Ack, unintentional double posting, but why did you write “Greenpeace – which is clearly activist”? It sounds like you’re implying they’re ‘crazies’ or something. =/ Or am I just misreading the article?

In addition, I don’t think it’s Greenpeace’s fault that Apple is secretive. Despite Apple’s culture of secrecy in general I don’t believe they’re currently holding back information about renewable energy use or anything. It makes no sense for them to do so while they’re capitalizing on it with their notebooks.

To me, the silence implies a lack of *good* news for them to report. In other words, they’re probably running on carbon-based power sources.

“it got low marks for not supporting global recycling initiatives or using more recycled plastics.”

does Apple use a lot of plastics?

Only one mac, the white macbook is plastic, all the others imacs, macbook pros, mac pros etc are aluminum. There’s some plastic in the iphones etc. but the Palm Pre even uses a plastic screen while iPhone’s are glass.

I don’t know how much plastic the other computer, tech companies use but just looking around most of the cheap PCs are plastic.

Is Apple credited for decreasing plastic use overall and using re-cycleable aluminum?

Greenpeace– those are the people that send you $150 worth of junk mail over the next three years if you’re foolish enough to give them a $15 donation.

And people care what they think?

Frankly, you lower your credibility by giving such a report any credibility. I mean you gotta be pretty desperate to bash Apple to dig up some greenpeace report on how “Green” Apple is.

Greenpeace is a scam– their only purpose here is to shakedown Apple for protection money.

This is called “greenmail”. They tell Apple that they will keep giving them bad reports until Apple makes a “donation”.

That’s the real story here. But of course, you won’t report on it, because, like your commentators, you vaguely support “the environment” but have no clue about the science behind the situation.

Which is just like greenpeace.

Though greenpeace has found a great way to make money shaking down corporations for “donations”.

Kudos to Apple for not giving in to these scam artists.

And shame on anyone who is foolish enough to think that Greenpeace has any credibility on the environment.

Screw greenpeace. Eco-whackos.

If you look closely, you’ll notice that Apple was dinged for not supporting “individual producer responsibility” for recycling. The definition of support refers in the summary as “clarifying that this means providing financing for in-brand real end-of-life costs (parenthetical example deleted) to the WEEE.” Um, yeah. That means, literally, that Apple declined to pay protection money to an eco-front organization with which Greenpeace International is affiliated.

Likewise, the poster above who noted Apple’s use of plastics was spot-on. Most of Apple’s computers are made of aluminum. The lone exception is the Macbook; likewise, iPhones use some plastic in their shells, as well. That their overall use of materials leans toward far lower usage of plastics generally (non-recycled as well as recycled) appears to be ignored entirely by this “report”.

Greenpeace has a history of non-scientific “reporting” for the purpose of fund-raising and self-promotion. Apple does all the right things but gets shot down for not blabbing about their future plans.

You absolutely should care about green trends in electronics manufacturing, but you don’t have a friend in Greenpeace!

actually my sister is healthier now because of the Atkins Diet:’;