Anyone who has followed Apple for long has seen activists from Greenpeace or other environmental groups bash the company’s use of toxic or difficult to recycle materials in its products. The company recently trashed Apple’s iPhone for what it claimed were extraordinarily high levels of toxic chemicals the company had pledged to stop using. Of course, Apple only promised to stop using them by the end of 2008, so…
Those clever troublemakers over at Gizmodo cited an industry group that challenged Greenpeace’s methods for determining the contents of the iPhone — they only detected Bromine, not which compounds were present. This led to a lot of furor from Greenpeace, as you can imagine. The rebuttal is quite long, but the last quote from its spokesperson is worth the reading:
If you think we just protest against Apple then look out for soon a report covering a wide range of manufacturers as we have done in 2006. While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it doesn’t mean that we are not focusing on all manufacturers to remove toxic chemicals from their products.
That sounds like an admission to me… Apple is moving out ahead of its competitors here. Maybe it would help the cause to admit that, guys…
Via Slashdot
4 responses to “Greenpeace Spokesman Admits iPhone Alarmism Gets Press. Oops!”
That Greenpeace graphic at the head of this entry really says it all. It appears on the Greenpeace anti-Apple website along with the usual screeds about how horrible Apple is. Except that their own photos show mounds and mounds of keyboards NOT made by Apple, with a child holding ONE Apple keyboard. And in comparing the different keyboards in that dump, which ones appear to be the smallest and most innocuous?
I wonder what the ramifications of all these new Apple products in aluminum will be — far easier to recycle, I’d assume. Will we see far fewer Macs in landfills? (Of course, since Macs last exponentially longer than other PCs, I’m certain there are far fewer of them in landfills in any case.)
I am disappointed that the Mac community has not done more to demand greener computers. Why are you all so offended by Greenpeace? You should be flattered. They are going after Apple because it is respected and loved so much. If Apple takes a lead, other companies will follow.
There has been talk here about the Apple’s current designs. Personally, I don’t think aesthetic makeovers is good design. GM invented that trick in the 50’s with annual model changes. You can’t think of design without thinking of environmental impact. Good design includes energy efficiency, use of low-impact materials, durability, function, and form.
@ Gene: I don’t know if aluminum is easier to recycle than plastic. I do know that aluminum requires an obscene amount of energy to produce from raw ore. And unless anyone knows otherwise, the new iMacs are not made from recycled soda cans.