Greenpeace has slammed Apple, Motorola and others over their environmental policies, while offering some praise to Nokia for its proactive approach to environmental protection. Greenpeace, which publishes the Green Electronics Guide every three months, scores companies on their use of hazardous chemicals, recycling and take-back policies. It uses information published by the companies.
Nokia scored highly for eliminating its use of polyvinyl chlorides (PVCs), which are widely used but difficult-to-recycle plastics that cause the release of dioxin, another toxin, when manufactured. The Finnish company plans to stop using brominated flame retardants (BFRs) by the start of 2007, Greenpeace said.
Apple appeared fourth from bottom of the list above Acer, Motorola and Lenovo.
"For a company that claims to lead on product design, Apple scores badly on almost all criteria," Greenpeace said.
Apple doesn't publish a list of regulated substances it uses in its products, Greenpeace said. Apple has not released timelines for eliminating PVCs and BFRs, and only sells a few peripheral items free of PVCs.
While Apple has take-back programs in place in some countries, it reports the weight of recycled products and not the percentage of sales, Greenpeace said. Apple received one positive mark, for not exporting e-waste, an issue for developing countries that may mishandle hardware with toxic substances.
Apple said it disagreed with Greenpeace's ratings and criteria. The computer company said it has eliminated cathode ray tube monitors containing lead from its product lines along with cadmium and hexavalent chromium in manufacturing.
A small amount of mercury is used in Apple's flat-panel displays, as the element is used throughout the industry for backlight lamps, the vendor said. Apple is looking for an alternative.
Lenovo, which took over IBM's PC business in May 2005, came last on Greenpeace's list. The company has not committed to eliminating PVCs or BFRs or defined a "precautionary principle," a set of guidelines governing actions that could cause environmental damage, according to Greenpeace. The vendor also has a limited take-back policy in some countries which Greenpeace called "partially bad."
Lenovo disputed the findings, saying it offers recycling to all of its business customers -- a service not detailed online Lenovo has continued IBM's Environmental Management System, a program that covers manufacturing and product design, and is meshing that system with its own, pre-existing environmental policy, it said.
"Lenovo meets or exceeds applicable environmental regulations globally, and we don't believe Greenpeace's ranking accurately reflects Lenovo's environmental record," the company said in a statement.
None of the companies scored perfectly. Even first-place Nokia, for example, doesn't release figures on the number of units it recycles, according to Greenpeace. The vendor should also more clearly define its precautionary principle, the environmental group said.
News source: Macworld UK
Nokia scored highly for eliminating its use of polyvinyl chlorides (PVCs), which are widely used but difficult-to-recycle plastics that cause the release of dioxin, another toxin, when manufactured. The Finnish company plans to stop using brominated flame retardants (BFRs) by the start of 2007, Greenpeace said.
Apple appeared fourth from bottom of the list above Acer, Motorola and Lenovo.
"For a company that claims to lead on product design, Apple scores badly on almost all criteria," Greenpeace said.
Apple doesn't publish a list of regulated substances it uses in its products, Greenpeace said. Apple has not released timelines for eliminating PVCs and BFRs, and only sells a few peripheral items free of PVCs.
While Apple has take-back programs in place in some countries, it reports the weight of recycled products and not the percentage of sales, Greenpeace said. Apple received one positive mark, for not exporting e-waste, an issue for developing countries that may mishandle hardware with toxic substances.
Apple said it disagreed with Greenpeace's ratings and criteria. The computer company said it has eliminated cathode ray tube monitors containing lead from its product lines along with cadmium and hexavalent chromium in manufacturing.
A small amount of mercury is used in Apple's flat-panel displays, as the element is used throughout the industry for backlight lamps, the vendor said. Apple is looking for an alternative.
Lenovo, which took over IBM's PC business in May 2005, came last on Greenpeace's list. The company has not committed to eliminating PVCs or BFRs or defined a "precautionary principle," a set of guidelines governing actions that could cause environmental damage, according to Greenpeace. The vendor also has a limited take-back policy in some countries which Greenpeace called "partially bad."
Lenovo disputed the findings, saying it offers recycling to all of its business customers -- a service not detailed online Lenovo has continued IBM's Environmental Management System, a program that covers manufacturing and product design, and is meshing that system with its own, pre-existing environmental policy, it said.
"Lenovo meets or exceeds applicable environmental regulations globally, and we don't believe Greenpeace's ranking accurately reflects Lenovo's environmental record," the company said in a statement.
None of the companies scored perfectly. Even first-place Nokia, for example, doesn't release figures on the number of units it recycles, according to Greenpeace. The vendor should also more clearly define its precautionary principle, the environmental group said.
News source: Macworld UK
Hurray?
You get these greenpeace socialist types, that eventually drive Chelsea tractors, vote tory and have massive expense accounts due to their own greed.
I know a Green party leader (not MP) that never uses public transport drives a car that uses 12 mpg and still pumps out fossil fuels from his chimney.
Recycling costs more than it does to recycle. Infact it causes more pollution.
These are facts from the UK.
Like that Simpsons episode when they recycle all the waste and the hippy gives them a few cents, and Skinner says it cost me more to fuel the car to deliver and the string to tie the bundles.
Greenpeace and some of their activists have been guilty of quite a few things that cause harm to the environment.
Untill they make us use objects that start to degrade and turn to dust after 4 years then well Greenpeace should stop calling the kettle black.
What is disgusting is that you people only care about cost. Cost, cost, cost, cost. Well when the ozone is gone, the polar ice caps have melted and your house is under water, I doubt you are really going to care about money.
This is what makes me mad, people yell about how much stuff costs to make it eco-friendy. Cost isn't the issue, saving the environment is the main thing. Sure money makes a difference but when it comes to saving the planet, our home, I really do not think that money, an artificial expression of worth, is really important.
Sorry us hippies make you so angry, but you will regret not listening to us or others who advocate the same principles and concepts when the earth isn't so green.
This isn't to say that the people running greenpeace are corrupt. Everyone is corrupt. But what they "preach", what they advocate, what they try to teach and inform others about, is only good.
You get these greenpeace socialist types, that eventually drive Chelsea tractors, vote tory and have massive expense accounts due to their own greed.
I know a Green party leader (not MP) that never uses public transport drives a car that uses 12 mpg and still pumps out fossil fuels from his chimney.
Recycling costs more than it does to recycle. Infact it causes more pollution.
These are facts from the UK.
Like that Simpsons episode when they recycle all the waste and the hippy gives them a few cents, and Skinner says it cost me more to fuel the car to deliver and the string to tie the bundles.
Greenpeace and some of their activists have been guilty of quite a few things that cause harm to the environment.
Untill they make us use objects that start to degrade and turn to dust after 4 years then well Greenpeace should stop calling the kettle black.
What is disgusting is that you people only care about cost. Cost, cost, cost, cost. Well when the ozone is gone, the polar ice caps have melted and your house is under water, I doubt you are really going to care about money.
This is what makes me mad, people yell about how much stuff costs to make it eco-friendy. Cost isn't the issue, saving the environment is the main thing. Sure money makes a difference but when it comes to saving the planet, our home, I really do not think that money, an artificial expression of worth, is really important.
Sorry us hippies make you so angry, but you will regret not listening to us or others who advocate the same principles and concepts when the earth isn't so green.
This isn't to say that the people running greenpeace are corrupt. Everyone is corrupt. But what they "preach", what they advocate, what they try to teach and inform others about, is only good.
I am not corrupt nor do I have a price. The Polar ice caps melting and the ozone layer (O3) have zilch to do with pollution.
It's called nature.
Bronze age, ice age etc.
300,000,000 the Sun will finally burn out, it's just something that happens.
You really need to re-read what I wrote, then you may understand I don't give a monkies that you're a hippy, nor should I be forced to recycle. Why should I? I don't use plastic bags to carry my shopping home, I use a rucksack, I don't buy pre-packaged goods unless their wrappings are made of degradable plastics and cardboard, I don't drive a car and I use roll on anti-persperant. My soap is degradable made from fruit oils.
It costs more money to recycle than it does not to.
This is a statistic in my country.
Right thats a statistic, but in the end, it may cost more but it helps the environment. It reduces waste, etc. So I don't see your point of saying oh well it costs too much. And good for you if you do all of that, I don't mean to jump to conclusions but I hate it when people say well it costs too much. Suck it up and save the world because when its gone no one will give a **** about money.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.