Greenpeace Ranks Apple Last in Greenness

Greenpeace Int'l Ranks Apple Last for Environmental Friendliness, While Lenovo Group Tops List

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) -- Greenpeace International placed Apple Inc. last in its rankings of major electronics makers for their environmental friendliness, while Chinese manufacturer Lenovo Group Ltd. jumped to the top of the list.

An Apple spokeswoman said the company rejects Greenpeace's ranking system and that its products are among the "greenest" on the market, pointing to more technical ratings used by the Green Electronics Council.

Greenpeace ranked 14 computer and mobile phone makers according to their efforts to limit the use of hazardous chemicals in production and in taking steps to ensure that goods that become broken or obsolete are recycled.

Lenovo replaced Nokia Inc. at the top of the list, followed by Sony Ericsson, Dell Inc., and Samsung Electronics Co.

Near the bottom with Apple were LG Electronics Inc. and Matsushita Co.'s Panasonic.

Greenpeace spokeswoman Iza Kruszewska said Lenovo, which bought IBM's consumer electronics division in 2005, has tried to lessen its environmental impact since the list was introduced in August 2006. It was the first of the electronics giants to offer all customers the opportunity to give back computers for recycling.

Lenovo is a rare example of a company bucking the tide in China, which is a dumping ground for hazardous electronics, both domestically made and imported, she said.

She said Apple failed to stop using several types of harmful chemicals in its manufacturing, and -- unlike many other companies -- has not set any timetable for phasing them out.

"We disagree with Greenpeace's rating and the criteria they chose," Apple spokeswoman Sheryl Seitz said, reading a prepared statement. "Apple has a strong environmental track record and has led the industry in restricting and banning toxic substances such as mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium, as well as many BFRs (brominated flame retardants)."

According to standards developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., Apple products are not especially toxic.

The Green Electronics Council, funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, runs a web site that allows buyers to judge products on a score comprised of 23 different categories established by the IEE, including the materials used, energy conservation and packaging. Apple scored generally better than Lenovo and Dell.

All of the computer companies in Greenpeace's study had failed to eliminate BPRs and toxic vinyl plastics, though some of the phone makers did.

In addition, Greenpeace's study didn't take into account that in terms of quantity, Apple produces less toxic waste than larger competitors.

Kruszewska said the study intentionally ignored companies' absolute size to concentrate on their relative performance. She conceded the choices of manufacturers and judging criteria were subjective. But Greenpeace tried to be "fair and transparent" in giving advance warning to the companies on the way they would be rated.

She said Greenpeace's relationship with Apple has deteriorated since it set up a spoof web site devoted to criticizing Apple's environmental policies, she added.

"Once we launched the 'Green my Apple' Web site, we stopped hearing from Apple altogether," she said.

She said Apple initially participated in regular conference calls with Greenpeace on the ratings scheme, but didn't change its practices any more than required by law.

"Steve Jobs has a lot to answer for," Kruszewska said, referring to Apple's CEO.

Greenpeace's full rating list was: Lenovo, Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Dell, Samsung, Motorola Inc., Fujitsu-Siemens, Hewlett Packard Corp., Acer Inc., Toshiba Corp., Sony Corp., LG.Electronics Inc., Panasonic and Apple.

If you care about objective reporting... something Greenpeace is not doing... then these reports put it in better perspective:

EPA Gives Apple Silver Rating on Environment
by Bryan Chaffin, 2:10 PM EST, January 8th, 2007

The EPA rates Apple Computer highest amongst producers of notebook computers, and fairly well compared to producers of desktop computers and LCD displays. ArsTechnica noted Saturday that Apple was given a "Silver" rating in its Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT), and met 17 of 23 "optional points" as set by the EPA. In comparison, Dell was also given a "Silver" rating, but met only 15 optional points (read the ArsTechnica story for a deeper breakdown of Apple's EPA ratings).

This comes in contrast to Greenpeace, an environmental activist non-profit that has cited Apple as being at the bottom of its own list of major electronics manufacturers. Greenpeace has claimed that Apple doesn't disclose all of its regulated materials used in production, and hasn't provided a time table for eliminating toxic polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

For those interested in this issue, it should be noted that other environmental groups have targeted Apple in the past specifically because the company was so high profile. At the same time, the current EPA has a strong history of favoring corporations and turning a blind eye to many polluters. As is the case with any particular issue, the truth is more likely to lie in the middle.

Apple has invested resources into being environmentally responsible, including recycling programs. Its EPA ranking ahead of companies like Dell very likely represents the reality relative to the rest of the industry. The sad truth, though, is that no matter who is better than whom, the business of producing computers is not an environmentally friendly process, and almost all of Apple's production takes place overseas.

Accordingly, have a bag of salt on hand when hearing most reports on this issue.

The Ars Technica article:

EPA information should make GreenPeace red-faced over Apple targeting

By Mary E. Tyler | Published: January 06, 2007 - 06:23PM CT

If you've been following the Green My Apple movement courtesy of GreenPeace, you'll remember our recent coverage of GreenPeace's latest stunt: turning the NYC Apple store green courtesy of some tinted floodlights. In that article, yours truly took a lot of heat for assuming—for the sake of argument—that GreenPeace's word that Apple was a bad corporate citizen was accurate and that Apple had room to improve. Well... you know what they say about assumptions. GreenPeace has reason to be red-faced—at least if you believe the EPA.

A recent New York Times article on buying refurnished and environmentally friendly computers (free registration required) led to a nifty list called EPEAT (Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool) made up by the EPA. Computers that meet 23 required environmental criteria get a bronze medal. If a computer meets 50% of an additional 28 criteria, it gets a silver medal. If it meets all 23 required and all 28 option criteria, it gets a gold. None of the 300 pieces of computer equipment rated got gold medals.

How did Apple do?

Product	Kind	Rating	Optional Points	Type	Size
Apple MacBook Pro, 15.4-inch, 2.0GHz Dual Core	Notebooks	Silver	17
Apple MacBook Pro, 15.4-inch, 2.16GHz Dual Core	Notebooks	Silver	17
Apple MacBook Pro, 17-inch, 2.16GHz Dual Core	Notebooks	Silver	17
Apple MacBook Pro, 15.4-inch, 2.16GHz, Core 2 Duo	Notebooks	Silver	17	Flat Panel	15.4 in
Apple MacBook Pro, 15.4-inch, 2.33GHz, Core 2 Duo	Notebooks	Silver	17	Flat Panel	15.4 in
Apple MacBook Pro, 17-inch, 2.33GHz, Core 2 Duo	Notebooks	Silver	17	Flat Panel	17 in
Apple Mac Pro	Desktops	Silver	16
Apple 20-inch, Cinema Display	Monitors	Silver	15	Flat Panel	20 in
Apple 30-inch, Cinema HD Display	Monitors	Silver	15	Flat Panel	30 in
Apple 23-inch, Cinema HD Display	Monitors	Silver	15	Flat Panel	23 in

In context, Apple's notebooks are the most environmentally friendly with 17 optional points. Apple's Desktop and monitors aren't top of the heap, though. The Mac Pro scores 16 optional points. Only three computers (out of 67) from Northern Micro (which makes the Spirit brand) do better (1@17 and 2@18). Meanwhile, HP, Lenovo and Dell don't break 14 points. At 15 optional points for Apple monitors, they are solidly at the middle of the pack along with several NEC models, but blowing Lenovo, HP and Dell out of the water because many of the latter's monitors only rate 13 points. Only NEC's flat panel monitors do better with 18 optional points (they're also the best scoring equipment rated).

So in the grand scheme, according to the EPA, Apple has the most eco-friendly notebooks, the 4th most eco-friendly desktop, and monitors that aren't too shabby. But, are they far and away better than other manufacturers? No. Could they be better? For sure.

Turns out that assuming that GreenPeace has their facts straight is a very bad assumption indeed. Of course, neither was my original assessment faulty: Apple also has a ways to go in being really "green." This is an area where Apple could innovate and really leave their competitors in the dust.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.