and requires some other organisms activity to counter it? If there were no animals to convert oxygen to carbon dioxide by means of breathing then the level of oxygen would rise dangerously high, resulting in massive wildfires killing the very plants the produced it.

So, what exactly was the point? Perhaps you should enlighten me.

And btw, when I said "Following your logic the ultimate green solution would be to nuke the entire human population." I was using an extreme to make a point, the point that I spelled out right afterwards and which YOU clearly missed.

Reply Parent Score: 1