Headline FeedsMacNewsWorld Talkback
|
|
Re: Greenpeace Drizzles on Apple's New Green Ad Campaign
Posted by: Renay San Miguel 2008-11-30 16:53:48
See Full Story
The silver Macbook spins slowly in front of an all-white background, as it has in previous Apple television commercials. But this ad's overall spin is different -- instead of talking up digital media, faster processors and more memory, this one mentions toxic chemicals, recyclable aluminum and glass, and energy efficiency. "The new Macbooks. The world's greenest family of notebooks," says the voiceover in the commercial, which began running in network prime-time slots this week. Also released this week: the 10th version of Greenpeace's Guide to Greener Electronics.
Who has the incentive to deceive? Greenpeace doesn't.
Posted by: amosbatto 2008-12-14 07:37:07 In reply to: Renay San Miguel
Apple has a financial incentive to deceive the public about the greenness of its practices, whereas Greenpeace has little financial incentive to deceive anyone on this issue. Greenpeace clearly explains how it measures companies and provides companies with a clear instructions how to improve their scores. It is hard to see how Greenpeace is deceiving anyone on this issue.
Unlike most major environmental groups, Greenpeace has a policy of not accepting corporate donations in order to maintain its independence. This is probably the reason that Greenpeace has the courage to target the computer industry unlike most other environmental groups.
Computer manufacturing is a very polluting and environmentally destructive activity. According to a 2004 study by Eric Williams at Carnegie Mellon, the fabrication of a typical desktop computer and 17 in CRT monitor requires 1.8 tons of raw materials, 240kg of fossil fuels, 22kg of chemical substances and 1500kg of water. In total, it consumes 6400 megajoules of energy. The material intensity of a computer is roughly 10 times the intensity of automobiles and refrigerators. According to the study 81% of the total energy of computers lies in the fabrication, compared to 19% consumed in the operation. In other words, the rapid consumption and rapid junking of the computer is the biggest environmental problem, not the energy efficiency of its components. Companies like Apple earn higher profits when they can convince consumers to consume more and throw away at a faster rate, but these practices are the worst for the environment.
I have read William's study and couldn't see any obvious holes in his method of calculation, although the study is based upon industry estimates from the early 2000s, which are very out-dated considering how fast the industry changes.
Electronics is an undeniably dirty industry and Apple has a great deal of financial incentive to deceive and spin the public about this issue. Apple bases its product design around planned obsolescence, so consumers will quickly throw away its products and buy new. Look how Apple designed the ipod so the consumer had to throw it away after 18 months when the battery wore out. Apple secretly paid lobbyists to campaign against recycling laws for electronics, and then tried to cover it up when questioned about its lobbying practices.
Apple has one of the worst records in the industry on environmental issues, so it is hardly surprising that it would receive a low score from Greenpeace. HP and Dell agreed to recycle their products responsibly several years before Apple and still have better recycling policies than Apple. Probably the two best companies on the environment have been Dell and Asus. Dell has set a corporate goal of eventually becoming a carbon neutral company. Asus and Dell are both designing new products with bamboo cases. Dell and Asus have several product lines certified as EPEAT Gold. Dell's optiplex line is certified with TCO and Blue Angel. Asus was the first company to meet the stringent EU Flower eco-standad with its N-series laptops. The greenest companies are generally the European companies (Nokia, Sony-Erikson, SGS Thomson), followed by the Japanese companies. American companies are generally the worst. Japanese companies like Sony, Sharp, NEC have engineered some innovative environmental products.
In comparison to other companies, Apple is clearly a laggard on environmental issues, so it is surprising to see it claim that it is an environmental company. If it is going to claim that the new Macbooks are the most green products, it could have proven it with a TCO, Blue Angel and EU Flower certification. The fact that the new Macbooks haven't been given those certifications suggests that the new MacBooks aren't the greenest computers in the industry. In comparison, the EPEAT Gold and Energy Star 4.0 certifications which the Macbook has obtained are much laxer standards.
If you want a green PC buy a Dell Optiplex. If you want a green laptop go with an Asus N-series. Whatever you do, don't trust Apple's marketing spin without being able to independently verify it.
Unlike most major environmental groups, Greenpeace has a policy of not accepting corporate donations in order to maintain its independence. This is probably the reason that Greenpeace has the courage to target the computer industry unlike most other environmental groups.
Computer manufacturing is a very polluting and environmentally destructive activity. According to a 2004 study by Eric Williams at Carnegie Mellon, the fabrication of a typical desktop computer and 17 in CRT monitor requires 1.8 tons of raw materials, 240kg of fossil fuels, 22kg of chemical substances and 1500kg of water. In total, it consumes 6400 megajoules of energy. The material intensity of a computer is roughly 10 times the intensity of automobiles and refrigerators. According to the study 81% of the total energy of computers lies in the fabrication, compared to 19% consumed in the operation. In other words, the rapid consumption and rapid junking of the computer is the biggest environmental problem, not the energy efficiency of its components. Companies like Apple earn higher profits when they can convince consumers to consume more and throw away at a faster rate, but these practices are the worst for the environment.
I have read William's study and couldn't see any obvious holes in his method of calculation, although the study is based upon industry estimates from the early 2000s, which are very out-dated considering how fast the industry changes.
Electronics is an undeniably dirty industry and Apple has a great deal of financial incentive to deceive and spin the public about this issue. Apple bases its product design around planned obsolescence, so consumers will quickly throw away its products and buy new. Look how Apple designed the ipod so the consumer had to throw it away after 18 months when the battery wore out. Apple secretly paid lobbyists to campaign against recycling laws for electronics, and then tried to cover it up when questioned about its lobbying practices.
Apple has one of the worst records in the industry on environmental issues, so it is hardly surprising that it would receive a low score from Greenpeace. HP and Dell agreed to recycle their products responsibly several years before Apple and still have better recycling policies than Apple. Probably the two best companies on the environment have been Dell and Asus. Dell has set a corporate goal of eventually becoming a carbon neutral company. Asus and Dell are both designing new products with bamboo cases. Dell and Asus have several product lines certified as EPEAT Gold. Dell's optiplex line is certified with TCO and Blue Angel. Asus was the first company to meet the stringent EU Flower eco-standad with its N-series laptops. The greenest companies are generally the European companies (Nokia, Sony-Erikson, SGS Thomson), followed by the Japanese companies. American companies are generally the worst. Japanese companies like Sony, Sharp, NEC have engineered some innovative environmental products.
In comparison to other companies, Apple is clearly a laggard on environmental issues, so it is surprising to see it claim that it is an environmental company. If it is going to claim that the new Macbooks are the most green products, it could have proven it with a TCO, Blue Angel and EU Flower certification. The fact that the new Macbooks haven't been given those certifications suggests that the new MacBooks aren't the greenest computers in the industry. In comparison, the EPEAT Gold and Energy Star 4.0 certifications which the Macbook has obtained are much laxer standards.
If you want a green PC buy a Dell Optiplex. If you want a green laptop go with an Asus N-series. Whatever you do, don't trust Apple's marketing spin without being able to independently verify it.
