Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd May 2007 19:19 UTC, submitted by DevL
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 236813
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
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'.