Vincent Ferrari
01-08-2009, 08:00 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/toxics/waiting-for-apple-to-meet-computer-detox-promise20090107' target='_blank'>http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/t...promise20090107</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"The only new product Apple has announced so far at this year's Macworld was a new MacBook Pro with reduced amounts of PVC and BFRs. Which is good, but not what Apple had promised for 2009 and no substantial further progress than the MacBooks announced in October. Let's just take a minute to remember why this matters. Toxic chemicals in electronics are a cause of serious environmental pollution, putting workers at risk of exposure during both the production and disposal processes. Greenpeace investigations into the e-waste yards of India, Ghana and China over the past few years have uncovered numerous examples of poorly protected workers being exposed to toxic pollution. Removing PVC and BFRs would make Apple computers safer and easier to recycle, as well as allowing much higher recycling rates to be achieved."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/at/auto/1231419632.usr18053.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" /></p><p>It's nice to see GreenPeace taking on the important issues, like a continued vendetta against Apple. I don't see a whole lot of complaints against other companies (HP and Dell sell infinitely more laptops and desktops than Apple does) who are close to Apple on their scale of computer makers (see their chart <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-dell-ranki-4" target="_blank">here</a>), but then again, most of those companies are big enough to not give a damn.</p><p>Two of the comments on their blog post particularly made me smile. They're after the jump if you'd like to follow along.<MORE /><em>If Greenpeace wants to be taken seriously, at least be honest and balanced. </em></p><p><em>jossc said: "And yet the one new product announced so far at this year's Macworld, the Macbook Pro, turns out not to meet Mr Jobs' new greener specification; sure it has reduced amounts of the offending chemicals, but they've not been removed altogether."</em></p><p><em>Steve Jobs said: "Last year we announced the unprecedented goal of eliminating polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) from Apple products by the end of 2008. I’m proud to report that all of Apple's new product designs are on track to meet our 2008 year-end goal."</em></p><p><em>I looked it up (something maybe jossc should have done before his blog entry): The only laptop that Apple hasn't updated is the entry-level White MacBook. If memory serves, designed in 2005/2006, released May 2006 (that number comes before 2008 jossc.) I further looked at Apple's other Macs. While some of their Desktops/All-in-Ones still achieve Silver EPEAT ratings, they are older designs... the iMac and Mini. Designed/released well before Steve's announcement.</em></p><p><em>jossc, get your facts straight. If your going to demand responsibility, try being a good example. Sucker punches may win a round, but not the fight.</em></p><p><em>MHO, the wedge</em></p><p>Well-put, I would say. Another commenter really nails them to the wall.</p><p><em>"FWIW, I'd be curious to know if 100% of the PCs that Greenpeace are currently using in their office are as environmentally clean as the 2009 Macbook 17" that this blog is criticizing...</em></p><p><em>...and if Greenpeace is not leading by example, then why not?"</em></p>