Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Greenpeace Slams Apple For Environmental Record

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the green-apple-get-it dept.

Businesses 271

nandemoari writes "According to a recent advertisement airing on American TV, Apple's new Macbooks (well-received by most technology critics) are 'the world's greenest family of notebooks.' It seems an indication that the Cupertino-based company is increasingly aware of a consumer base that demands green electronics. However, Greenpeace is less than enthused with Apple's overall green performance. In their report (PDF), the environmentalists argue that Apple 'needs to commit to phasing out additional substances with timelines, improve its policy on chemicals and its reporting on chemicals management.'" Ars Technica points out that Greenpeace's research isn't quite up-to-snuff, and it's also worth noting that Greenpeace admitted to targeting Apple for the publicity in the past.

cancel ×

271 comments

But... (3, Funny)

isBandGeek() (1369017) | more than 5 years ago | (#25921925)

What could be more organic and green than apples?

(Not even oranges measure up.)

Re:But... (1, Funny)

nametaken (610866) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922217)

I think they're upset that all those Apple people wear turtlenecks. ...I'll be here all week, tip your waitress.

Trickle down is beneficial (2, Insightful)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#25921941)

Greenpeace's strategy isn't really bad. Sure, they're picking on a big company for publicity, but whatever effects are the result of greenpeace's research will trickle down into the factory floors of their component suppliers having a much larger effect.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (5, Insightful)

c_forq (924234) | more than 5 years ago | (#25921987)

I think it might actually have a kind of opposite effect. By focusing on Apple worse offenders continue on under the radar. In addition it sends a message to the Dells and HPs that "if you advertise your green programs, we will rip you apart for publicity". So as a competing manufacturer, why would you take on expenses to advertise, or even clean up, your manufacturing process?

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (4, Funny)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922265)

Greenpeace is just being *completely* unfair here. I mean, what next? Are they now going to go after Apple for the new sealskin covered MacBook, or the walrus ivory iPod?

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (3, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25923203)

Actually, I don't think Dell and HP are worried about this. Greenpeace is doing this, not to tear down Apple or to change Apple's behaviour.

These press releases (which seem to have increased in frequency) are to try boost awareness of Greenpeace. They claim all the credit for any positive changes Apple makes, while constantly changing the goalposts so that most of the time, Apple has a failing grade. They are trying to new young people to be part of their movement by targeting the company that makes the cool products that so many of them like. If Apple could grow completely organic computers, Greenpeace would still find some way to give them a failing grade, just so Greenpeace can say "We're still relevant".

Greenpeace will NEVER be happy with Apple until Apple goes out of business, and any land they have is returned to farmland.

I would find Greenpeace more credible if they targeted the worst offenders, instead of just 'popular' companies. So it's about improving the environment, not improving the image of Greenpeace.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922155)

Does crying wolf sound familiar? If we cannot believe Greenpeace on this, what can we believe them on?

Eventually they will be ignored - even if they are telling the truth.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922243)

Hasn't that already happened?

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922215)

But you can go to far where your views are considered to radical to be possible. Thus becoming a buch of crazy nuts and go back to your way of doing things, As they will be mad at you no matter what.

Much like extreme veganism, where you are not supposed to eat anything from a plant where you end up killing the entire plant. Because the rules are so strict very little food service places will try to follow those recommendations if they did it was purely accidental. So they realized they cannot make this group happy without a huge penalty, heck you are lucky if they will have something for normal vegetarians other then boring salads (Which are not full vegan because you need to kill the leafy greens plants for the salad and the roots for the carrots. Leaving Beans, Nuts, and Fruits as the only source for your diet)

If you want change you need to reward baby steps. You can scold your child for not winning a marathon just as it just learned to stand.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922287)

The difference of coruse is Greenpeace's goal here is at least good. Getting manufacturers to be as green as possible makes sense. Refusing to eat carrots because you kill the plant makes no sense and is a waste of time and effort.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (3, Insightful)

Moofie (22272) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922341)

Pursuing a good goal by lying and misleading is not good.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (5, Funny)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922371)

"Beans, Nuts, and Fruits"

Murderous vegans, devouring the unborn plant children. I bet they don't even have the common courtesy to defecate in fertile soil, in the right climate, so the poor unborn babies at least have a fighting chance.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922523)

"Beans, Nuts, and Fruits"

Murderous vegans, devouring the unborn plant children. I bet they don't even have the common courtesy to defecate in fertile soil, in the right climate, so the poor unborn babies at least have a fighting chance.

So actually strict vegans are cum eaters, because beans, nuts and fruits are the plant's equivalent of animal's semen.

In other words, vegans swallow, don't spit.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922949)

So actually strict vegans are cum eaters, because beans, nuts and fruits are the plant's equivalent of animal's semen.

In other words, vegans swallow, don't spit.

Actually they're unborn baby (fetus) eaters, not cum eaters. To be cum eaters, they'd have to eat pollen. But anytime you eat saffron (the stigma which is a female part of the plant but also catches pollen), you are eating the vegan equivalent of a cum-covered pussy.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (4, Interesting)

nsayer (86181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922489)

Leaving Beans, Nuts, and Fruits as the only source for your diet

You left out eggs. milk and honey.

Eggs may or may not count depending on your point of view about protecting the unborn/unhatched, but I have yet to find someone both strongly anti-abortion and insanely vegan. Never mind the fact that most eggs in the store aren't fertilized anyway. But then, if eggs are out, then so are strawberries and pomegranates.

But milk and honey are truly the only foods that you could truly say can be obtained from the plant and animal kingdom without harming a plant or animal or impinging on its reproduction. It is, however, counting on the animals in question to overproduce for their own needs to supply yours. In other words, living purely on milk and honey puts you in the same category as a leech.

No, the only meat eaters that are acceptable to militant vegans are scavengers.

Me? I'd rather eat militant vegans. Long pig. The other white meat.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922501)

Now now, there's something to be said for scavenging. The Roadkill Cafe even has some great recipes!

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (2, Informative)

bornwaysouth (1138751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922771)

But milk and honey are truly the only foods that you could truly say can be obtained from the plant and animal kingdom without harming a plant or animal or impinging on its reproduction.

I was once a nice young lad too. Life is ugly.

Reproduction...
To get a cow into lactation nicely, the process is to get it into calf. On birth of calf, send it off to the slaughter (Called bobby calves. Don't know why. Premium veal for US market.) Then milk cow like crazy. Also, breed cows to have more milk than needed for a calf.

And from a wider *green* perspective... I live in a New Zealand. Here, milk production is a mainstay of the economy, and the methane that cows belch and fart is a really serious part of our greenhouse emissions. Methane is 14 times as nasty as carbon dioxide.

So cross milk off the list too.

As for honey. Well, you are ripping the hive off its store of winter food, for the sole benefit of having designer apartments supplied. That is parasitism. On balance, I will concede that it is ok to eat honey. Just honey. A diet of 99% sugar and water has much to recommend it. Call it the Coca-Cola diet. It must have a really good Darwin rating.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (1)

Poorcku (831174) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922989)

nicely put point of view.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25923143)

Vegans won't eat milk, eggs, or any other animal products, regardless of whether the animal was harmed. Vegetarians will.

I don't know where everyone is getting the idea that "strict vegans" don't kill plants. Maybe some hippies somewhere are trying it, but that's not what "vegan" means.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#25923175)

Milk, the cows are killing the environment. They take up too many resources, and belch and fart methane into the air. Milk is worse than eating 15 entire heads of lettuce.

That said, I'm gonna go grill me a steak.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922761)

But you can go to far where your views are considered to radical to be possible. Thus becoming a buch of crazy nuts and go back to your way of doing things, As they will be mad at you no matter what.

Interesting that your sig seems to support radical positions taken by RMS.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (1)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 5 years ago | (#25923235)

I hope Apple sues Greenpeace.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922283)

What would be more beneficial is rounding up these environmentalist clowns and sending them off to the gas chamber. Reducing the earth's population of assholes would be the greatest improvement in the environment yet.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (3, Insightful)

Gojira Shipi-Taro (465802) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922401)

Greenpeace are a bunch of attention whores.

Fuck them.

That is all.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (2, Interesting)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922539)

Except it just further drives rational people who share their ideals away from them and makes them look like desperate losers.

I am an environmentalist, green, pro-recycling, green energy, save the planet, save the animals guy, but I want *nothing* to do with Greenpeace whatsoever.

They go about their agenda in totally the wrong way. Not just this targeting of Apple (and their prior attack on Apple for being "less green" than competitors when in reality, Apple had "gone green" with the suggestions Greenpeace made many years before that but just didn't tell anyone, but their assault on nuclear power with totally fictitious "tug at the heart strings" videos about how nuclear power can only ever result in Chernobyl-level accidents.

Ugh. Greenpeace, just go away already. You're scaring away people from being green.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (1, Redundant)

alexibu (1071218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25923221)

I think that you'd be surprised to find that you wouldn't actually know how to be green with out groups like Greenpeace bringing things to you and your societies attention just like they have with this issue.
Would anyone know the Japanese were harvesting whales if noone was watching / would you know about climate change ? I'm sure the oil / coal companies would have managed to tell us eventually.
Greenpeace use the media to bring attention to things that there is no commercial interest in publicizing, but which it is in all our interests to know about. That is extremely valuable in a world where most of our information about our ever closely interconnected world comes from international media which is mostly dominated by commercial interests.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922695)

So your basically saying that the ends justify the means, regardless of what they do or who they hurt. Seems like groups are putting everyone on different types of lists these days, "You on my bad list for not following the rules that we do." Environmental groups put companies on lists because they don't spend enough "saving the planet" Media groups putting countries like Canada on watch lists because they don't have the same insane copyright laws as the US does.

Every can take their worthless lists and cram it up your vaginas because it doesn't mean a thing and you have too much time to tell us who is bothering you today.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922883)

Aren't bad? They're insane. It is impossible to be 100% pro-nature and 100% pro-electronics. I prefer electronics, I know my laptop and PDA batteries are full of terrible things. I don't care, I like them and if you asked most people if they would prefer a green cell phone with less talk time and cost more or one that was worse on environment with more talk time and cheaper, the majority would pick the longer talk time and better buy. Environmentalism when it gets so extreme is terrible. The funny part is most of these greenpeace retards come from urban cities? Why are all the environmentalist in LA and NY and whatnot, if they love nature why aren't then out living in the country side? Exactly, because they are totally disconnected from what they are talking about, they have green-guilt that drives them to act the way they do. If they would just live their life by their code and let me live my life by my code we would be OK, but oddly enough they often times cannot even live by their code. I would laugh at them more if their BS weren't holding up good projects like domestic drilling for natural gas or nuclear reactors with insane court cases. I mean these foobars got a court to decide polar bears are endangered while the total number of polar bears is at an all time high, the are more P-bears then at any point in history, yet environmentalist and lawyers sighted one small area where the population of bears has dropped. That would be like me saying the world population of humans is dropping sighting Detroit's population decline as proof. I hate environmentalists because they are bullies.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (1)

DiscoverySound (1419701) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922893)

Greenpeace's strategy isn't really bad. Sure, they're picking on a big company for publicity, but whatever effects are the result of greenpeace's research will trickle down into the factory floors of their component suppliers having a much larger effect.

I totally disagree. Greenpeace is a great organization, but they are known for picking fights with big name corporations just to boost publicity. I think Apple is not going to listen anyway. Steve Jobs has stated before that he is not intimidated by GP and they could at least be more tactical about careless accusations.

Re:Trickle down is beneficial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25923171)

Greenpeace's strategy isn't really bad. Sure, they're picking on a big company for publicity, but whatever effects are the result of greenpeace's research will trickle down into the factory floors of their component suppliers having a much larger effect.

Right and wrong, fact and lies don't matter..... when it's for "the greater good!"

Greenpeace? (5, Informative)

BigBadBus (653823) | more than 5 years ago | (#25921953)

The same twonks behind this story? [theregister.co.uk] . I might have considered giving money to them at some point, but now, the answer is a definite no.

Re:Greenpeace? (1)

zx-15 (926808) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922277)

To be fair the article was written by a twonk too, instead of doing research and actually speaking to people involved, the said twonk just started slamming Greenpeace. Oh, and by the way, it was published in a freaking Register, which doesn't really help its credibility.

Re:Greenpeace? (5, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922605)

Indeed, but it does contain quotes from Greenpeace, which I assume are accurate. Whether they are or not is a case for verification - you can ask the people involved (who are named in the article) if they said what was attributed to them.

And it's exactly this kind of thing that gets me about Greenpeace - Patrick Moore said it exactly: "By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism," Now, while I don;t believe the entire environmental movement has gone this way, Greenpeace certainly has.

They have taken this anti-technology stand on practically everything they don't understand - fusion power being one of them.

Fusion power could be the answer to long term, large scale, clean electricity, and end forever the need to burn coal, oil, LNG or whatever else was once alive millions of years ago and is now flammable to make energy, but they want to stop it because they don't understand it.

Re:Greenpeace? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922819)

Maybe they are a bit off on this, although from a quick Google search, fusion does in fact create radioactive waste, but it is *perhaps* more controllable than fission.

But fusion is effectively vapourware, by the time it's viable it will be too late; we really have to stop refusing to fix our wetware (i.e. not waste so much bloody power on that pointless graphics card ;-) than rely on future promises of silver bullet tech.

The reality is that the ONLY way towards sustainable economies is to reduce each individuals ecological footprint, and this means social change not only technological change.

Flawed study (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25921959)

Greenpeace's conclusion on Apple (and Nintendo) is based not on objective studies, but on the fact that neither Apple or Nintendo are releasing information on the manufacturing process to Greenpeace.

From the Ars Technica article: "[Greenpeace] notes that these ratings are, in part, an attempt to encourage companies to publish verifiable information regarding the use of toxic chemicals in their manufacturing and supply chain."

Re:Flawed study (5, Insightful)

TeacherOfHeroes (892498) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922213)

As I understand it, these ratings are, in large part, a way to help environmentally conscious consumers buy green products. By not disclosing that information, they make this impossible for consumers to do accurately. Reducing their scores for not cooperating is about the only means they have to pressure the companies into being more consumer-frieldny in this matter. While it may be flawed as a study, it functions correctly as a guide to buying products you know to be environmentally-friendly.

Think if it a different way: If you showed up for a university exam or a job interview, and refused to disclose what you knew about the subject in question, wouldn't *you* expect to get low marks, too? If you in fact knew a great deal about the subject, you could claim that the exam/interview was a flawed study, but the fact of the matter is that you refused to participate, and in this case you don't get the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Flawed study (4, Insightful)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922271)

The difference is that a university exam or a job interview is something you voluntarily participate in. In this case GreenPeace is demanding information and crying when Apple tells them to get lost.

Though I do see GreenPeace's point. If you're going to brag about being "green", you should be willing to provide information backing that up.

Re:Flawed study (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922759)

The proper way to aid consumers in environmentally-friendly purchases is to provide accurate ratings. Scoring based on lack of information is inappropriate in all categories except an "willingness to divulge information" category.

The fact of the matter is Greenpeace has no idea and so simply cannot provide this information to consumers. What they've decided to provide instead is unquestionably inaccurate and I fail to see how this helps consumers buy environmentally-friendly products.

A useful guide would plainly state when information is not available. If they want to "pressure the companies" a simple note saying the companies would not provide the information is not only more accurate, but leaves open the possibility of the company cooperating in the future. Looking like coercive zealots is not an effective way of getting people to open up!

greenpeace are nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25921971)

they are out of touch with reality in a very disturbing way. all corporations now are very very aware of environmental issues, and do their best to phase out wasteful or destructive practices, how about a little praise and positive publicity instead of sounding like a spoilt kid stamping it's feet, screaming MORE MORE....

What in the world is the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25921981)

.... in giving these loons any more free publicity than they already get?

Greenpeace - research (3, Informative)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 5 years ago | (#25921989)

Greenpeace is nothing but an organization of eco-terrorists trying to gain attention and money from the ignorant masses. To use their name and 'research' is oxymoronic at is best.

Re:Mod up (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922249)

I wish I had mod points for this.

Re:Mod up (0, Redundant)

Gojira Shipi-Taro (465802) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922411)

Me too.

Re:Greenpeace - research (4, Insightful)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922379)

Actually, it appears that Greenpeace is a political organization that plays on people's guilt in order to gain funding. Cute, furry animals that die at the hands of evil humans (whether for food or the neglect of the irresponsible west) obviously deserve more attention than ugly, bothersome ones.

Their histrionics, hypocracy and irrationality sank them a long time ago, but you'll find the occasional brain-dead celebrity supporting their efforts.

The danger of soundbites and "full disclosure ". (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922703)

This article summary is an example of what's wrong with soundbites and their effect on responsible media.

Here we have a sound-bite sized message: "Apple makes green laptop", followed by another sound-biter: "Greenpeace say Apple bad mojo". But then, in the interest of "full disclosure", several snippets back and forth are quoted: "Greenpeace not perfect", and "Greenpeace attacks Apple for publicity".

The net effect comes as a custerfluck of conflicting messages leaving me with a blank stare - and I really don't care about the message.

And this is bad for responsible media - those with their own axe to grind will only soundbite the stuff they want. EG: Apple might soundbite: "Apple makes green laptop". Greenpeace soundbite: "Apple bad mojo".

See how much more palatable each message is all by itself?

But when you try to combine responsible media with soundbites, you end up just confusing the !@# out of everyone, and the special interests win.

Re:Greenpeace - research (0, Flamebait)

alexibu (1071218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25923101)

Would you care to explain exactly the nature of the terror you feel from greenpeace ?

If you think they are terrorising Apple i think you are wrong
Implementing best practice that will be standard practice in a few years will only be good for Apple
They are being picked on because Greenpeace has recognised them as a technological leader. The recognition will only do them good. Being forced to become more of a leader will only do them good.

You are the terrorist. You are the one raving about ignorant masses, and trying to make people scared of the green movement, with no reasoning.
Greenpeace rationally pointing out better ways of not doing things, and promoting a ranking of companies based their supply of relavant consumer information, is not the act of a terrorist group.

I feel the urge to shop (2, Interesting)

davmoo (63521) | more than 5 years ago | (#25921991)

The fact that Greenpeace comes down on Apple is a good reason for me to consider buying a new Macbook.

Re:I feel the urge to shop (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922133)

It's still Black Friday where I'm at...

Re:I feel the urge to shop (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922211)

Or go to Japan for the sole purpose of eating whale. They hate that! Anywhoo it must really suck to be a marketroid or politician in this day and age. They still think they can get away with lying but with so many people with such ready access to information, it's pretty much guaranteed that someone is going to fact check what they say.

green (1)

Emesee (1155401) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922005)

"Apple Touts 'Greenest Family Of Notebooks Ever'"
http://www.crn.com/hardware/212200570
That's nice, yes?
Even more will be done, yes?

"Researchers getting the lead out of electronics"
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/111808-researchers-electronics.html?hpg1=bn

Re:green (3, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922685)

And has anyone done a study comparing the failure rates of items created with lead free solder VS lead? Because from what my engineering friends tell me the non lead solder is crap. it doesn't flow evenly, it seems to fail more often, it simply doesn't work nearly as well as the lead according to them. So while insuring a clean environment is a good thing(and recycling the lead would probably work just as well) if the lack of lead in solder joints causes us to end up with giant mounds of e-waste as electronics fail earlier than they need to, then we may very well be "penny wise and pound foolish".

We need to have consumer electronics that will last. And if that requires lead then either raise the price a little to pay for the recycling or have the manufacturers provide an easy way to drop these items off for recycling. But if we don't look at these situations logically we may end up being buried in "green" e-waste from electronics dying before their time.

So shouldn't we just ignore them? (3, Insightful)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922029)

Ars Technica points out that Greenpeace's research isn't quite up-to-snuff [arstechnica.com] , and it's also worth noting that Greenpeace admitted to targeting Apple for the publicity [slashdot.org] in the past.

Why was this posted, then?

Re:So shouldn't we just ignore them? (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922261)

Why was this posted, then?

Why indeed.

Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922033)

Greenpeace--Seriously? They're the PETA of the environmentalist movement. It's like how I feel having Michael Moore on Team Liberal, or Richard Simmons on Team Gay. These people are bordering on terrorist tactics; They have put concrete plugs in industrial exhaust plumes, endangering the plant workers inside and risking explosions. They've put their little boats in front of major ships in international waters, causing trade disruption. Their little protests cause a lot of economic damage, and their so-called "non-violent" stance? Please! There's press you can find online of various groups claiming to act for Greenpeace that have assaulted people. Of course, Greenpeace denies that they were acting for the cause (and they might even be right) -- but this group tends to attract the fringe and the radicals. There's a reason the FBI has them on several watchlists. :\ I mean, the French bombed their flag ship! The French -- you know, white flags France... Yeah, Greenpeace pissed them off enough that the President himself ordered their ship blown up.

If you're an environmentalist, or a greenie, you DO NOT WANT Greenpeace on your team.

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel (1, Offtopic)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922165)

... Heh, figures. Truth hurts.

Re:Oh no... I'm going to need a bigger shovel (5, Interesting)

Admiral Ag (829695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922741)

You might want to read a bit more about that one. The problem in that case was that the French decided that it would be a good idea to test nuclear weapons in the South Pacific, which mortally pissed off pretty much everyone who lived there. If it was so safe, why couldn't they test the blasted things in France. It wasn't just Greenpeace. The New Zealand government had sent ships to the test site to protest in previous years. Why stand by as some European nonces shit in our back yard?

European nuclear powers had a well-known history of contempt for people in the South Pacific. Britain, for example, tested nuclear weapons in Australia without bothering to inform the Aboriginals who lived near the test site that they should get out of the way. So you can guess that the French were not popular.

New Zealand was a supposed ally of France and there are thousands of New Zealanders buried in war cemeteries in France and Belgium, which is where they died helping defend France against invasion. So to have the French security forces commit a terrorist attack and murder on New Zealand soil just because they couldn't hack a rusty old boat sailing up and down near their nuclear test site was in my opinion a bit much.

The French officials responsible for this are lower than shit. If I had the chance, I would put a bullet in their heads. So would a lot of other people I know.

In Other News (1)

loupgarou21 (597877) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922049)

[pseudo-environmentalist, anti-corporatist organization] slams [large, popular company] for [environmental / slaughter of innocent animals] record (as a way of seeking free publicity.)

Fuck off, Greenpeace (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922053)

This coming from an organization that has refused to support the growth of nuclear power as a means of providing for our electrical needs. Greenpeace has always struck me as an organization that is more concerned with protesting and grandstanding than doing the dirty work of getting serious, economically viable approaches to environmentalism out there in the spotlight.

If I were a Greenpeace executive, instead of wasting my time with this crap, I'd order half a dozen Tesla roadsters to serve as company/lobbyist cars and be hitting the road right now to promote companies like Tesla as the alternative to bailing out gas guzzler manufacturers.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922187)

At $100,000 for a Tesla, I think Apteras [aptera.com] ($30,000) or Zaps [zapworld.com] ($12,000) might be more economic choice. These people don't really need a performance company car.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace (3, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922335)

Apteras and Zaps both make products that no-one wants. Tesla is at least making a product that people want, even if they can't afford it. The people who were making a product that people both wanted and could afford, took their product off the market because they were afraid it would cannibalize their other product lines.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace (2, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922853)

You'd think it would cannibalize the competition's product lines, too. And that's usually a desireable thing.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace (2, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922885)

I don't think you understand what "cannibalize" means.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25923219)

Apteras and Zaps both make products that no-one wants.

Here's one anecdote.
I really want an Aptera. Not only does it look awesome, but I actually have a chance to afford it. If I could get the Tesla roadster for $30K, I would do that instead.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace (0, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 5 years ago | (#25923013)

You mean an environmental organization refuses to accept nuclear power? What a surprise! All those protests must have just been for show. We don't need nuclear power, we need to use less power. And guess what, you get more volunteers when you do a little grandstanding. There are people who will join just for the fun, and who does that hurt, exactly?

That's because finding problems is easy (2, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25923049)

Finding solutions is hard. It is easy to point out the bad about something. Part of the reason is because EVERYTHING has a downside. No matter what you do, there's a cost to it. Thus it's easy to figure out what that cost is and say "Oh look at the downside of this! Man that's a bad idea!" Of course it is much harder to weigh the positives and negatives of something, weigh that versus alternatives, and try to figure out what has the least negatives and most positives.

So instead you get people like Greenpeace that just hate on everything. They'll happily point out the bad in any solution you come up with. They aren't in it to solve problems, they are in it to find problems.

Re:Fuck off, Greenpeace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25923147)

Greenpeace has always struck me as an organization that is more concerned with protesting and grandstanding than doing the dirty work of getting serious, economically viable approaches to environmentalism out there in the spotlight.

Not so! They have a detailed report [greenpeace.org] on how to save the planet. Sample quote:

"renewables: no emissions,
no fuel costs, no problem."

Lol.

"Recyclable" don't mean green (1)

Moof123 (1292134) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922073)

The energy it takes to melt that aluminum case down is more than the energy content of the equivalent plastic case. Just because the aluminum is "recyclable" is green washing.

That said, piss off green peace.

Re:"Recyclable" don't mean green (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922205)

I would prefer aluminum anyways. It is more durable and (imho) it looks better.

Re:"Recyclable" don't mean green (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922223)

Oh yeah? What's the specific energy required to melt aluminum vs. polycarbonate? Some plastics are thermosets [wikipedia.org] and can't be recast.

Way to criticize someone's baseless claims by making baseless claims of your own.

Re:"Recyclable" don't mean green (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922273)

I don't think GP was claiming that the plastic cases require less energy to recycle -- just that they require less energy to produce.

Re:"Recyclable" don't mean green (1)

Moof123 (1292134) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922585)

Yep, just saying it takes more energy (usually from fossil fuels) to make and machine an aluminum case than the total energy required and petroleum content contained in the plastic case.

I still think the aluminum cases are cool, and lust for one. BUT, calling them green is hogwash (well, green wash).

Re:"Recyclable" don't mean green (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922665)

"The energy it takes to melt that aluminum case down is more than the energy content of the equivalent plastic case. Just because the aluminum is "recyclable" is green washing."

I don't know anything about materials. While researching the subject, I stumbled on world-aluminium.org.

http://www.world-aluminium.org/Sustainability/Recycling

"Aluminium can be recycled again and again without any loss of its inherent properties, since its atomic structure is not altered during melting. Therefore, the life cycle of an aluminium product is not the traditional 'cradle-to-grave' sequence, but rather a renewable 'cradle-to-cradle'."

"Recycling of aluminium products needs only 5% of the energy needed for primary aluminium production. In addition, recycling of aluminium products only emits 5% of the greenhouse gas emitted in primary aluminium production."

Summary: The energy it takes to produce aluminium may be high, but it can be recycled over and over and thus it has an incredibly long life cycle. Is there any truth to this? What about plastics?

hey greenpeace (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922083)

support nuclear power, make an actual difference on the environment

of course, attacking a minor environmental issue to scare rich people and make them feel guilty about their overpriced toys is better pr i guess

Does't matter how they are made if they don't last (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922087)

This same thing came up a while ago - and Apple showed they were actually doing more than most to *build* machines in a clean way.

Unfortunately they seem to think that their machines should be replaced every three years, and that no one should bother fixing them if something breaks.

I have a Macintosh PowerBook with a power supply held together by tape. It also needs a new battery, the DVD drive no longer works, and a USB port is dead. The components needed to fix it all cost five times what they would cost for another brand. Well, okay - what they would cost for my ThinkPad.

The Mac is my machine and has not had a hard life. The ThinkPad is a machine I got second hand. It had been a 'loan' machine and shows evidence of some hard treatment. But, unlike the Mac, it all still works.

Even if Apples manufacturing is *clean*, machines that need to be replaced frequently are not green, and I won't be buying another.

Don

Who died (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922113)

and made Greenpeace God? Who are they to decide what the standards are? Why does anybody with half a brain even listen to those freaks? Fuck Greenpeace!

Who cares (3, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922121)

The rainbow rafters won't be satisfied until humankind has abandoned the follies of electricity, the wheel, and fire, since all of those obviously harm the environment in some way.

At least most of them don't burn down houses. [wikipedia.org] I guess that's something positive, if you're willing to set the bar that low.

Re:Who cares (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#25923211)

Yeah, but Greenpeace doesn't do anything bad itself other than news stunts. They just fund others [sfgate.com] to do it.

Missing the point? Greenpeace & Apple are fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922153)

It makes sense that Greenpeace would target Apple. Apple is a big, high-profile company, and as with most eco-organizations, Greenpeace must always do more with less (I haven't recently heard of any environmental organizations rolling in the green, pardon the pun).

Why target Apple, besides for the headlines? Because Apple might actually listen, care and respond. They market themselves as a 21st century "conscious" company, and they want to maintain that image. And Steve Jobs did used to be a hippie in his younger days, so...there you go.

Disclaimer: yes - I am writing this from my MacBook Pro, which I love most dearly in the whole wide universe. Fanboys FTW. :P

Greenpeace (2, Insightful)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922159)

These people are retards. Wind power is not a replacement for science. Fusion reactors are one of the greatest achievements we could hope to achieve, but they want to say fuck it all, lets build some fans. Well, fuck you, hippies.

Re:Greenpeace (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922465)

A lot of people who are uncomfortable with the thought of a nuclear power plant in their backyard are also the people who tend to be lenient to the idea of wind power. It doesn't help that wind power is the "in" thing now. This has nothing to do with "hippieness." Well, unless you are calling most of the population of the US hippies. Well, I mean, if by hippies you mean retards. Which is another word with it's own issues....

I get the feeling that people who attempt to force specific words to have profanity like meanings tend to also be the people who are trying to shoot themselves in the foot by using the word in the wrong context.

A past example of this kind of word morphing is "dumb", which means "destitute of the power of speech." An example of creative usage of this word is "those dumb brutes." It's creative because it makes you imagine brutes who speak in grunts instead of words. While this may also hint at intelligence issues the brutes have, that is not the meaning of the word "dumb".

"Hippie" tends to apply better to Richard Stallman articles in my opinion. The meaning of hippie is "someone who rejects the established culture, dresses casually, and advocates extreme liberalism in politics and lifestyle." As I said in the beginning of this post, wind power is the "in" thing right now. That means people who support wind power are pretty much the opposite of being hippies.

*Disclaimer: I looked up the meanings of these words in gnome-dictionary. Your results may be different.

Greenpeace = Media Whores (2, Insightful)

m509272 (1286764) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922163)

Greenpeace = Media Whores There's a million other companies they could be dragging thru the mud but they'll pick the one that will get the most media attention despite Apple's green efforts.

How much do they want? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922185)

How much money does greenpiece want to go away?

"That's a nice technology company you got there, Steve. It'd be a shame if something bad happened to it"

Re:How much do they want? (1)

alexibu (1071218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25923167)

Are you suggesting greenpeace is doing this to get an effective bribe out of apple ?
History would not support your accusation, as they obviously havent been succesfully bribedby the nuclear/coal/oil or any one of hundreds of large companies with much more money than apple, whose interests have been damaged by amounts much greater than this will damage apple.

More interesting... (1)

Daemonax (1204296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922225)

More interesting is the advert on the side "Happy Birthday, Turing's Universal Machine".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/18/alan_turing_anniversary/ [theregister.co.uk]
It's a shame that Greenpeace have let go of logic and reason. Too many stupid emotional people. It's become like a religion, and indeed it tries to use fear to keep people inline. I really used to like them. Not now.

Haha, Where's the Funny? (1)

monxrtr (1105563) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922237)

Apple's new Macbooks (well-received by most technology critics) are 'the world's greenest family of notebooks.'

Because only 95.4% of them end up in land fills, according to Steve Jobs Sponsored Studies, which are held in the Realm of High Regard, Arrrghh (RHRA).

Fuck Greenpeace (0)

nettdata (88196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922295)

Fuck Greenpeace.

What a bunch of arrogant pricks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25922315)

Just to spite these bastards I'm going to club every baby seal I come across, drive my car around the block a few more times on the way home from work, and keep drinking imported Swiss water.

Bad Summary (1)

Luthair (847766) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922351)

Ars Technica's article is from last year while Green Peace's report is dated Dec 2008. While AT's complaints may still be valid, at the very least the summary should not imply (as it currently does) it deals with the current report.

Re:Bad Summary (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922397)

Since Greenpeace already said [gizmodo.com] that they were targeting Apple not because Apple was worse than any other manufacturer, but because they get the most headlines when they slam Apple, I don't see why we should pay any attention to them at all.

Re:Bad Summary (1)

Luthair (847766) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922533)

Why does it matter? If Apple is doing something wrong, then they should be called on it.

In an ideal world we would force everyone to own up to their actions. Unfortunately the world isn't ideal, and we (society) can only push companies who care about their image to action.

Re:Bad Summary (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922791)

But that was the point. Apple wasn't doing anything wrong.

Greenpeace slammed Apple for (for example) not saying anything about the use of certain nasty chemicals and so on in their products, and heaping praise (relatively) on companies like HP for saying "we'll make a plan on how to stop using these chemicals next year".

As it turned out, Apple had stopped using most of the chemicals many years before, and those that were still in use were being phased out (eg mercury, lead, other nasties), so were way ahead of companies like HP and Dell.

So, Greenpeace was calling Apple out for not doing things it had already done years ago and giving them shit for it.

It did succeed in waking the dragon, so to speak, but anyone with a brain who was reading Apple's statement understands what a huge backfire it turned out to be for Greenpeace, so they quickly repositioned their attacks as "oh, well we just wanted them to tell us what they were doing so the consumer would be better informed". Bullshit. They are back tracking spectacularly because they didn't expect Apple to say "oh yeah, BFS - haven't used them for 12 years. Lead? Used to use 1kg per machine, now down to 2 grams, Mercury? Yeah, we know it;s bad and are already phasing in mercury free backlights on all LCD computers. Polystyrene packaging? Yeah, we cut usage of that by $large_percentage many years ago...."

If I accuse you of something, hoping to get you negative publicity, and it turns out that I'm lying out of my ass, the shit will hit the fan, as it did here.

Greenpeace is full of it. (2, Insightful)

TheMCP (121589) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922377)

It's also worth noting that the founder of Greenpeace thinks they're a bunch of kooks. See the Penn & Teller's Bulls*** episode on environmentalism.

I believe in protecting the environment, but I'd like to sanely focus on serious problems first, and do so in a logical and dignified manner, instead of just attacking companies just because they're prominent and it generates publicity.

Greenpeace doing a great job (0)

alexibu (1071218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922449)

Yes they are unfairly targeting Apple because :
Apple is a company that will actually care about its greenness because of the demographics of it's customers
Apple is vertically integrated therefore in a better position to do something
Apple is upmarket - bigger margins - can afford to do something
Apple's products are not just commodities like other PC makers - again bigger margins
So Greenpeace are just trying to pull on the place with the most leverage to get the best result for their effort.

Greenpeace serves an essential service in todays world where governments are continually lobbied by powerfull anti envoronment interests, who have the money to employ full time lobyists.
For lazy citizens like me supporting greenpeace saves me having to spend as much of my time and effort writing to politicians going on protests etc.

Like it or not there are actually some people out there that want to live on a sustainable planet. Don't shoot greenpeace for delivering that message.

I really find it interesting that people can be so offended by greenpeace suggesting ways forward in the world that will benefit us all, when so many other more powerful lobby groups are trying to do things that only benefit their own interests.
Why don't nuclear / coal / oil / forest destruction supporters get out on the streets and protest against the envorinonment movement ? After all in the next few years - it will necesarily be taking over public policy
The answer is because they won't get off their arses unless someone will pay them to do it.

The environment movement is not trying to spoil your party. They are just trying to change it into a party where your kids can enjoy the same party, the neighbours won't throw a brick though the window because they are missing out. - If you think 911 was bad wait until the third world finds out that the first world has been knowingly flooding large areas of river deltas, and stopping essential glacial melt river flow, in poor countries so that they could save a few bucks by buying coal fired electricity instead of renewables, so that they could run a plasma television and a SUV, while the poor people in the river deltas had negligable carbon emissions.
Alex

Re:Greenpeace doing a great job (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922715)

But Greenpeace goes about the message of environmentalism (which I agree with) in the same way the tobacco industry went about trying to show that cigarettes were healthy.

They use no science, they arbitrarily dismiss technologies because they don;t understand them (or wilfully misunderstand or misrepresent them), like nuclear power, fusion research, Apple's *actual* policy and track history on green issues and so on.

Ask a member of Greenpeace whether a coal or a nuclear power station releases more radiation into the environment and he'll say "duh, the nuclear one, obviously!". When you correct him and tell him it's the coal plant, he'll then go on about "well, if it blows up it will be like Chernobyl!!!!". When you point out that arguing modern reactors would blow up like chernobyl's reactor 4 is like trying to argue against air travel by claiming we can't afford any more Hindenburg disasters so we should stop flying now, then he'll talk about long term storage of nuclear waste.

Now that you've finally come round to one of the genuine problems with fission power, he'll wail on about pollution, and 10,000 year garbage dumps etc. I even argued with a member of Greenpeace who didn;t understand half life properly and argued *in my favour*, and even when I pointed out that the waste with a half life of 100 years wouldn't be gone in 100 years (like he said) but more like 200+ years (ie, worse than he said) just yelled at me that he knew what half life meant and that I didn;t understand it!

Yes, clearly these are the people you want driving environmental issues and public opinion on future and current technology. They can't even get simple concepts right about the stuff they are so against, even when it's pointed out to them *in their favour*.

For the record, I am both pro-nuclear and pro-environmental - the two are not mutually exclusive as Greenpeace would have you believe. The more you see of them though, the more you realise they they just want us all to live caves and eat fruit.

If Greenpeace had been around when man first discovered fire, they would have told him it was dangerous and that we shouldn't use it to cook food because it destroys the environment and look at all that black stuff left behind! All that nutrient-rich, fertilising, plant-growth-promoting black stuff! It's all black and sooty and doesn't look like green fields and trees - it must be bad!

Ok, hyperbole, but you see my point. It's just hyperbole in the opposite direction of Greenpeace mixed with parody and satire.

Re:Greenpeace doing a great job (1)

alexibu (1071218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25923001)

I had a look at the reports on greenpeaces website about nuclear, and they all look quite well researched and informed.

I've never quite understood the reasons for defence of nuclear power, other than a vague nostalgia for what was a sort of golden age of physics and engineering ,which I can relate to being an engineer.
Greens say : fossil fuel is killing the planet.
Response : "Aha but you don't like nuclear
Greens : WTF ?

Nuclear can't solve climate crisis:
Skills shortage - nuclear technicians all in nursing homes
Fuel shortage - not enough to last 40 years at current consumption
Takes 3-4 years just to pay back carbon used in concrete to construct reactor
Can't be installed quickly enough.
Life cycle cost close to infinite. Employ monitoring and security gaurd for 10,000 years to monitor/gaurd waste. Calculate net present value of wages. Forget it. The only way to get this economical is to get government to make tax payers of future pay cost.
Insurance. Policy must cover accidents in waste storage for 10,000 years. Prohibitively expensive in todays dollars. Forget it.

Terrorist target.

Renewables only answer. Logical, cost effective, no government enforced borrowing from future generations.
Wind and Solar - No legacy once superceded - available now with storage (solar thermal) - can take advantage of mass production unlike CCS and nuclear

Nuclear - WHY ?

http://www.greenpeacelies.com/ (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922471)

http://www.greenpeacelies.com/ [greenpeacelies.com]

I don't have the time nor energy to start and maintain it, but - we need something like http://www.greenpeacelies.com/ [greenpeacelies.com] , to fight this deceptive sort of propaganda.

Anyone willing? It'd embarass the hell out of them, and heck, the thing could probably include a section on PETA, Scientology - all those immoral, deceitful sorts of people and groups.

A badge of honor (2, Interesting)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922529)

Greenpeace, despite their name, is a pretty radical group, often just a notch inside that line that groups like the Animal Liberation Front often cross. Greenpeace is just Earth First with more money and better publicity. Getting attacked by Greenpeace is a lot like getting attacked by PETA... sometimes, the public sympathizes with you precisely because a radical group is targeting you.

Is this actually going to stop anyone from buying an Apple? No, it's just free publicity for Apple. I bet every time PETA pulls one of their lamebrain stunts, steakhouse profits go up. Same thing here.

Re:A badge of honor (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922895)

Damn you!

I want a steak now!

Maybe I should join People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.

The name say it all... (1)

CryptoJones (565561) | more than 5 years ago | (#25922641)

Their name is Apple. How can they NOT be environmentally friendly?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...