Beta
×

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!

Jobs Responds to Greenpeace FUD

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the apple-huggers dept.

Apple 531

EccentricAnomaly writes "Steve Jobs has posted a response on the Apple homepage to the Greenpeace Green My Apple campaign in which he basically makes a case for the Greenpeace campaign being a heaping pile of FUD. On one hand, you could say that Greenpeace shouldn't expect a company that has spent years battling Microsoft to just roll over. On the other, it looks like Apple is agreeing to do most of what Greenpeace has been demanding."

cancel ×

531 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

But did he have to club the baby seal at the end? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962157)

Yes, he did, because he's Steve Jobs.

Wow ... (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962181)

That's the first Apple related story I've read in ages that didn't mention the iPhone. Is Steve feeling OK?

Extinct (2, Insightful)

Major Blud (789630) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962225)

Apple can do whatever they want to turn green, but some environmentalist won't be satisfied until every single human being on this planet is extinct.

Re:Extinct (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962313)

"but some environmentalist won't be satisfied until every single human being on this planet is extinct."

Sounds like several political leaders in the world right now...and the biggest one doesn't give a fuck about the environment.

Personally given the odds, I'd rather the greenies extinct us...at least the next sentient lifeform that springs up might forgive us.

At the very same time, I can't stand Greenpeace. They've proven themselves to be as much a bunch of loonies as PETA. Sad as I've supported both at times. I might have well given my money to the RNC because it would have caused just as much damage to the same people they all claim to be protecting.

Re:Extinct (1)

feed_me_cereal (452042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962515)

Honestly, I don't know a lot about greenpeace, and I agree with you about what PETA has become, but honestly they still have a lot of power, and still do some good with it. They've managed to force mcdonalds to make a lot of changes in how their farms are run, for instance, so that the animals are treated better.

It is sad, though, that all PETA seems to do anymore is troll...

Re:Extinct (3, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962981)

I lost all respect for Greenpeace when they came out opposing nuclear power.

Re:Extinct (3, Funny)

snoyberg (787126) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963153)

I lost all respect for Greenpeace when they came out opposing nuclear power.
My moment of truth with them was when I found out they were against pollution...

Re:Extinct (5, Insightful)

wall0159 (881759) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962551)


What a ridiculous comment. Even if it's true, so what? Your implied conclusion is "therefore, don't bother with environmentalism."

How about this logical fallacy:
"Some buisness leaders are so greedy they won't be happy until we're all working down in the coal mine for nothing - therefore we should be communist."

See how stupid you sound? I'm sick of people making sweeping generalisations like this - I hear/read it all the time with regard to nuclear power, as if it's impossible to have a reasoned opposition without being a psycho-greenie.

Re:Extinct (3, Insightful)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962743)

I'm sick of people making sweeping generalisations like this - I hear/read it all the time with regard to nuclear power, as if it's impossible to have a reasoned opposition without being a psycho-greenie.

That's what happens when your most outspoken proponents come off like rambling kooks, people get stereotyped.

For instance, if i said I was Republican you would say I was ...

Re:Extinct (1, Interesting)

Major Blud (789630) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962771)

You're right, it was a sweeping generalisation about ALL environmentalist (which is why I said "some"). Did I say that we shouldn't care about environmentalism? No, that was your implied conclusion, not mine. Anyways it was supposed to be funny, sorry I caused you to blow your wad all over it.

Re:Extinct (4, Interesting)

kebes (861706) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962943)

I'm against hyperbole as much as the next guy, but in this case things like The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement [vhemt.org] do actually exist. The idea is that humans should live rich, productive lives, but stop reproducing, because we're doing more harm than good by continuing this way (both to ourselves and the planet). The rationale is further that all the reasons for having kids are ultimately 'bad' or 'selfish' and thus it is our moral responsibility to overcome our natural tendency to have kids, and instead "do the right thing"--become extinct.

Now, most people who subscribe to this "movement" are doing it as a joke, or because they are rationalizing the fact that they don't have kids. But some of them really seem to be arguing honestly for self-extinction of the human race.

Anyways, just thought you'd be interested to know. I'm not trying to diminish your point against exaggeration.

Re:Extinct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962977)

No... this is just your psycho-greenie (biased and incorrect) interpretation of Job's text.
Dude... seriously... check yourself into a clinic: You're borderline OCD and you're scaring the nice /. 'ers

Re:Extinct (4, Insightful)

monopole (44023) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963173)

Some business leaders are so greedy they won't be happy until we're all working down in the coal mine for nothing
No,as we are reminded regularly on slashdot, all business leaders are required to maximize (short term) shareholder value as their sole motivation. As a result all business leaders must see to it that we're all working down in the coal mine for nothing. Anything less would be a perversion of capitalism.

Re:Extinct (5, Insightful)

xappax (876447) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962627)

Apple can do whatever they want to turn green, but some environmentalist won't be satisfied until every single human being on this planet is extinct.

Greenpeach can do whatever it wants to present actual information about a specific way they think Apple should change, but some Slashdot pundits won't be satisfied until every single debate is characterized as a debate between their own opinion and some unrelated extremist strawman.

Re:Extinct (4, Funny)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962667)

Is it too much to ask for products to be made of safe materials?

Like soylent green for example. It doesn't get any more "green" than soylent green.

I demand that my PCs be made of biodegradable environmentalists!

Re:Extinct (1)

StarvingSE (875139) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963117)

Soylent green is delicious!!!

Re:Extinct (1, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962725)

Apple can do whatever they want to turn green, but some environmentalist won't be satisfied until every single human being on this planet is extinct.
One might say that the anti-environmentalists actually *will* lead us closer to that end.

I don't, however, know of any significant environmental organization, environmental advocate, or environmentalism leader that promotes the extinction of the human species.

Mischaracterizations such as yours are much more of a problem than the few insignificant idiots that you are basing your impression on.

Re:Extinct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962751)

That's true. [vhemt.org]

Re:Extinct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962875)

No kidding. [slashdot.org]

Re:Extinct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18963059)

I smell failure

Re:Extinct (1)

anti-human 1 (911677) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962997)

Why does it have to be "some environmentalist?" There are plenty of reasons to be "Anti-Human."

Re:Extinct (1)

towsonu2003 (928663) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963007)

some environmentalist won't be satisfied until every single human being on this planet is extinct.

Okay, I can understand that the parent has an opinion, although conflicting with itself by nature, but WTF were you thinking when you rated this "insightful"? You people are crazy.

Re:Extinct (2, Insightful)

vought (160908) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963161)

Key words being "some environmentalists".

In my experience, these folks are almost always trustafarians rebelling at their rich parents. You can't throw a satchel of patchouli in Santa Cruz or the more bohemian neighborhoods of San Francisco without hitting one of these idiots. As well-intentioned as they may be, they pretty much end up pissing off everyone they try to convince.

They hijacked Greepeace, blackmailed Apple, and tie up city governments. I find them mostly annoying, and apparently, so does Steve Jobs. The company is famously "liberal" (one of the first to extend same-sex benefits, has offered mass transit shuttles for over 20 years, offers extensive telecommute benefits, etc.) in it's political stance and benefits package.

To pretend Apple was some sort of mercury-spewing, lead-laced monster was just blackmail on Greepeace's part. Apple is merely high-visibility and Macs are used by a higher percentage of people sensitive to Greenpeace's message. That's the only reason Apple was singled out.

I do my part without being a jerk, like these Greenpeace people. I choose to drive a car that gets good mileage, walk to most of my destinations, take mass transit to work, recycle, and reduce my energy consumption whenever possible. My key word for living is "sustainability", not "exclusivity".

Apples arent green because... (0, Troll)

Orig_Club_Soda (983823) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962231)

Apple has already generously moved manufacturing to other countries so the poorest of people could have jobs. If Green Peace really cared about the people of the world they'd buy TWO iPods so the poor people could get twice the wages.

Re:Apples arent green because... (1)

feed_me_cereal (452042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962449)

Apple has already generously moved manufacturing to other countries so the poorest of people could have jobs.

I don't know what disturbs me more: that you actually believe that this is a company's motive for outsourcing, or that someone modded you "insightful".

There are more direct ways to support people than buying an ipod (or two) they assembled for a few pennies.

Re:Apples arent green because... (1)

Orig_Club_Soda (983823) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962593)

How do you directly support someone other than putting money in their pocket? Spoon feed them?

Re:Apples arent green because... (1)

feed_me_cereal (452042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962739)

Putting money in their pocket would be one way, and honestly as stupid as it sounds, it's a lot less stupid than the idea of giving them 2 cents for building an iPod if your intention is to actually help these people. *Lending* money to poorer countries is often a good way to help them build an economy and create real jobs. For instance, funding a project to build sanitation systems creates jobs for those who will be building it and a livable situtation where a viable economy can be built. Foreign (american or otherwise) companies exploiting people through sweatshops does not build a viable economy in a 3rd world country; it makes them even more dependant on foreign companies to run their economy. If you don't realize the simple fact that companies outsource labor in order to be able to pay their workers *less*, then you're not even worth talking to.

Re:Apples arent green because... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962451)

Dude, I *hope* you're being sarcastic.

This is pretty much what we knew before (5, Informative)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962237)

If you were following this, you would have known that Greenpeace scored Apple really low due to other companies having given commitments to reduce this or that whereas Apple had not given such commitments. Basically Apple was being secretive and GP didn't like that. Apple likes to do stuff, not say stuff. And that serves them pretty well when it comes to the market because they get a lot of free publicity that way.

In this case, I think Apple doesn't really give much away in terms of new products while still being able to publish a timeline for reducing harmful substances used in their products.

I didn't realize I could get a 10% discount on a new iPod by trading in my old one. If my current one ever breaks, I will keep that in mind.

Just what Greenpeace wanted? (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962241)

Is it not possible that Greenpeace started this campaign to pressure Apple to become more green precisely because they figured Apple would be the computer company most likely to respond? If so, it seems like Apple has done precisely what Greenpeace hoped they would do: they publicized their environmental impact to date, and promised to publicize further efforts to improve that impact in the future. In this way, Apple now becomes a valuable part of Greenpeace's efforts to get all computer manufacturers to become more green.

Re:Just what Greenpeace wanted? (0, Troll)

Orig_Club_Soda (983823) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962381)

That giving GP a lot of credit for a higher concept. I've yet to met a GP member whom's greatest understandings are the varieties of, and methods of using, Mary Jane.

Re:Just what Greenpeace wanted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962489)

That giving GP a lot of credit for a higher concept. I've yet to met a GP member whom's greatest understandings are the varieties of, and methods of using, Mary Jane.
* grammar nazi head explodes *

Re:Just what Greenpeace wanted? (5, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962441)

Is it not possible that Greenpeace started this campaign to pressure Apple to become more green precisely because they figured Apple would be the computer company most likely to respond?

It is possible, but it doesn't actually help anything with regard to achieving Greenpeace's stated goals or benefitting the environment.

If so, it seems like Apple has done precisely what Greenpeace hoped they would do: they publicized their environmental impact to date, and promised to publicize further efforts to improve that impact in the future.

Yeah, we are all pretty well educated by Greenpeace now. All they care about is talk. You have to publish crap, or they'll come after you with incredibly misleading statements and by spending large amounts of money and manpower protesting you for only being way better than your competitors, but not publishing a bunch of marketing nonsense about it.

In this way, Apple now becomes a valuable part of Greenpeace's efforts to get all computer manufacturers to become more green.

How do you figure. They managed to generate a lot bad press for one company who was doing relatively well with regard to environmentalism, while not doing the same for companies that do poorly but publish promises that they're working on being better and in 10 years may meet the same goals Apple already has. If anything they've discouraged companies from being green, in favor of making empty, marketing promises. Seriously, as a businessman, that is the message they delivered to me loud and clear. Who cares if we just shipped a pile of environmentally unfriendly boxes overseas to avoid their environmental protection laws about to come into force. If Greenpeace calls about it, we can just publish a paper promising we'll stop that practice, while moving on with business as usual. It sure is cheaper and more effective from a marketing perspective than actually reducing the toxic chemicals in our products and packaging like Apple did.

Re:Just what Greenpeace wanted? (2, Insightful)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962595)

Yeah, that's true, my impression was that a lot of the stuff in TFA reads like Jobs didn't know about what the environmental impacts of his manufacturing processes were before the Greenpeace thing came out. If he is serious about what he says and not just giving PR lip service, it will have been useful what Greenpeace did, but I can't help but feel that if they were a little less careless in their methods that it would have better. Specifically I mean that an environmental evaluation based entirely on what the company says it's going to rather than what it is doing smells terrible. On the other hand, There [bbc.co.uk] have [wired.com] been [slashdot.org] concerns [slashdot.org] about if Apple really does think different or not. I think what is necessary here is an unbiased source to evaluate how environmentally responsible these companies really are... hmmm, perhaps some government agency that is responsible for monitoring the environmental impact of various activities in society? An agency for environmental protection maybe? ... One can only dream that we'd have one of those. :)

Re:Just what Greenpeace wanted? (1)

cab15625 (710956) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962675)

Well, if you were Greenpeace and you had a choice between targeting something that was colored like natural manure or something that was colored like bleached paper, which product would you go after?

So Greenpeace was right? (-1)

gnuman99 (746007) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962285)

So, since Apple is going to implement all or most of the Greenpeace recommendations, doesn't that imply they are correct to judge that Apple currently does not implement these recommendations? Doesn't it also mean that it is not FUD?

Either Apple has implemented environmentally friendlier policies like Lenovo and others, or they have not. And they have not.

Steve's excuse is rather sad - it is akin to one saying "I don't have my homework done *now*, but I'll have it done soon! That F I got is a bunch of FUD!!!"

Re:So Greenpeace was right? (5, Informative)

jdbartlett (941012) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962351)

RTA. Throughout, Jobs makes comparisons to other companies in the Greenpeace Electronics Guide [greenpeace.org] . He then writes:

Dell, HP and Lenovo all scored higher than Apple because of their plans (or "plans for releasing plans" in the case of HP). In reality, Apple is ahead of all of these companies in eliminating toxic chemicals from its products.

It's a bit more accurate to say (3, Insightful)

brennanw (5761) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962355)

that Apple isn't yet where Greenpeace wants them to be, but they're much farther ahead than Greenpeace claims they *were* -- and furthermore, are much farther ahead than most other companies in the industry are *now*.

I'd consider that at least partial FUD on the part of Greenpeace.

Re:So Greenpeace was right? No, & neither are (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962399)

Either Apple has implemented environmentally friendlier policies like Lenovo and others, or they have not. And they have not.


Lenovo, et al., have not implemented enviro-friendly policies. They have announced that someday they *intend* to implement... stuff.

Apple, OTOH, has implemented enviro-friendly policies.

Re:So Greenpeace was right? (1, Insightful)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962505)

As I understand it, the Greenpeace fud was about how Apple was terribly bad for the environment, not that they just had room for improvement. The EPA results showed that Apple is no worse that the rest of the machines, as many of their products recieved silver and none of any company recieved higher. The fud was in Greenpeace's hyperbole, as usual.

That is to say, it's like saying Al Gore is worse for the environment than anybody else just because his home is inefficient and doesn't use solar. Because Al Gore later had the upgrades done and solar installed, does not mean he is or was worse than most other people for the environment; just that he, like apple, had (has) room for improvement.

Not a biased title at ALL... (2, Interesting)

Jarn_Firebrand (845277) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962287)

The poster doesn't say "Jobs says Greenpeace is FUD" or anything like that. No, he says "Job Responds to Greenpeace FUD". Could a title GET any more biased than that?

Re:Not a biased title at ALL... (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963169)

You are currently posting on Jobsdot. (I think Slashjobs sounds a bit like a "hardcore geek/nerd recruitment agency")

from the My Green Apple website: (2, Insightful)

penp (1072374) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962337)

Product take back A basic environmental principle is that if you make and sell a product you should be responsible for that product when it is no longer wanted. This is also a basic rule for children: you clean up your own mess.

Since when are manufacturers responsible of how people dispose of their product? Once I buy a product, is it not then my own? There's a difference between replacing faulty hardware and being responsible for the trash that accumulates after someone decides they want a shinier product than the one they already own.

Am I completely missing the point here?

Re:from the My Green Apple website: (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962531)

In the case of iPod's, it really is Apple's fault since they make the battery impossible or expensive to replace. It's MUCH more environmentally friendly to make fixable electronic gadgets instead of disposable ones.

Re:from the My Green Apple website: (1)

clifyt (11768) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963131)

"it really is Apple's fault since they make the battery impossible or expensive to replace."

Yeah, because that $20 battery and 15 minutes to change it was sooooo much more expensive and impossibler than $40 I had to pay for the battery in my Sony Erikson phone...come to think about it, I changed the battery in my iPod once in 5 years where as I've changed the battery in my phone every other year. Which gets more use?

Since when are manufacturers responsible ... (2, Interesting)

Orig_Club_Soda (983823) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962539)

I totally agree. You bought it. Your responsible. Yesterday, half the internet was complaining that DRM limits ownership. We live in a immature society that only wants ownership for the frosting, and not the sh*t.

Re:from the My Green Apple website: (1, Insightful)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962601)

So do you personally have the skills to disassemble a MacBook and find an appropriate recycler for each material? Who do you think is most likely to be able to manage it?

Re:from the My Green Apple website: (1)

Trent Hawkins (1093109) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962623)

In the case of things like batteries, there are already many programs that deal with proper disposal and recycling of them.

As a manufacturer of a something that is dangerous to the environment (eg. batteries and plastics) you have a moral obligation to provide a program that will collect and dispose/reuse such products but the responsibility of using such services is, of course, up to the consumer.

Re:from the My Green Apple website: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962687)

The environmental impact is one of the economic externalities of manufacturing. By doing something like mandating that products include the cost for proper recycling that effort is properly added into the costs for the manufacturer rather than improperly pushed off onto the society that then has to pay the cost in the end. It is to prevent misleadingly giving the appearance of a lower price when an item actually costs more.

Re:from the My Green Apple website: (2, Informative)

wmeyer (17620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962851)

You're not missing the point. Greenpeace is a fundamentally a socialist organization, therefore property is to them, meaningless.

The reality is that when you buy a product, you take on responsibility for the disposal of that product when it is no longer useful to you. I contend that at present, the greenest disposal of a computer is to donate it for use by a charity, thus extending its life, rather than consigning it to a recycling heap.

Another point always avoided by the recycling police is that some of the things -- many, in fact -- that are recycled make little sense, as the cost in real dollars and in chemical waste is often worse than the original manufacture.

But when your cause is "just", reality needn't be considered. Just ask Al Gore.

Re:from the My Green Apple website: (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962987)

Well, I think the theory is that when a manufacturer decides to use a material in his product, he knows that that material is going to end up in the waste stream. The manufacturer thinks its the consumer's problem, the consumer thinks its the municipality's problem, the municipality thinks it is the removal company's problem, and the landfill operator thinks its future generations' problem.

For now, there is tremendous potential to reduce pollution impact by replacing materials with high environmental impact with materials with lower impact (e.g., phasing out lead by replacing CRTs with LCDs). But looking to the future, the only way to maintain the current environemntal footprint in a society with growing population and (hopefully) standard of living is to recycle. We will never be able to make electronics that have no materials with polluting potential.

Some environmentalist thinkers believe that if manufacturers were responsible for recycling, they would (a) choose materials easer to recycle over materials less easy to recycle (b) design their products to facilitate recapturing their materials, (c) reduce materials that are expensive or wasteful to recycle.

So the reason that they want the manufacturer to be responsible is that they believe they will get a better outcome. The problem of how to recycle something will become part of its design, as opposed to being somebody else's problem.

Fanboy Much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962341)

Jebus X Allah, Slashdot really took fanboying to a new level here.

FUD or "FUD"? (2, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962353)

I know editorial standards are pretty low on Slashdot, but unless it wishes to be seen taking sides it needs to know when to quote pieces of text. You never know, one day it might make a big difference in a court case.

Re:FUD or "FUD"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962545)

Oh shut up.

Re:FUD or "FUD"? (5, Insightful)

jdbartlett (941012) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962567)

It would be an undue compliment to call Greenpeace's report even barely researched. It was presumptive, snide, misleading, and obviously flawed. FUD seems a fair description.

This isn't a case of "he says, she says". This is a case of "Greenpeace assumed, without any facts, that Apple doesn't care about the environment, and told everyone that this is the objective truth". Greenpeace went on to waste probably quite a bit of money on a campaign and website [greenmyapple.org] to "change" Apple, all based on their flawed report.

Currently the Green My Apple campaign site is posting a headline suggesting that Jobs's explanation of Apple's actually-quite-greenness is some sort of policy change, rather than what it is: the good news Greenpeace had previously assumed was bad.

Re:FUD or "FUD"? (1)

wmeyer (17620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963009)

Actually, it's more like a case of the Jesse Jackson game. Apple doesn't do things as Greenpeace dictates, so Apple is in the wrong. Guilty until proved innocent, and innocence can't ever happen, because Greenpeace is working on assumptions.

Re:FUD or "FUD"? (2, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963099)

"FUD seems a fair description."

Yeah, you might think that, but what you think is irrelevant. I'm talking about how you present a news story to a readership, not whether or not a criticism of an organization is valid. You've noticed that I've not stated whether or not it's FUD. That's because what I think is irrelevant.

Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?

Re:FUD or "FUD"? (1, Informative)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963157)

Wow. Because Greenpeace marketing is lying, or misleading, but whatever Apple's marketing dept comes out with (not Jobs, do you think /he/ sat there all night doing the little graphs in Keynote?) is GOSPEL TRUTH?

Man, there are so many issues with this it's not funny. Someone raises concerns, Apple responds, and it's evil, evil Greenpeace - not "hmmm, was there any merit, or just marketing spin", no no, the Apple fanboy machine goes into overdrive.

Surprise surprise, welcome to Slashdot. Or Apple fanboys, in general.

its the color that matters (1)

shvytejimas (1083291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962357)

Well, that's settled. Except for the "I want it GREEN" part, apple forgot to announce a line of macs coloured in GREEN!

No way! (1)

ScytheBlade1 (772156) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962369)

From TFA: "It is generally not Apple's policy to trumpet our plans for the future; [...]"

Holy crap, get out! No way!

Why MS (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962373)

So why, if the story is about Apple is the article mentioning MS? Why if some other story is about Linuzz or whatever is necesary to mention MS? Why that fixation? Yes, it's easy to use MS as the source of everything evil just to move the focus, but anyway... A cheap trick.

It's ok (3, Interesting)

bahwi (43111) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962385)

I'm a crazy neo-hippie vegetarian and even I don't listen to greenpeace(or were aware they were still around). Yeah, polluters are bad, but greenpeace doesn't help.

Re:It's ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18963143)

Greenpeace uses violence to get their point across. I refuse to give money to any organization that uses violence to get their message out to to enforce their principles. Also, Greenpeace is considered a terrorist organization by the US dept. of Homeland Security. Don't believe me? Donate money to them and try to get a security clearance. If you did, you lucked out - this time.

Stay away from them. There are plenty of other organizations that do the same thing using legal means and they are actually taken seriously - Sierra Club anyone?

Steve Jobs is not saying it's FUD (4, Informative)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962391)

He simply explains that Apple doesn't usually advertise its future plans in regards to environment but, since there have been much concern, he is going to go ahead and outline them.

Greenpeace responds to Steve responding (4, Informative)

andphi (899406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962393)

Interestingly, Greenpeace has responded already, demanding more action, specifically, the products being green from the outset. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/tastygreenapple [greenpeace.org]

Re:Greenpeace responds to Steve responding (1, Interesting)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962543)

And if they accede to those demands, what's next? "Well, manufacturing iPods creates pollution in the first place, so we demand that you stop producing so many (or any at all)."

These guys are worse than Darth Vader.

Re:Greenpeace responds to Steve responding (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962635)

And if they accede to those demands, what's next?

Less pollution.

Re:Greenpeace responds to Steve responding (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962699)

Excelent point. Turn off your PC and go away as its using electricity which causes polution.

Re:Greenpeace responds to Steve responding (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962571)

Greenpeace quotes Steve Jobs out of context with ...Steve Jobs saying, "Today we're changing our policy." You're the consumers of Apple's products, and you've proven you make a real difference. You convinced one of the world's most cutting edge companies to peel the toxic ingredients out of the products they sell.

Jobs is saying Apple is changing the policy of communicating its environmental policy in response to Greenpeace and others, not changing it's environmental policies. If Greenpeace wants to stay credible, they should not be taking quotes out of context.

Re:Greenpeace responds to Steve responding (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962639)

Greenpeace, unfortunately, and like many other "social responsibility" organizations, traded credibility for attention-seeking to get more media coverage in order to further their goals. It's ok to misinterpret and misinform so long as they achieve their goals. A case of "the end justifies the means", if ever there was one.

It would be nice to return to the "reason before passion" line of thinking.

Re:Greenpeace responds to Steve responding (1)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962793)

They didn't read his posting very carefully:

However, it's not everything we asked for. Customers here in the U.S. will be able to return their Apple products for recycling, but Apple isn't making that promise to customers in other countries. Elsewhere in the world, an Apple product today can still be tomorrow's e-waste. Other manufacturers offer worldwide takeback and recycling. Apple should too!


I believe he mentioned plans to extend this to other countries:

All of Apple's U.S. retail stores, which now number more than 150, take back unwanted iPods for environmentally friendly disposal free of charge. As an incentive, we even offer customers a 10% discount on a new iPod when they bring their old iPod to our stores for proper disposal. This summer we're expanding it to Apple retail stores worldwide, and we're also extending it to include free shipping from anywhere in the U.S.


Moreover, they glossed over the fact that Apple already offers free recycling of iPods.

Methinks they rushed the article to the press without a fact-check.

Re:Greenpeace responds to Steve responding (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963133)

Ten percent is a pretty honking big recycling incentive as well. It exceeds the deposit you pay for many bottles and cans (I think beer bottle deposit is 5 cents here... but there's no way you can get a bottle of beer for 50 cents).

I like the way the pictures on the Green My Apple page have a giant pile of junked PC cables and keyboards with maybe a couple of ancient Apple keyboards tossed in and a kid holding one. It doesn't mean anything, of course, just like the staged pictures, but it's kind of ironic.

You Spin Me Right Round Baby Right Round ... (5, Insightful)

powerlord (28156) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962867)

Greenpeace may have responded to Steve Jobs' response but they failed reading comprehension:

From Apples Release:

It is generally not Apple's policy to trumpet our plans for the future; we tend to talk about the things we have just accomplished. Unfortunately this policy has left our customers, shareholders, employees and the industry in the dark about Apple's desires and plans to become greener. Our stakeholders deserve and expect more from us, and they're right to do so. They want us to be a leader in this area, just as we are in the other areas of our business. So today we're changing our policy.


From the Greenpeace response:

Today we saw something we've all been waiting for: the words "A Greener Apple" on the front page of Apple's site, with a message from Steve Jobs saying, "Today we're changing our policy."

You're the consumers of Apple's products, and you've proven you make a real difference. You convinced one of the world's most cutting edge companies to peel the toxic ingredients out of the products they sell.


Umm ... Greenpeace, I hate to say it, but the policy you "forced" Apple to change was the "It is generally not Apple's policy to trumpet our plans for the future; we tend to talk about the things we have just accomplished."

Way to go making it seem like you're important, having an impact, and therefore worthy of large $$$ donations.

Even More Interesting (2, Funny)

realitybath1 (837263) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962883)

Want to give us some green to celebrate a greener apple?

OMG! I'm so happy I'm just throwing money all around.
Too bad you aren't here greenpeace.

Re:Even More Interesting (1)

mpaque (655244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963027)

Just remember, contributions to Greenpeace are not tax-deductible.

Nothing like a neutral title and blurb (1)

diamondsw (685967) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962437)

Now, I don't have a particular stance on this issue - all companies could use some work on environmental friendliness, and Apple seemed to be singled out - but that title is just a tad inflammatory.

Actually ... Classic Scaremongering (3, Insightful)

Jeremy_Bee (1064620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962903)

Judging by what Greenpeace has been saying about Apple lately and how it has all turned out to be false, I think the title is rather tame actually. Some of Greenpeace's statements have been borderline libelous. How sad that such a once noble group has sunk to the level of scam marketeering.

Speaking as someone who grew up in the land where Greenpeace was founded, has been to protests they organised etc. (I even went to their first "Save the Whales" benefit event), I am shocked at their (now) cheap grandstanding behaviour. I am as left-wing as it gets, (to me Barak Obama is a little too conservative), but even I don't buy into that crap they have been spewing lately.

What's worse, is that Greenpeace's campaign against Apple seems personally and selfishly motivated instead of a campaign in support of the cause of environmentalism. If they published such lies and misinformation because they were foolish or mis-informed, that would be one thing, but it seems that their only motivation was to force Apple to knuckle under to their way of doing and reporting things.

GreenPeace was fully aware that Apple was not in fact the worst polluter, fully aware that it had rather a good record both overall and relative to companies that GreenPeace had conversely rated very highly. Yet because Apple refused to play their game, they put them at the top of a list of companies with bad environmental records? That is classic FUD.

Looks like they just got in a shipment (2, Funny)

wakingrufus (904726) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962447)

from this truck [64.53.233.249] .

Your picture has been seized by the Thought Police (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962789)

By the power invested in me, I demand you to

Hand-in your troll card [hideffreeporno.com] for failing to find a reliable server to host the image of your troll.

Uhm... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962465)

On the other, it looks like Apple is agreeing to do most of what Greenpeace has been demanding.
Actually, it looks like Apple has already done "most of what Greenpeace has been demanding"... far moreso than their competitors. And I'm sure they had already planned to do the rest long before Greenpeace started their FUD campaign.

This has always been true of most PCs (2, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962553)

and Apple is not the only one.

We can either use a market system like Germany and Denmark do, where all manufacturers have to pay true costs for pollution and recycling, and in-source it, or we can pretend that PCs are pollution free.

But, image is important. Just ask BP PLC, with their Beyond Petroleum slogan, after all the disasters with pipelines, refineries, and other ecological bad things.

So, maybe Jobs should ask himself: "What can I do to make it better that is fairly easy."

One thing is power consumption - and on this score, the Mac Mini with a flat LCD monitor is pretty good.

Another thing is less packaging - or making it recylable.

Yet another idea is to do what they already do and take back old Apple products and recycle them.

Re:This has always been true of most PCs (1)

wmeyer (17620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963063)

"where all manufacturers have to pay true costs for pollution and recycling"

Manufacturers do not pay the costs, consumers do. The mere fact that the tax is collected from the manufacturer doesn't make them the benefactors of the environment. The tax paid becomes a part of overhead, which is, of course, transferred to the price paid for the product by consumers.

Economics is a simple and transparent affair; pretending the manufacturer bears a cost doesn't make it so.

Green peace (2, Insightful)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962561)

Green peaces relavance has always been questionable. Most academic enviromental scientist despise them and groups like them because they target high profile but ussually unimportant causes. Diverting attention from real problems. For instance you could kill every spotted owl in existsance and it would not effect the basic ecology of the area. Other species will take up the niche the spotted. Almost all north american endangered species have a more successful cousin. Their loss isnt' significant. But more obscure causes like land preservation efforts in the amazon don't get the same headlines. Similiar groups like PETA also actively impede preservation efforts liek culling of certain animals to avoid a population crash. Enviromental Stewardship involves more then hugging fury things which a lot of activist organization don't acknowlege.

Nuclear energy and research which reduces the amount of damage energy generation causes is protested byt hese groups too. There are arguements against nuclear but they are more valid for the US. In canada our nuclear energy policies tend to be saner. But there is still a stigma about nuclear energy and it's mostly due to misinformation form media and groups like green peace.

For nuclear, it's not about IF we us eit it's abotu When and for how long.

Yes, But Has Fake Steve Posted Yet? (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962565)

Yes, but has Fake Steve Jobs [blogspot.com] posted a reply yet? That'll be the one worth reading.

ok wait a second (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962579)

Wait a second, they're talking about RECYCLING computers? I didn't know people throws them away. Maybe I'm just too much of a geek.

follow the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962613)

Though there's really nothing to suggest it, I could really imagine Microsoft giving Greenpeace a big bunch of money (FSVO "big") and asking them to trash talk Apple. Microsoft, IMHO, is not above doing this to disparage a competitor, and, IMHO, Greenpeace is not above doing it for the bux either.

How would anybody know?

unfriendly packaging (1)

nanosquid (1074949) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962661)

I don't know about how Apple disposes of their waste, but I do know that their packaging is not environmentally friendly: Apple still uses lots of styrofoam and plastic bags. Those are not only bad for the environment, they're also a pain to get rid of.

They are a target because the iPod is popular. (5, Interesting)

4iedBandit (133211) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962709)

And no other reason.

I know it's a stretch for the average Slashdotter, and the comments already posted reinforce that notion, but RTFA.

Apple has met or exceeded environmental standards in just about every respect. They've been doing it for years. Longer than most tech companies.

So what are they really guilty of? What got Greenpeace's panties in a twist? Two things:

First, Apple didn't publicize their work. They pulled a Nike and "Just did it" instead of talking about it. For this Greenpeace ranked Apple lower than other companies that just talk about doing it. Because Apple had the audacity to implement things without talking about it, they've been marked.

Second, Apple has become amazingly successful thanks in no small part to the success of iPod/iTunes and Steve Jobs. I personally hate that they killed the Newton, but I love the price of my Apple stock. This makes Apple the "publicity target." If you want publicity, mention something really negative about Apple.

Greenpeace is media whore mongering. Plain and simple.

I for one am glad that Apple has responded, perhaps not directly to Greenpeace but in a round about way they bitch slapped them. Greenpeace deserves it. The organization should either do real work, or disappear. This attempt to keep themselves relevant is a joke. Greenpeace made no attempt to measure or show in any statistically sound way the real efforts by the companies they ranked.

Lead by example. Apple's got a history of that.

What's Greenpeace got? A bunch of nut cases who signed a petition against dihydrogen-monoxide?

http://video.google.com/url?docid=-387819886586014 3812&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=bull+shit+dihydrogen+monoxide &vidurl=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dyi3erdg VVTw&usg=AL29H22JoKRpAVSY4tPfXFwAGoCVaoW6Xw [google.com]

Re:They are a target because the iPod is popular. (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962945)

I'm going to focus on the most important part of your post

I too, would have liked a new OS X integrated Newton.

Re:They are a target because the iPod is popular. (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963177)

Give Greenpeace a break. Naturally they respect companies that talk about doing things more than companies that do them. Isn't that Greenpeace's own modus operandi?

It's been my experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962749)

that every Greenpeace mouthpiece is an attention whoring asshat out to take away the outdoors from everyone but the elite.

For example several years ago the "Grand Dragon" of the local chapter of Greenthugs in Scottsdale Az ran an oil changing station. Great environmentally responsible job. One day while getting my Dad's oil changed I ask him if I could bring by a gallon of used oil I removed from some equipment at home, no problem he says. So I show up with a gallon of used oil and my XR650 dirt bike in the back of my OHMYGOD 4x4 Nissan, he freaks out. Tells me to F'off because I'm some kind of environmental terrorist. So next thing I know I have some guy from the state investigating me and threating to dig up my yard to see were I poured the oil!! Guess I shouldn't have paid for the oil change with a check :-( I'm posting as an Anonymous Coward cause that AssHat is still in town.

LED Backlight CONFIRMED (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962755)

B.S. about apple already being green isn't interesting... even oil companies say they are "green".

What is WAY more interesting to me is this:

We plan to introduce our first Macs with LED backlight technology in 2007.

GreenPeace - Misleading as Usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18962765)

From the link above, Here's the intro to GreenPeace's response to Jobs:

Today we saw something we've all been waiting for: the words "A Greener Apple" on the front page of Apple's site, with a message from Steve Jobs saying, "Today we're changing our policy."

You're the consumers of Apple's products, and you've proven you make a real difference. You convinced one of the world's most cutting edge companies to peel the toxic ingredients out of the products they sell.
They make it sound as if Jobs has changed Apple's environmental policy. He hasn't. From Apple's site:

It is generally not Apple's policy to trumpet our plans for the future; we tend to talk about the things we have just accomplished. Unfortunately this policy has left our customers, shareholders, employees and the industry in the dark about Apple's desires and plans to become greener. Our stakeholders deserve and expect more from us, and they're right to do so. They want us to be a leader in this area, just as we are in the other areas of our business. So today we're changing our policy.
It's very clear that the policy that Apple has changed is it's policy of telling others its future plans, at least with respect to Apple's green plans. The plans it has for improving its environmental policies are not changes - they are existing plans.

Doing something this transparently misleading - although not explicitly dishonest - is not going to help them in a public debate that is entirely about credibility. They just crumpled theirs up and tossed it in the waste basket.

why the rhetoric? (1)

nanosquid (1074949) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962847)

Jobs is agreeing that Apple is still producing a lot of toxic waste, so I think it's unjustified to call Greenpeace's message "FUD". What Jobs is saying is that the company is aware of the problem and has already been trying to address it, and that they are actually ahead of the competition. He is also saying that Apple hasn't communicated very clearly about it in the past and that they will improve this.

It seems to me that both Greenpeace and Jobs are doing their jobs, and there really isn't any big disagreement.

Great PR move (1)

enkrateias (982198) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962917)

Not only did Jobs make it clear that Apple was more about action than posturing, but he gave clear, concrete examples of how Apple was already ahead of the game. And it's perfectly within character for Apple not to announce future plans. For them to break from this tradition indicates that there has been a strong pull on the demand side. Combined with the recent excellent financial results, the upcoming launch of the iPhone and the release of Leopard later this year, this latest announcement will keep them in headlines for a while. Good play, Apple PR, good play.

Story submitter confused? (3, Insightful)

towsonu2003 (928663) | more than 7 years ago | (#18962955)

The title says "Jobs responds to Greanpeace FUD", which means (in English) that the arguments by Greanpeace are FUD. The summary itself goes on to say that it is Jobs who is arguing that Greanpeace is FUD'ing. But the summary finishes with "Apple is agreeing with Greanpeace demands", which means (in English) that there was no FUD in Greanpeace's claims. If there was, Apple wouldn't do what Greanpeace asked them to do.


So I'd like to ask the submitter to gather around her or his thoughts and decide whether:

1. Greenpeace arguments are FUD, or

2. Jobs thinks Greanpeace arguments are FUD, or

3. Greenpeace is telling the truth (and Apple is indeed using hazardous materials, intentionally harming its workers' health abroad and the environment).


Which one is it? I know what Apple is (a corporation [wikipedia.org] after profit, just like Microsoft ), so I pretty much know who's telling the truth in this case.

Greanpeace is FUD (1)

Uttles (324447) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963089)

Greenpeace is simply anti-capitalist. Apple's iPod is the latest example of capitalism at work. You make a superior product, the market rewards you. Greenpeace hates to see this happen, so they go on the offensive. Screw Greenpeace, in my opinion.

Rough translation (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963097)

We're actually doing better than most of our competitors; however, we don't usually publish it. Take that Greenpeace, bi-otch!

Missing the point: product announcement (1)

swissfondue (819240) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963101)

As all Apple aficionados know, the real interesting information in Steve's post is about future product announcements. Thank you Greenpeace!

"We plan to introduce our first Macs with LED backlight technology in 2007." and "Apple plans to completely eliminate the use of arsenic in all of its displays by the end of 2008."

So all Macs should have LED displays by end of 2008. Think of the battery life for the MacBooks!

No surprise (1)

hairykrishna (740240) | more than 7 years ago | (#18963103)

Greenpeace talking rubbish? Surely not!

I mean, they do such a good job providing sensible information on nuclear power, the Chernobyl diasaster and numerous other topics...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>