Apple Receives Middling Marks In GreenPeace Green Computing Survey
6:26 pm, July 1st, 2009, Leander Kahney
Despite touting its green credentials, Apple is ranked fairly low in Greenpeace's latest survey of green electronics.
Despite touting its green credentials in new TV ads, Apple is ranked fairly low in Greenpeace’s latest survey of green electronics.
Greenpeace’s quarterly green scorecard was released on Wednesday, and while Apple got high marks for reducing toxic chemicals, it got low marks for not supporting global recycling initiatives or using more recycled plastics.
Overall, Apple scored 4.7 out of 10, putting it in the lower half of a pack of 18 electronics manufacturers. Nokia came top with a score of 7.45, and Nintendo came bottom with a score of 1.
Apple has been advertising the green credentials of its new MacBook line in TV ads — proclaiming them the greenest laptops ever.
Greenpeace’s 12th Guide to Greener Electronics ranks tech companies on three main criteria: reducing overall environmental impact, eliminating toxic chemicals, and recycling efforts.
Apple scored higher than rivals like Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and Lenovo, which all came near the bottom for failing to eliminate toxic chemicals like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) from their products.
Apple has mostly removed PVCs and BVRs, which Greenpeace rewarded with high marks.
Greenpeace also praised Apple for:
Toxics: Apple generally gets high marks for removing PVCs and BFRs, and for planning to remove all chlorine and bromine.
Recycling: Apple operates recycling programs in countries where more than 95% of its prodcuts are sold, including countries where no recycling laws exist.
E-Waste Reporting: Apple recycled 30.5 million pounds of electronics; a recycling rate of 38% in 2008, as a percentage of sales seven years ago.
Green Advertising: Greenpeace praised Apple’s new ads highlighting the green credentials of its new MacBooks.
But Greenpeace criticized Apple for:
Eliminating More Toxins: Apple’s provided no timeline for eliminating nasties like beryllium and arsenic.
Global Recycling: Apple has not pledged support for the Individual Producer Responsibility program, which pressures firms to take responsibility for the lifetime of products, cradle to grave.
Recycled Plastics: Apple doesn’t use enough.
Global Greenhouse Gas Reductions: Apple doesn’t support mandatory reduction of global greenhouse emissions.
Renewable Energy: Apple doesn’t disclose the amount of renewable energy it uses.
Apple in the past has been targeted by Greenpeace, mostly for failing to on its environmental performance. But in 2007, Steve Jobs posted an long, detailed statement about Apple’s green performance and goals. Greenpeace has also been criticized for its green electronics reports. The group — which is clearly activist — uses published results to compile its surveys. So Apple may be running its HQ entirely on solar power, but receives poor marks if it fails to report this.
Apple didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Below is a copy of Greenpeace’s explanation of Apple’s score in more detail (PDF).
And here’s Greenpeace’s full Guide to Greener Electronics – 12 (PDF).
Posted by Leander Kahney in Apple, Hardware, News, Top stories | Comment on this article
[...] http://cultofmac.com/appel-receives-middling-marks-in-greenpeace-green-computing-survey/12445 [...]
applestories's status on Thursday, 02-Jul-09 01:30:22 UTC - Identi.ca, on July 1st, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Same old, same old then eh? Despite how much I love Apple’s products I’ve been critical of their ‘green’ campaigning ever since the last release of this assessment by Greenpeace.
Still, they haven’t forgotten about the issue and I’m hoping they’ll slowly but surely improve. =)
Duality, on July 1st, 2009 at 7:30 pm
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.
Duality, on July 1st, 2009 at 7:35 pm
who cares what Greenpeace thinks? does it matter to you or me? slow news day?
midbach, on July 1st, 2009 at 8:37 pm
“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?
zim, on July 1st, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Well, looks like there’s still a lot of room for improvement for Apple. Come on guys, be more environmentally responsible!
coltrane, on July 1st, 2009 at 11:14 pm
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.
William, on July 2nd, 2009 at 1:37 am
” It sounds like you’re implying they’re ‘crazies’ or something. =/ Or am I just misreading the article? ”
They are in fact lunatics. Publicity whores who put their political agenda above everything, even the environment. I have no use for them.
chuck, on July 2nd, 2009 at 5:04 am
Screw greenpeace. Eco-whackos.
BMWTwisty, on July 2nd, 2009 at 5:48 am
One thing Greenpeace has failed to take into account is that Apple makes products that people tend to hang onto much longer. I’ve got a a 1st gen G4 iMac that still runs fine and is 7-years-old (give or take). It’s not my primary machine or anything, but I’m sure the vast majority of PC’s that my friends may have bought around the same time are in landfills somewhere.
I think there’s something funky about there methodology of rating these companies. For example, I highly doubt Nokia is twice as green as Apple, they simply happen to score that way on Greenpeace’s seemingly random rubric for evaluating these things. I mean does the fact that a company discloses their greenhouse gas emission (even if it’s bad) get the same weight as actually removing toxic chemicals from their products? This report reeks of being more about PR and marketing flash than anything substantive like the actual science of improving our environment, or taking an honest look at the true impact of electronics manufacturers on the environment.
Scott, on July 2nd, 2009 at 7:34 am
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”.
Mark, on July 2nd, 2009 at 11:30 am
Who gives a shit, really? All of this “going green” is a trend that in enough time will go by the wayside along with the “Atkins Diet” and tacking the word “Millennium” on everything. It’s the “cool thing to do” right now.
AWestcave, on July 2nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
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!
Dave Gude, on July 2nd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
[...] Cult of Mac) AKPC_IDS += [...]
iRadar » Apple fÃ¥r smæk af Greenpeace, on July 3rd, 2009 at 3:55 am
[...] Cult of Mac.com [...]
Talking about Green IT and getting everyone involved | Blade Watch, on July 7th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Okay, so here’s the problem with Greenpeace’s reports every year:
“For more points Apple needs to use the term Precautionary Principle…”
Why? Why should they get more points if they act *exactly the same* but use Greenpeace-Approved terminology? (This is one of the most simple-minded and inflexible studies I’ve ever seen!)
Half of this report is spent not analyzing what Apple (or any other company) *does*, but analyzing their PR. And yes, I get that what the company says in their PR is important, but what the company does ought to be even *more* important.
EJ, on July 7th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
[...] Greenpeace still is after Apple to get greener in its manufacturing, one sustainability consultant has found his new iPhone to be quite a green [...]
Bites from the Apple: Catching Up reviews, prices | eOpinions Product reviews, on July 12th, 2009 at 8:28 am
[...] Greenpeace still is after Apple to get greener in its manufacturing, one sustainability consultant has found his new iPhone to be quite a green [...]
Bites from the Apple: Catching Up « What I Would Buy, on August 13th, 2009 at 12:56 am