The Apple trifecta for today is complete with this entry.
Greenpeace. Oh, boy. Well, they have been lambasting Apple for some time now over the computer maker’s environmental impact; and now they plan to stage a protest at the San Francisco Apple Store.
This is all somewhat puzzling and not a little bit annoying, because Apple is generally seen to be rather more green and aware than most other manufacturers. And since Apple has less than 10% of the market for new computers (granted, they have 75% of the MP3 player market) you’d think that Greenpeace would turn their sights on a company like Dell that is churning out hunks of plastic, chemicals, and heavy metals by the truckload every day. Just because they have pledged to stop using toxic chemicals doesn’t make them green. Note this image from Greenpeace’s “Green Our Apple” webpage:
It’s worth noting that there is only one Apple product in this image… the mountain of computer detritus behind this scavenging child is from other manufacturers.
Of course, protesting at a Dell kiosk certainly wouldn’t garner the headlines and increase public awareness of Greenpeace itself, would it? And that’s what this is all about: publicity for Greenpeace.
Too bad the EPA doesn’t agree with Greenpeace (of course, it’s worth remembering that this is the Bush era EPA…). According to the government, Apple has some of the most environmentally friendly computers available. See for yourself. In fact, their laptops are the most environmentally friendly available. Still, this doesn’t mean that Apple isn’t still having a negative environment impact; but there are far worse offenders out there. By focusing on Apple, Greenpeace is simply pulling a rug over all the other computer manufacturers.
I’m not naive enough to believe that Apple is making products that are safer and less toxic than anyone else; like everyone, I want the company to build cleaner, greener devices. My point here is that Greenpeace, in my opinion, is tilting at a windmill and their campaign will not result in anything tangible other than publicity for themselves. In order to change the hearts of minds of consumers and the corporations that market to them, I think a more broadly-based campaign directed at all computer companies is necessary. Shining green lights on an Apple store looks like it is promoting the Apple store.
Full disclosure: I work for Greenpeace.
You’re right to question the Bush-era EPA rating of Apple. The EPA silver star is a pat on the head for complying with the law, and the law in the US is much more lenient than in Europe, and far more lenient than the criteria Greenpeace has set for the industry. So, for example, HP and Dell get no points in the EPA system for committing to phase out brominated fire retardants and PVC, — two chemicals which are killers when kids in Asia melt down circuit boards to recover materials — and Apple gets no penalty for including them and refusing to phase them out.
As to the accusations that Greenpeace is in it for the publicity… sorry, I sit in on the planning meetings where we choose targets. A high-profile target is essential to a campaign like this succeeding. We’re unapologetic and completely transparent at http://www.greenpeace.org/apple about why we chose Apple as our focus. We know they’re champion innovators. We know that where Apple goes, others follow. We know Apple listes to their customers. And we know there’s a big overlap in the demographics of Apple customers and people who care about the environment.
I’ve been an activist all my life. The day Greenpeace starts choosing targets to promote the organisation instead of winning the campaign is the day I quit.
Good points, all — but I can’t help wondering how successful such a campaign would be.
First off, most Mac users keep their computers exponentially longer than PC users. They’re not being thrown out to the same extent as PCs, which pile up like old tires. Yes, there is an overlap in the demographics — but think about this: Apple users like myself also drive hybrid cars, recycle, use energy efficient lighting and appliances, and generally live a green consumer life. Why not target, say, the Dell users who buy disposable computers, drive SUVs, and so forth? Wouldn’t that be more bang for the buck?
Second, Greenpeace has an almost insurmountable obstacle: Apple’s reputation. Perhaps this is why this campaign hasn’t gotten any traction other than in the Mac community. It just makes Greenpeace look like whiny fanatics, a view that is held by so many people despite the organization’s noble goals.
Third: other companies are not likely to follow suit after Apple when it comes to manufacturing. Yes, they’ll try to imitate the look of Apple products, but knock-offs are rarely high quality and they cut corners wherever possible.
Apple may not be as environmentally friendly as their corporate culture implies, but I still find Greenpeace’s reasoning for targeting them to the exclusion of other companies somewhat suspicious and self-serving.
It amazes me that in this world, Greenpeace would choose Apple to extort- er, protest against.
As if Apple can even come CLOSE to being a major player in the environmental game. Small potatos in a world of pestisides.
But hey, they’re famous for missing the mark and who cares if they protest say, ANYONE WHO REALLY PUTS A DENT IN OUR ECOSYSTEM…..