Greenpeace ranks Apple as least eco-friendly electronics firm

How Do You Like Them, Apple?

Are you reading this on a Mac? D'oh. A new Greenpeace report ranks Apple's environmental record worst among 14 major electronics firms, based on use of hazardous chemicals in production and efforts to recycle products at the end of their lives. The iPod manufacturer was i-poohed for continuing to use several types of harmful chemicals, including PVC and some brominated flame retardants, and for the lack of a comprehensive recycling program for its products. Little-known Chinese PC maker Lenovo got top honors in the Greenpeace report, and was lauded for letting all of its customers give back their computers for recycling. Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Dell, and Samsung filled out the top five. Apple disputed the rotten report and claimed through a spokesperson that it "has a strong environmental track record and has led the industry in restricting and banning toxic substances such as mercury, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium, as well as many [brominated flame retardants]." How's that for biting back?

straight to the source: The Independent, Michael McCarthy, 04 Apr 2007

straight to the source: MSNBC.com, Associated Press, 04 Apr 2007

straight to the source: BBC News, 04 Apr 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (7 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

re: Apple not eco friendly

Isn't Al Gore still on the Apple Inc's Board of Directors?

by coastie at 11:15 AM on 05 Apr 2007

Apples not Eco friendly/

As a strong supporter of GreenPeace and the Apple family, it's hard to believe Apple's not eco friendly. Consider the three R rule; Reuse, Renew, Recycle - and you'll see Apple/mac is #1. Which computer lasts longest (gets most "reuse" and has the lowest trashing rate)? Which has the best customer service(easiest to "renew")? Which has the lowest frequency of Repair ("need to "renew") ? You guessed it...check C.U. for back-up on this. Apple could consider safer chemical foundations, and could also consider buying back and recycling used/outdated equipment and really become a leader in this area....but considering how I stay on the same (Apple/Mac) computer year after year, with simple updates (no "major surgery" needed) and high resale value when I need to "renew", it means far fewer "apples" being trashed in to the land fill. Al Gore knows "Apples" from "Lemons".

Robert H. Pike

by Robecology at 12:59 PM on 05 Apr 2007

thrill us apple

we macusers tend to be a passionate and loyal bunch, and apple has always been a company with visionary, useful tools and software

looks like they need to create an even better vision of themselves and transform this bad news into great news

innovative creative leadership, its what they do best, i challenge them to get to the top of that list and have fun doing it

and, sure the job of Apple PR is to tell bout the good they do, but it sure sounds like they can do a whole lot better

as far as longevity..I know many kids whose i-pods don't see 2 years ...abuse, whatever, they don't want to pay to have them fixed and they will end up in the garbage

by valerie at 6:27 PM on 05 Apr 2007

This post brought to you by the letters W T F

What does Greenpeace have against Apple? I mean, seriously, PVC?! Apple gets rid of tons of lead, cadmium, chromium, mercury... actually dangerous chemicals, and Greenpeace is harping on a type of plastic that environmental engineers put down boreholes to assess site contamination?

As for lifecycle management and recycling, how many computer companies will take back your previous computer, even if it's not one of theirs?

Go to http://www.apple.com/environment/. Their environmental strategies extend beyond meeting numerical targets for specified substances. I don't see the problem with their environmental policy.

geobeck

by geobeck at 8:46 AM on 06 Apr 2007

Lenova

Lenova isn't so "little known" when you consider that they also own IBM.

by Mattybee at 9:03 AM on 07 Apr 2007

Green Apple?

I am not so sure about the recycling of their electronic parts, but Apple's fancy packaging overkill certainly is not eco-friendly. Most of their packaging materials are not recyclable. This could be easily solved - and should be.

by eelalien at 6:45 AM on 10 Apr 2007

Greenpeace attacks Apple statements, not products?

FROM BUSINESS WEEK ONLINE / Web address below

But there's a problem with Greenpeace's claims. Let's start with the issue of PVC. Apple and Dell still use it in certain parts, notably the plastic insulators on internal cabling. Still, Dell gets more credit on the PVC issue. Why? Because Dell has said it plans to stop using PVC by 2009. This even though, given its volume, Dell is flooding the world with far more PVC than Apple. Dell shipped 39 million PCs in 2006, more than seven times Apple's 5.3 million, according to researcher IDC. Apple, too, has committed to eliminating PVC but hasn't set a definitive date.

Now let's look at BFRs, which are used to laminate printed circuit boards, in part to keep computers from bursting into flames. As with PVC, Dell has promised to eliminate their use by 2009. Again, Apple has promised to do the same, but hasn't set a date. Meanwhile, both are waiting for the computer industry to settle on better alternatives that don't have such negative environmental impacts.

As of now, neither Apple nor Dell--nor Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) for that matter--is selling a single PVC- or BFR-free computer. So in truth, Greenpeace has graded Apple based on statements, not actions. Both Dell and Apple are in the same boat, but one is saying the right things in public, and getting applause for it. What happens, I wonder, if 2009 comes and goes and Dell finds itself backtracking on its commitment? Nothing good, from a public relations standpoint, I suspect.

There is another authority on this issue: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which hosts an online tool called EPEAT, the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool. EPEAT uses a set of criteria developed with the IEEE (formerly the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), which is a global standards-setting body for electronics manufacturing.

False Drama
EPEAT has established 23 required and 28 optional criteria, addressing such issues as reducing and eliminating toxic materials and building machines whose life can be extended by swapping out old parts for new. Using those metrics, Apple acquits itself well. No single maker earned a "gold" rating, which means the vendor meets all of the first 23 criteria and at least 75% of the additional 28. To qualify for "silver" status, you have to meet the first 23 requirements and at least half of the additional 28. Apple's MacBook Pro came within two points of hitting "gold" status, scoring 19 out of 28 on the optional requirements. Dell's highest score was 15, on its Precision and Latitude notebooks.

And how did Apple and Dell score on the "materials selection" portion of their EPEAT tests? Terribly: Both got zero out of three. The same was true of HP.

So if you're evaluating an Apple purchase versus another computer product based on the haranguing that Apple is receiving from Greenpeace, don't be fooled. Apple's no more or less evil than any other computer manufacturer. And while it's one thing to call attention to a problem that an entire industry needs to address, Greenpeace's methodologies, in this particular case, don't paint an accurate picture.

From http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc ...

Agee Worthwhat

by ageeworth at 7:05 AM on 10 Apr 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?