Jobs posts about Apple's "green" credentials

On 5/7/07 17:47, "George Wade" <georgewadeshaw.ca> wrote:

>> True, but I doubt Greenpeace was the primary impetus beyond "Oh good,
>> they'll go off and play in traffic now"
>
> Are you thinking of the UN Millennium Ecosystem Reports?
> <http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx> Too big for more
> than a dozen people in the world to have read yet.

No, I'm thinking of a far more base instinct. Being "green" is good PR.

> Action? That should have started with the industrial revolution, but
> got left on the back burner, somehow. We should be pleased that
> Greenpeace makes a noise about the issue as they have 150 years to make
> up, for us. But we should all learn how to think about systems, so that
> Greenpeace can learn too: however long that takes them.

Um, Greenpeace is not the only game in town trying to get people to do the
right thing, they're merely the noisiest and have the best PR people.

> It is the stew that is
> so dangerous while the individual components are regulated by the
> individual effects, alone. What happens when you add EMR to the already
> toxic stew? Well, the science is weak on that, so we are forbidden to
> consider it.

EMR? You mean the stuff the atmosphere is full of, naturally? The stuff
we've been using now for over a century? Or is this more hysteria about
OMGCELLPHONESANDWIRELESS that is being studied and has been studied
regularly for quite a few years now?


[If people want to discuss the health effects or lack thereof of electromagnetic radiation, let's do so in a different thread, since it's a big and messy topic. -Adam]


As for the rest, well, I can wait for more real data.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

Hello,

I agree completely that some sort of quantitative measures are needed
to assess the "greenness" of one company's computers versus
another's, but such measures should go beyond the actual
manufacturing and packaging processes and should include other
factors that are sometimes difficult to measure but that may be
estimated. For example, what is the useful life of the product? If a
Mac lasts twice as long in actual use than the equivalent PC,
shouldn't that be factored in? And so should the total cost of
ownership in some way. All those Geek Squad guys going out to save
the hapless PC users are using gasoline (or rocket fuel, if their ads
are to be believed); how can that be factored into the environmental
cost? Such cradle to grave assessments are difficult to calculate, to
be sure, but anything else is not a full picture, especially if it
depends only on statements.

Bill Sacco

A response to my articles from Greenpeace....

cheers... -Adam


--- begin forwarded text

From: Tom Dowdall
Organization: Greenpeace International
Subject: Apple and Greenpeace

Hi Adam,

On your comment that our campaign turned off longtime Mac users (that I
saw requoted a few times). Well - while many media stories
simplistically portrayed it as a Greenpeace v Apple fight that's not how
we conducted the campaign.

We identified Apple has the company that leads innovation in the
electronics/computer industry and hoped they would be the first company
to actually make rather than just promise a computer free of the worst
toxic chemicals:

http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/about.html

"It's not about bruising Apple's image, Apple should be an environmental
leader. We want Apple to be at the forefront of green technology, and to
clearly show other companies how to do it the right way. But YOU have to
tell Apple to go green to the core -- they listen to their customers,
not to Greenpeace."

With all our direct communication (rather than that put through a media
lens) was directed at getting Apple fans on-board. Of course there was a
range of opinions but there was some significant support showed by real
Apple fans as demonstrated by these pictures:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=hugmymac&s=rec&z=t

And a significant amount of positive comments on personal blogs:

http://del.icio.us/TominAms

Anyway there was also a huge range of opinions on Steve's "A greener
Apple" statement and why he made it. But the first real proof of
intentions will come with the release of the iPhone.

Major phone makers like Nokia and Sony Ericsson have phones free of
toxic PVC and BFRs already so there's no excuse for Apple not to follow
this lead.

As the iPhone will encourage many people to change phones and most likely
throw away their old one, it would be good to see Apple maybe offer
takeback for people's old phones and state that it will offer global
takeback for the iPhone in the future.

We'll be following developments with interest.

Cheers,
Tom

--
Tom Dowdall
Web Editor

Greenpeace International,
Ottho Heldringstraat 5
1066 AZ Amsterdam
The Netherlands

--- end forwarded text

On 5/21/2007 2:41 PM, "Adam C. Engst" wrote:
> A response to my articles from Greenpeace....

[Quotes from Greenpeace response below]

> With all our direct communication (rather than that put through a media
> lens) was directed at getting Apple fans on-board. Of course there was a
> range of opinions but there was some significant support showed by real
> Apple fans as demonstrated by these pictures:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=hugmymac&s=rec&z=t
>
> And a significant amount of positive comments on personal blogs:
>
> http://del.icio.us/TominAms

I have to wonder how much of this "support" was based on people being
confused by Greenpeace's campaign which -- it bears repeating -- had little
to do with Apple's actual environmental record. I also find it interesting
that Mr. Dowdall characterizes the media's coverage of the campaign as
"simplistic," yet most of the positive media coverage Greenpeace received
for this campaign was *because* the media was being simplistic.

(To be clear, I strongly support efforts to push Apple and other tech
companies to be more environmentally responsible. However, I was
disappointed in Greenpeace's misleading campaign.)

On 5/21/07 16:41, "Adam C. Engst" <acetidbits.com> wrote:

> On your comment that our campaign turned off longtime Mac users (that I
> saw requoted a few times). Well - while many media stories
> simplistically portrayed it as a Greenpeace v Apple fight that's not how
> we conducted the campaign.

Really? So all those demonstrators outside of Apple and Macworld were...just
there with signs in a totally non-confrontational way? They were walking
down the street and BAM, they tripped, slipped and "surprise, you're in
Greenpeace"?

From what I've seen of late, Al Gore had far more direct influence on
Apple than those yayhoos.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On 2007-05-23, at 07:44, Dan Frakes wrote:

> (To be clear, I strongly support efforts to push Apple and other tech
> companies to be more environmentally responsible. However, I was
> disappointed in Greenpeace's misleading campaign.)

'Me too' post.

My opinion is Greenpeace singled out Apple, not because their
environmental behaviour was worse than other manufacturers (they seem
slightly better), but because it was an easy target for a high
profile campaign.

I was also disappointed in their disingenuous response to Steve's
'blog' posting (AKA press release): no mention was made that GP may
have rated Apple lower than it deserved, and in fact, they tried to
take credit for changing Apple's environmental behaviour*

<http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/>

<http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/tastygreenapple>

*Yes, Apple's now published their policy and got a corporate effort
going, but their current environmental impact hasn't changed, and GP
is claiming it has thanks to them.

I pulled my GP membership over this, and stated my reasons for doing so.

For some 'serious' media specialising in environmental issues here are a few links examining the difference between the Greenpeace ranking and one from EPEAT:

Green IT week

<http://green.itweek.co.uk/2007/01/greenpeace_defe.html>

Environmental Data Services (ENDS) Report

<http://www.greenpeace.org/international/assets/binaries/endsreport>

Alternet - long discussion both pro and con our campaign

<http://www.alternet.org/environment/47228>

Of course I'm sure others can counter with different serious negative media stories but the only one I noticed came from Business week.

John - maybe you think handing out information at Apple stores is confrontational but we never said "Apple is bad, buy something else" or blocked an Apple store but encouraged Apple to step up to be an environmental green leader.

Compare this to returning HP's ewaste to their headquarters in the US, Mexico, Switzerland and China in 2005 when they had bad policy on recycling and toxic chemicals:

<http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/hewlett-packard-toxic-trouble-111>

We knew attacking Apple would be counter productive and many people noted that this was a very different campaign approach:

<http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004995.html>

Tom

Greenpeace

On 5/23/07 08:56, "Tom D" <tidbits-talktidbits.com> wrote:

> John - maybe you think handing out information at Apple stores is
> confrontational but we never said "Apple is bad, buy something else" or
> blocked an Apple store but encouraged Apple to step up to be an environmental
> green leader.

What you "officially" encouraged, and the tactics of the people in the
street were in fact two different things. Having to take a twenty yard
detour around a bunch of yelling, sign waving people castigating Apple while
wearing petroleum-based products, (O THE IRUNEE) is in fact being a
nuisance.

This article: <http://www.alternet.org/environment/47228> perfectly
illustrates the cluelessness involved. First, it's not a "discussion" of the
Greenpeace campaign. It's a "greenpeace is right, and apple is wrong"
article. Period. Barely half the article talks about the campaign, probably
more like less than a third. The rest is all "Apple Sucks, Apple Sucks".
It's slamming Apple because in an iPhone keynote, steve jobs didn't kowtow
to Greenpeace's agenda, yet here I am looking at ads for Hertz and Marriot,
both well known for their absolute commitment to the environment. Rental car
companies especially.

The same article falls all over itself praising Dell because they have an
opt-in program that allows a customer to donate money that will be turned
over to Dell's partners and used to help fight deforestation. DELL isn't
doing anything with this but sometimes handing two bucks over to some other
company to help plant trees, and yet Greenpeace is gushy about it. That's
not results, that's promises of results. Greenpeace cares less about what's
actually being done and FAR more about getting companies to bobblehead along
with their demands.

Note that your HP campaign was even worse. Regardless of the ends, the means
matter, and your means are starting to parallel PETA more and more.

Finally, why is only one of your ships equipped with an environmentally
friendly source of power? Maybe you should green your own apple a bit more.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

Posted by: John C. Welch Date: May 22, 2007. .... From what I've seen of late, Al Gore had far more direct influence on Apple than those yayhoos.

Errr....how so?

GAM

On 5/25/07 12:53, "gamcall" <glen.mcallistergmail.com> wrote:

> Posted by: John C. Welch Date: May 22, 2007. .... From what I've seen
> of late, Al Gore had far more direct influence on Apple than those
> yayhoos.
>
> Errr....how so?

Um...he's on the Apple board of directors? Who do you think has more direct
access to Steve...Al or Greenpeace?

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

Tom,

The problem with your posts and your group's campaign is their
disingenuousness.

For example, you set of some straw men and make claims that are -at
best- literally true, but lack any deep sense of truth.
>Maybe you think handing out information at Apple stores is
>confrontational but we never said "Apple is bad, buy something else"
>or blocked an Apple store but encouraged Apple to step up to be an
>environmental green leader.

1) No, you never said that quote. But you, by placing Apple so low in
your rankings certainly implied that Apple is so bad that consumers
should buy something else. I have trouble imagining that anyone in
your organization did not know full well that people would infer that
that was your meaning. Moreover, without that expectation, you
wouldn't have any reason to believe that you could have any leverage
with Apple.

2) It's not clear what you mean by "blocked." Do you mean that you
didn't actually intentionally bodily fully prevent anyone from access
to the stores? Well, I believe that doing such a thing would be
illegal. I believe that civil disobedience can be a powerful tool of
protest, and can be used justly. However, to claim that the label of
"confrontational" only applies when you are actually breaking the law
is rather similar logic to the Bush administration's logic that its
not torture unless a major organ fails.


Your expectation are unreasonable, that other ought to serve as your
minions, and even in that you are disingenuous.


>We identified Apple has the company that leads innovation in the
>electronics/computer industry and hoped they would be the first company
>to actually make rather than just promise a computer free of the worst
>toxic chemicals:

This is a tenuous link that you make here, that just because Apple in
known for its innovation in some area that it should also be the
first in this other area. I don't even think that Apple manufactures
its own computers (though I might be wrong on this), and it certainly
has been using more commodity parts recently. Why not look to the
major manufacturers? Or, if you really want an impact, why not target
the biggest seller of computers. Wouldn't that make a stronger
statement AND have a bigger environmental impact?

Furthermore, your rankings were based on promises, not actions.
You've more recently lauded Apple for making promises, rather than on
its actions. Apple is not, right now, doing anything different than
before, but you now speak more highly of it. Based on....? Just
promises.


Last, your bogus rankings.

Anyone who has done real test construction before know that the links
between constructs (the ideas you are trying to measure) and items
(the actual questions used) can be rather tenuous. (For example, do
IQ tests really measure intelligence? Does the SAT measure
"aptitude," as it used to claim?) Luckily, there have been all kinds
of tools and techniques developed that can be used to ensure that the
items are, at least, measuring something in common between them.
After all, you had an overall ranking, implying that there was some
overall idea that you were getting at. Did you test for alpha or
check the factor weights?

If not - and I am sure that you didn't - the than items including in
your rankings are arbitrary, and the weight given to each of them
might as well be random. In other words, you get whatever rankings
you want, without any objective meaning being reflected in those
rankings.


All of which leaves a pretty obvious conclusion: This was a PR
campaign on your part to get attention for Greenpeace, rather than a
campaign aimed at making the world better.
A) It was not about Apple, as Apple was not necessarily a
particularly bad company in this area.
B) It was neither about actual behavior (as the rankings were about
promises), nor promises (which you have disclaimed in your email to
us).
C) There wasn't real urgency here, as you say you didn't use your
major tactic: confrontation.
D) You claim that you didn't want people to stop buying Apple products.

And it is that disingenuousness that consistently makes people so
disgusted with your group.

--
=Alex Hoffman
Leadership Policy & Politics
Teachers College, Columbia University

> Message #27: Re: Jobs posts about Apple's "green" credentials
> Posted by: John C. Welch Date: May 25, 2007.
>
> On 5/25/07 12:53, "gamcall" <glen.mcallistergmail.com> wrote:
>....
> > Errr....how so?
>
> Um...he's on the Apple board of directors? Who do you think has more direct
> access to Steve...Al or Greenpeace?
>

He's certainly had a bit of time to do so (over 4 years) if that's the
case. I'd say it's a bit of a coincidence that Jobs' reaction has only
been subsequent to GP's campaign 'tho, wouldn't you?

Regards,

GAM

Glen McAllister wrote:

>He's certainly had a bit of time to do so (over 4 years) if that's the
>case. I'd say it's a bit of a coincidence that Jobs' reaction has only
>been subsequent to GP's campaign 'tho, wouldn't you?

There's an ocean of difference between working quietly behind the
scenes to improve your company's environmental profile, and making
public statements about how great you intend your environmental
policy to be one day.

Greenpeace had a lot to do with Apple doing the latter, no doubt; but
I seriously doubt they had anything to do with the former.
Greenpeace's campaign was a publicity stunt to hijack a high-riding
corporate brand in order to steal media coverage. And it worked.

Personally I think that's deep into end-justifies-the-means
territory, but obviously the people running Greenpeace are By Any
Means Necessary kinds of people.

After seeing the organization's behavior close up I know I won't ever
donate money to Greenpeace. Sleaziness in the name of the greater
good is still sleazy.

-jason

--
Jason Snell / VP and Editorial Director, Macworld / jsnellmacworld.com
415-243-3565 / AIM/iChat: MW jsnell

On 28-May-2007, at 16:43, Alexander Hoffman wrote:
> All of which leaves a pretty obvious conclusion: This was a PR
> campaign on your part to get attention for Greenpeace, rather than a
> campaign aimed at making the world better.

Very well expressed. I would like to add my voice to the virtual
chorus of 'me too's. Of course, my opinion of Greenpeace has long
been that their raison d'être was self-promotion above all else.
Making the world a better place isn't even in the top ten. I place
them only a small (though significant) step above the eco-terror
groups like PETA and ELF.

On 5/28/07 17:43, "Glen McAllister" <glen.mcallistergmail.com> wrote:

>>> Errr....how so?
>>
>> Um...he's on the Apple board of directors? Who do you think has more direct
>> access to Steve...Al or Greenpeace?
>>
>
> He's certainly had a bit of time to do so (over 4 years) if that's the
> case. I'd say it's a bit of a coincidence that Jobs' reaction has only
> been subsequent to GP's campaign 'tho, wouldn't you?

It's just that. A coincidence. Barring statements to the contrary from Jobs,
the timing is pure coincidence. Greenpeace can try to shuck and jive a cause
and effect relationship from that all they want, but they have no proof
whatsoever. Not that they'll admit this, since, shockers, they care about
promises to follow their agenda FAR more than real results.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On 5/29/07 09:08, "Jason Snell" <jsnellmacworld.com> wrote:

> Personally I think that's deep into end-justifies-the-means
> territory, but obviously the people running Greenpeace are By Any
> Means Necessary kinds of people.
>
> After seeing the organization's behavior close up I know I won't ever
> donate money to Greenpeace. Sleaziness in the name of the greater
> good is still sleazy.

One of the best comments on "The ends justify the means" comes from
Something*Positive:

"The ends justify the means" is a coward's way of saying "I'm gonna do
whatever I want, but I don't want to take any responsibilities for my
actions".

If a group is going to play moral authority to the world, (and that is what
any organization like Greenpeace is doing), then they need to care MORE
about the means than the end. If you are trying to change someone's behavior
to a "better" behavior, then yours must be better than the standard you wish
others to meet.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

As a manager/trainer/coach, I wholeheartedly agree and endorse this statement.  In more than a decade of organisational development activity, I have seen some truly shocking behaviours played out in offices and boardrooms.  

> Greenpeace's campaign was a publicity stunt to hijack a high-riding
> corporate brand in order to steal media coverage. And it worked.

No, GP's campaign was an effort to involve Apple users & fans in the
call for the company to improve the sustainability and re-useability
of it's products. And it worked.

> Personally I think that's deep into end-justifies-the-means
> territory, but obviously the people running Greenpeace are By Any
> Means Necessary kinds of people.

Was anything illegal done? Anyone hurt? Any untruths? Anyone
assaulted? Anyone *insulted*? (Apple certainly wasn't). So, how bad
are/were these means anyway? A campaign requires *some* means. Not
*any* - but some.

> After seeing the organization's behavior close up I know I won't ever
> donate money to Greenpeace. Sleaziness in the name of the greater
> good is still sleazy.

Strange version of 'sleaze' if you ask me when no one's hurt, and
no one's image or reputation (or stock price) is compromised. If we're
talking purely offending sensibilities, we're over *that* a loooong
time ago (just ask the French or Japanese whalers).

Regards,

GAM

[OK, time to wind this down, since we're just covering the same ground over again. -Adam]


On 4-Jun-2007, at 06:23, Glen McAllister wrote:
> GP's campaign was an effort to involve Apple users & fans in the
> call for the company to improve the sustainability and re-useability
> of it's products. And it worked.

No, it wasn't that at all, it was simply an attempt by GP to cash in
on the high profile of Apple to generate some donations. Apple
didn't change anything in response to Greenpeace's attempts at
blackmail, they did release some more information that completely
exposed Greenpeace's 'list' as a steaming pile of marketing.

>> Personally I think that's deep into end-justifies-the-means
>> territory, but obviously the people running Greenpeace are By Any
>> Means Necessary kinds of people.
>
> Was anything illegal done?

In point of fact? Yes, "activsts" blocked access to stores on more
than one occasion as reported in various media. Greenpeace absolves
itself of all responsibility for this behavior, of course.

> Anyone hurt?

Not that I know of.

> Any untruths?

MANY, as previously discussed. Much of Greenpeace's information was
nothing more than speculation and piss-poor guesswork based on the
poorest level of research. Their work makes the "Intelligent Design"
wackos look like hard-core scientists by comparison.

> Anyone *insulted*?

Only anyone with a brain who was willing to look past Greenpeace's
self-aggrandizing 'report'.

To address Adam's original comments about the Greenpeace ranking and others who have claimed it's all just about future promises.

Yes, parts of the criteria are based on public commitments. That is because we aim to create a dynamic in the electronics industry for better environmental policy and practice when immediate change is not possible.

A typical discussion with a company X might be briefly summarised as:

GP: Can you remove toxic chemicals like PVC and brominated flame retardants (BFR's)?

Company X: No it's not technically possible now but we aim to do so in the future.

GP: Well company Y says publicly it can do it by 2010, can you?

Company X: Actually now we plan to do it by 2009.

Then we can challenge other companies to do it quicker. In fact Apple, since May 2nd has now said they will do it the quickest (end 2008) so now we are challenging all companies to match or beat this date.

Of course actions speak louder than just words. That's why several criteria are based on actions, like does the company have a free worldwide takeback policy? Dell (and since the launch of the ranking) Lenovo have, hence they get top score on that criteria. Companies with actual products free of either PVC or BFR's get a higher score than those who just commit to remove them in the future. The company who puts the first completely PVC and BFR free computer will get top marks on that criterion.

Also companies who make public promises but contradict these in private get penalty points in our ranking to prevent companies just publishing nice words and continuing bad business as usual. For example in the latest edition, Sony and LGE (who publicly endorse the principle that they are responsible for their end of life products globally) where found to be part of a US coalition lobby for consumers to pay for end of life product collection/recycling. A clear double standard so we publicly deducted a penalty point from LGE and Sony in the last version of the ranking.

We meet most of the leading companies regularly with their top environment people in confidential meetings so we do have a detailed knowledge of industry trends and practice.

Specifically on Apple - yes in the next ranking Apple's score will increase but based on the concrete changes Steve announced - a phase out date for toxic chemicals, comparative reporting of recycling rate and a pledge to increase that ahead of competitors.

Yes it is about pressuring companies to adopt our agenda - less toxic chemicals, more recycling, less corporate lobbying against progressive environmental legislation, less toxic e-waste dumped in Africa and Asia. That's an agenda I'm happy to work for.

I see here on this thread mostly a lot of name calling and repeated accusations against Greenpeace (that's fine as our purpose is not to be liked by everyone) but given that on this board there seems to be a lot of knowledgeable people, like writers, journalists and seemingly even the Executive editor of Macworld, why no constructive suggestions about alternative ways to tackle the ewaste problem? Or a critical look at the trends in Apple, or its competitors, towards more green policies? How we, as users and writers about electronics, can reduce the trend for more and more resource and energy hungry devices with ever shorter lifespans? Discussion on the possible ways Apple could minimise the environmental impact of the iPhone?

Just a suggestion. Maybe on a different thread.

Tom

Greenpeace