How Steve Jobs Got Green Overnight

Francois writes "At Apple's last special event, Steve Jobs insisted on how environment friendly Apple's new iPod packagings are supposed to be. I don't think he's ever gone that route before. 'We've got some new packagings for the new Nano as well. And it's 52% less volume. This turns out to be an environmentally great thing. Because it dramatically reduces the amount of fossil fuels we have to spend to move these things around the planet.' Not only is it obvious they shrank the packaging to reduce the cost of shipping around the planet and sell lower than the Zune, but furthermore: there's a reason why he insisted that much, and it's not so very nice."

Mirror?

[binaryspiral (784263)]

fplanque.net seems to be fqued...

Probably fud anyway, but hey - I like to read rumor mongering too.

Re:Mirror?

[by Anonymous Coward]

http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/7f91513b068da1341 2b8a019e07b1b51/index.html [mirrordot.org]

Re:

[LotsOfPhil (982823)]

mirrordot [mirrordot.org]

Re:

[Aurostion (740363)]

Yeah, Greenpeace apologized for using bad data and revised the report. They were jumping on apple for the publicity. http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/ABC6DFDA-9DE 9-4EA8-A269-65EAAB628676.html [roughlydrafted.com] FUD.

Bogus

[BWJones (18351)]

First, while I have been an occasional supporter of Greenpeace, this study is of dubious quality. Specifically, they base their analysis primarily on what they term "the Precautionary Principle" which they define on their website as "In the context of chemicals management, it means that when (on the basis of available evidence) the use of a chemical or groups of chemicals may harm human health or the environment, action to eliminate the use of the chemical(s) should be taken - even if the full extent of harm has not yet been fully established scientifically. It recognises that such proof of harm may never be possible, at least until it is too late to avoid or reverse the damage done. " emphasis mine.

Additionally, they make no evidence or justification on how they establish their weightings of their criteria to determine ranking.

Re:Bogus

[vadim_t (324782)]

Why bogus?

Let's say you release mercury into a river. By the time the effects become painfully obvious it'll be already too late: you'll have poisoned fish, and lots of poisoned people who ate that fish, it'll have had a great effect on the ecology of the area...

So I understand Greenpeace's idea as "Even if we're not sure right now, let's be careful with unknown chemicals now, lest we have to figure it out the hard way".

There are actual examples of why being paranoid is a good thing. For instance, Thalidomide [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[simpl3x (238301)]

That is very true, and I am not going to dismiss Greenpeace's report... But, is it even possbile to make this much electronic crap in a green way? Sorry, electronics are not green. Cars are not green. Most agriculture is not green in any form. What is required is a sense of purpose in buying things that leads to less stuff, and less "consumption."

Are my 2500 CDs and the next 2500 digital versions more or less poluting than an iPod? I don't own one, but have the music on my laptop. How much comparative elect

Re:

[vadim_t (324782)]

I doubt you can be 100% green, but you can be *greener*

Say, batteries can be made with mercury (very poisonous), nickel-cadmium (also harmful) or nickel-metal hydride (less bad than NiCD). While I imagine that NiMH isn't something you'd want to have in your water either, AFAIK, it's a lot better. Besides, the capacity it has is much better than NiCD, which would mean a further decrease in pollution (you need less NiMH batteries than NiCD for the same capacity).

Re:

[Hercules Peanut (540188)]

Conversely..

Let's say you release Gatorade into a river. By the time the effects become painfully obvious it'll be already too late: you'll have put innocent workers through hell, bankrupt business and damaged the economy. it'll have had a great effect on the economy of the area...
So I understand the idea of let's know what we are talking about before we jump to conclusions either way.

Seems to me we should have some analysis done before dumping anything into a river. After that, we can make an intelli

Re:Bogus

[vadim_t (324782)]

Ah, but see, that's exactly the problem.

Kelsey (the FDA scientist that evaluated thalidomide) had an amazing luck: She was given something that was actually very harmful. She was pressured by both the company and her superiors to just approve it, but she didn't give in. She became a hero when the truth was known.

However, if it turned out to have been actually harmless, she'd have very possibly been demoted instead. Very few people would have seen it as a job well done in that case.

That's the problem really, being careful is a very, very good thing as the case of thalidomide shows. But people only understand that when they see an example in action. Had it been harmless, she'd have been seen as annoying and stubborn instead, if she remained with the FDA chances are further objections from her would be ignored, and perhaps something even worse would have been approved without oversight.

The gatorade example is bad, anyway. Gatorade, AFAIK, doesn't contain anything very strange, and an isotonic solution is made of completely normal things (water, salt, sugar, orange juice or banana IIRC). Now if you've got some new ingredient that was made in a lab, I'd rather wait than risk being poisoned.

Re:

[d0n quix0te (304783)]

Remember, the stakeholders in the environmental issues are not just citizens and corporations. Stakeholders include our children and children's children, and other living beings on the planet. Hence the need to err on the side of caution. Using simple minded economics to lump all of these into externality costs are quite dangerous.

Re:

[vadim_t (324782)]

Ahh, I get it now. But still there's a vast difference in scale.

Given any chemical, chances are there are organisms that need it to live, and others find it poisonous. Plenty examples around: Some organisms can't stand oxygen, some bacteria live in acidic environments and volcanic vents, dogs find chocolate poisonous...

But IMO, there's a bit difference between say, milk and DDT. While I bet fish don't like milk to much, there's a big difference between that and DDT which can affect whole ecosystems by accum

Re:Bogus

[by Anonymous Coward]

Just a wild guess here: do you deny women your essence?

Re:

[2sheds (78194)]

Or even his Precious Bodily Fluids...

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me we should have some analysis done before dumping anything into a river. After that, we can make an intelligent decision.

Who the hell is going to pay for that? Cheaper to just dump your shit, hope you don't get caught, and when you do scream and cry and wave your hands and do everything you can to discredit the "greenies" and claim it wasn't your fault and it's not really a problem, then go out of business and leave taxpayers holding the bag while you retire on your golden parachute, leaving jus

Re:Bogus

[Zoop (59907)]

Conversely, you'll never know the benefits you've forsaken on the off chance that all the standard tests for safety are wrong. The Precautionary Principle is the environmental equivalent of the legal principle that advises a company who sells baseballs to never come out with a baseball that will harm fewer people because they might get sued for their previous, less-safe balls. In other words, to prevent one type of possible and unlikely harm, you're forgoing probable benefits.

The Precautionary Principle is also logically fallacious, because it is impossible to prove a negative. Prove you aren't an alien life form. Go on, prove it. I can create objections to each and every argument you give based on untested (and untestable) possibilities.

Furthermore, it is a blind alley for environmental activism. There are many known hazardous substances with less-harmful alternatives in wide use today. Preemptively banning new AIDS drugs to prevent another Thalidomide will only distract from real health and ecological improvements.

Re:

[grev (974855)]

Additionally, they make no evidence or justification on how they establish their weightings of their criteria to determine ranking.

*Additionally, it's bullshit.

Righteous

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

"It recognises that such proof of harm may never be possible, at least until it is too late to avoid or reverse the damage done"

emphasis mine.

They simply say that when evidence says some chemicals are risky, we should eliminate its use, even if proof of the harmful extent is impossible before it does the damage at risk.

You know, the way you avoid getting killed, even though no one can prove that you're going to hell.

The entire prudence of this Precautionary Principle rests on how to evaluate the evidence of risk. Once that's established, of course you stop before you might break something. Every 5 year old learns that. It's time we stopped letting our corporations work like bulls in our china shop.

Re:Righteous

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

Do you have a citation of Greenpeace opposing a specific project with no evidence of risk, just the absence of evidence of safety, as you described? Because their policy that we're discussing explicity says that action should be taken on available evidence.

So there's yet another layer being conflated into bashing Greenpeace. There's evidence, risk, and harm. Their policy says evidence of risk, even without evidence of harm, means we shouldn't use the risky chemicals. Which sounds like a completely sensible policy, that we all use in our own lives. But if Greenpeace acts outside that policy, against chemicals (or, by extension, other products) without even evidence of risk, then there's a different argument, about whether Greenpeace even follows its own policy.

FWIW, "head in the sand" describes people who ignore risk as well as people who fear it despite evidence its harm is negligible. And our litigious/risk-averse society is commensurately full of irresponsible harm and ignored risks. Mostly to the benefit of chemical corps which risk and harm us with impunity. The unnecessary lawsuits are mostly exploiting oversimplification of even basic complexities like evidence/risk/harm evaluation. And the risk aversion is much more characteristic of corporations than of humans, as you can tell from the balance of lawsuits.

Already Slashdotted

[Zo0ok (209803)]

Is the link already slashdotted, before there is a single comment???

Slashdotted in record time

[UFgatorSean (739632)]

First post and already the site is dead. They must be hosting this from an ipod... or an xserve... Sigh...

Slashdotted on the weekend?

[LotsOfPhil (982823)]

Hmm, I didn't think things really got slashdotted on the weekend. Maybe it is Monday in Australia already...
The greenpeace link [greenpeace.org]

"The real reason is Greenpeace! They came out with a report on how environment friendly consumer electronics manufacturers actually are. And guess what? Apple is close to the last! :( [More:] Reproaches against Apple mostly include: * Overuse of toxic chemicals (brominated flame retardants, polyvinyl chloride) which make recylcing hazardous. * No timeline to phase these chemicals out. * Recylcing program limited to the US or where Apple is legally compelled to. * Products designed to have a short life span. Of course, Apple prefers to focus on packaging size, energy efficiency (which the all the competition does equally), the fact that flat panels weight less than CRTs (hello!?) and other environment friendly side effects to their marketing strategy. Ironically, there's this other computer maker Apple likes to make fun of. That company with the computers where the Intel processor is limited to "dull and repetitive tasks". That company called Dell. Well, ironically, Dell is ranking very well: number 2 on the environment scale! (#1 being Nokia) "It is disappointing to see Apple ranking so low in the overall guide. They are meant to be world leaders in design and marketing, they should also be world leaders in environmental innovation." --Greenpeace Don't get me wrong: I love my Mac, I love my iPod, I love the way Steve amazes us all the time. But I'd really really like him to amaze us in a "greener" way... ;)

Rebuttal

[Udo Schmitz (738216)]

And may I quote a part of the week old rebuttal also:

The basic problems in the Guide, which I originally critiqued in Top Secret: Greenpeace Report Misleading and Incompetent, were sidestepped in a rebuttal from Tom Dowdall of Greenpeace International, but the followup laptop lab test report seemed to indicate a new direction for Greenpeace: an interest in accuracy.

Picking up the Pieces
Stephen Russell, a materials consultant to the IT sector, explained that the complete disconnect between what Greenpeace reported in their Guide and what they actually found in their lab tests "proves three things:

* that the criteria used by Greenpeace to award HP pole position in last month's Guide to Greener Electronics clearly didn't account for what is actually happening on the ground today.

* that other manufacturers' computers really don't contain toxic chemicals in concentrations that are of concern.

* that Greenpeace has an inexhaustible level of funds to burn on a chemical campaign the basic chemical principles of which they sadly don't appear to understand."

Poison Apples?
Unfortunately, Greenpeace ignored their own very expensive lab reports to instead retreat back into sensationalism, fear mongering, and deception. The top story on Greenpeace International's press release blog is an entry titled "HP and Apple's toxic laptops exposed" which states:

"Some of the best-known laptops are contaminated with some of the worst toxic chemicals. Of the five top brands we tested Hewlett-Packard and Apple laptops showed the worst contamination levels."

After reporting that the testing found traces of chemicals in HP's laptop which HP's website "claims it removed from its products years ago," the press release then jumps on Apple. Under the headline Poison Apples, it claims:

"Apple has recently launched its new range of MacBooks, but what you also get with a new MacBook is the highest level of another type of toxic flame retardant, tetrabromobisphenol A. Apple claims it is looking for alternatives but for now it appears to be using far more of this toxic chemical than its competitors."

The Apple and the Environment website does claim Apple "is actively researching materials with better environmental features to replace tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBA)," and that "Many Apple products have enclosures made of inherently flame retardant aluminum and polycarbonate plastic, reducing the need for added flame retardants."

Under Attack
But is TBBA really one 'of the worst toxic chemicals,' and is true that "Apple's laptop shows the worst contamination levels?" Was Greenpeace lying in its press release?

Yes, Greenpeace lied to sensationalize a report it spent a lot of money on, but which didn't provide data the group wanted to hear. While the group's earlier press releases and information was mostly just incompetent and sloppy, the latest 'poison Apple' campaign was simply a malicious attack based upon lies.

[...]

The EU Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) reports it:

"agrees with the conclusion that there are no concerns for the carcinogenicity of tetrabromobisphenol A and supports conclusions ii) for all exposure scenarios since the Margin of Safety (MOS) are very large. Due to low systemic biovailability and efficient conjugation of the phenolic groups in tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), bioaccumulation of this compound is not considered to be of concern."

In EU Risk Assessments, a "conclusion ii)" means that there is no need for further information or testing and no need for risk reduction measures. That's why TBBA isn't even regulated under the strict RoHS guidelines. Greenpeace knows this, but this fact does not fit into their fear mongering campaign.

[...]

In this email, Greenpeace claimed Apple "has a very poor environmental policy," but he facts are that Apple is recognized as a leader in environmental policy by the Sierra Club, and that Greenpeace was unable to find a

Real greens would dump the consumerist iPod

[by Anonymous Coward]

I play my mp3s on a totally organic player made from twigs and mulched hippies.

Apple should migrate to a new system

[bestinshow (985111)]

E.g., build and assemble in China, package in target country.

This does go against their direct shipping to the customer from the factory system they currently operate.

However the small packaging for the nano is a good first step. Also the turnover on Apple computer hardware tends to be less than PC hardware - people will keep an Apple running for a year or two more than a PC in general. Of course there will those of us running 12 year old SparcStations as print servers and old P200s as routers, but generally people replace PCs when the old one gets slow for whatever reason. Lower turnover means less hardware being recycled overall.

Re:

[Ritchie70 (860516)]

But there still has to be *some* packaging between China and the target company, or you just receive a container full of broken iPods. You could maybe pack them in tighter, but all that packaging would have to be discarded, which is almost certainly more costly than shipping the final packaging from China.
I suppose you could have some sort of trays that hold them, but then the trays would have to be returned to China to be reloaded. Also probably expensive.

Re:

[Mattintosh (758112)]

I'll eat any apple turnovers you might have laying around. Dell turnovers don't sound so tasty, though, so I'll have to pass on that one.

More information from a non-/.ed site...

[perlionex (703104)]

Since the article site is so clearly slashdotted, here's a related article from MacObserver.com entitled Greenpeace Hazardous Material Report Slams Apple [macobserver.com].

The environmental activist group, Greenpeace, released a report on Monday titled Toxic Chemicals In Your Laptop that attempts to list the percentages of toxic chemicals found in several different laptop computer models, including Apple's MacBook Pro. Greenpeace tested the computers for compliance with The European Union's RoHS directive - a set of voluntary guidelines that restrict the use of six hazardous materials in electronic devices.

The study tested Apple's MacBook Pro, the Acer Aspire 5672WLMi, Dell's Latitude D810, the HP Pavillon dv-4357EA, and Sony's Vaio VGN-FJ 180. The tests concluded that the MacBook Pro was fully compliant with the RoHS guidelines, but the HP laptop was not. In fact, the MacBook Pro was fully compliant with the RoHS guidelines months before they were enacted.

The tests also checked for two substances not included in the RoHS guidelines: PVC and TBBPA (a flame retardant). 262 parts per million of TBBPA were found in an internal fan assembly in Apple's laptop, the highest percentage of the laptops in the study. PVC was also found in the plastic coating on a fan wire.

Considering how the MacBook Pro ranked in the Greenpeace study - with a decidedly negative spin - it's no surprise that the group listed Apple as one of the least environmentally friendly companies in its report titled Guide To Greener Electronics. In that report, which was weighted more heavily on the use of toxic substances in production instead of recycling, the group ranked Apple near the bottom of its list.

Iza Kruszewska, Greenpeace International toxics campaigner, made a point to single out Apple by stating "It is disappointing to see Apple ranking so low in the overall guide. They are meant to be world leaders in design and marketing, they should also be world leaders in environmental innovation."

The two reports seem to be at odds since the Guide To Greener Electronics report slams Apple for its hazardous materials use, but the Toxic Chemicals In Your Laptop report offers a different story. The HP Pavillion, which Greenpeace ranked higher in the September report, contains lead - a material Apple does not use in the MacBook Pro. Dell also came in with the highest overall concentration of bromine in its laptop.

Apple explains its environmental stance, along with information about its voluntary take-back and recycling programs, on its Web site. [apple.com]

Re:

[perlionex (703104)]

Found an original Greenpeace article [greenpeace.org] that probably triggered this; Apple scored very lowly in their "green electronics" ranking...

Re:More information from a non-/.ed site...

[PygmySurfer (442860)]

The Greenpeace article is of dubious quality. Apparently, they even ignored their own lab testing [roughlydrafted.com], deciding instead to slam Apple. They even made a nifty little site [greenpeace.org] to trash Apple, not only ripping off the apple.com design, but apparently a script [greenpeace.org] as well (Apple [apple.com]'s version).

To me, Greenpeace seems about as trustworthy as PETA at the moment.

Re:

[JulesLt (909417)]

I suspect there is an element of publicity here - targeting Apple makes more headlines than, say, Lenovo. On the other hand, Apple have traded for a long time on a cuddly 'computer for hippies' image - even if they've never actually been explicit about it, there's the implicit idea that Apple should somehow be more right-on than other computer firms.

Negative publicity also seems to be about the only way to achieve corporate accountability these days, given that governments everywhere have rescinded responsi

Aha...

[Garse Janacek (554329)]

1. Post vague, ominous anti-Apple FUD.
2. As evidence, cite a link that is already down -- people will assume it's slashdotted.
3. People don't know what you're claiming, but a negative cloud surrounds their image of Apple.
4. Next time, they'll buy a Zune! Yeah! (aka: profit)

Re:Aha...

[MightyYar (622222)]

That's the same link that's been discussed on /. over the last couple of weeks. It has been pointed out numerous times that Greenpeace is not critical of Apple for environmental infractions, but because Apple isn't playing with Greenpeace. Apple did not submit enough (any?) information to Greenpeace for them to make an educated decision. We can argue whether Apple should or should not play with Greenpeace, but I don't think that it's proper to say that "Apple is not as environmentally friendly as Dell."

Weeks old FUD

[cafin8d (302145)]

It's hard to be sure, since the link is down, but assuming this is the 'Greenpeace report' FUD, they admitted it was all lies over a week ago.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/E83D58B3-10E 0-4A9C-8847-BCE665EE235C.html [roughlydrafted.com]

Re:

[pacc (163090)]

One cannot really weight 280 statistically calculated deaths in fires per year
against certain pollution of poisonous flame retardands. Are the unlucky owners
of laptops with exploding sony batteries glad that they didn't die when the
house burned down or concerned that the fumes they inhaled could make them ill.

Smug Alert!

[insomniac8400 (590226)]

Apple users should all move to san francisco where they can enjoy smelling their own farts.

Apple's trump on environment

[in2mind (988476)]

http://www.apple.com/environment/ [apple.com]

Stop buying ipods if you want to be green

[bigtrike (904535)]

It's great that Apple is willing to do something to reduce waste for the people who really *must* buy the newest ipod (and the few remaining people who want one but don't have it). I would be however that the waste involved in the packaging is minimal compared to what it takes to produce the electronics of the ipod itself. Many people I know who would considered themselves "environmentally superior" to others also always have the latest ipod and cell phone models.

If you really want to be green, just kee

Nothing ulterior that I see

[mnemonic_ (164550)]

From TFA:

The real reason is Greenpeace! They came out with a report on how environment friendly consumer electronics manufacturers actually are. And guess what? Apple is close to the last!

So Apple realized they suck at environmentally-friendly products, and now they're trying fix it. Would it have been better had Apple done nothing?

Yes, their motive is not altruistic; it's mostly marketing. Apple is a for-profit corporation, after all. Is a focus on image something new for Apple? Or for any company? Not

Re:

[gnasher719 (869701)]

'' So Apple realized they suck at environmentally-friendly products...''

That Greenpeace study didn't look at how environmentally friendly products are. Mostly they looked at what promises "(commitments)" companies made for the future. Apple is known to be very bad at making promises and excellent at delivering, so that didn't go down well with Greenpeace. Making promises is cheap. Maybe Greenpeace makes a follow-up study in three years where they measure percentage of promises actually delivered. Then Apple

Re:

[paeanblack (191171)]

We've got some new packagings for the new Nano as well. And it's 52% less volume.

Isn't the new Nano about 52% smaller anyways? Wouldn't you naturally expect less packaging?

This is news???

[Bob Hearn (61879)]

It was news when Greenpeace announced their list some time back (and Apple disputed their ranking). Is anybody remotely surprised Apple wants to up their environmental profile?

Re:

[Bob Hearn (61879)]

Sure. Apple's always had a good environmental image. But they got a bit of a black eye from the Greenpeace report, bogus or not, and it's no surprise Jobs would take an opportunity like this to talk about how green Apple is. I mean, there is just no news here.

Does anyone seriously believe...

[gnasher719 (869701)]

that Apple would do anything because of Greenpeace?

Re:Does anyone seriously believe...

[vadim_t (324782)]

Yes.

Statistics from Wikipedia: $360 million revenue, 1800 employees, estimated 2.8M supporters.

Whatever you think about Greenpeace, the fact is that they're far from being insignificant.

I say BS

[Udo Schmitz (738216)]

Well, if anyone thinks a company reduces the volume of packaging for environmental reasons, he should go see a doctor.

About the the inconsistencies and outright lies in Greenpeace' report read this [roughlydrafted.com], this [roughlydrafted.com] and this [roughlydrafted.com].

Steve Jobs and environmental issues

[metamatic (202216)]

I guess all the Windows users at Slashdot who've suddenly discovered the Mac won't remember, but for years Apple used to ship all their machines in unbleached recycled cardboard boxes. They would put a flyer inside explaining why the computer was in a brown box.

Then Jobs returned to Apple, and suddenly everything had to be in glossy boxes, so it looked cool.

So yeah, I believe that Apple under Jobs has a bad environmental record.

Is there a point that I'm missing?

[beaverfever (584714)]

So Jobs claims Apple is being more green in its business practices, and this guy throws around some sort of low-end consipiracy theory of the "real" reasons Apple is going green, and then at the end of his article says he wishes Apple would be more green in its business practices. wtf?

Err... Batteries?

[Mr. Picklesworth (931427)]

I'm all for Apple going for an environmental approach, but I'm not taking them seriously until they deal with the iPod's batteries.

The iPod's nearly seamless design results in there being no easy way to actually replace the battery, which means that doing so is either extremely difficult or (reportedly) ends up with them just tossing away the old iPod and replacing it.

That is extremely wasteful environmentally, and from a design perspective it's outstandingly dumb. Who in their right mind designs an expensive electronic device which uses batteries that are so enclosed and unreachable that replacing them is a futile effort?

I can't think of many other things that are like this, that depend on single tiny time limited components whose absence renders the entire thing useless. One of these things is a light bulb. The difference? Light bulbs are cheap, they actually need to be completely enclosed, and there is an ongoing effort to make them as environmentally sound as possible.

Re:

[jacksonj04 (800021)]

I must admit, that's what I was thinking.

Smaller packaging = more units per shipping crate = fewer shipping crates needed = fewer shipping fees.

Profit!