Apple Worst, Lenovo First for Eco-Friendly Laptops says Greenpeace

<!-- Generated by XStandard version 1.7.1.0 on 2007-04-13T08:52:28 -->

Al Gore, who's movie &quot;An Inconvenient Truth&quot; won an Oscar award for its insightful look at global warming, sits on the Board of Directors for Apple Computer. So why is Apple rated the bottom of the barrel for eco-friendly products and Chinese based Lenovo praised by Greenpeace for being a leader?

It goes to show that not everything is intuitive or as it would seem for this world we live in.

Below is the table that Greenpeace published on their website to indicate the ranking for electronics manufacturers (most of which are PC or mobile phone makers) and where they stand now and how they've moved in the Greenpeace rankings over the past year and a half:

RANK	MARCH 2007	DECEMBER 2006	AUGUST 2006
1	Lenovo↑	Nokia ↔	Nokia
2	Nokia↓	Dell ↔	Dell
3	Sony Ericsson ↑	Fujitsu-Siemens ↑	HP
4	Dell↓	Motorola ↑	Sony Ericsson
5	Samsung↑	Sony Ericsson↓	Samsung
6	Motorola↓	HP ↓	Sony
7	Fujitsu-Siemens↓	Acer ↑	LGE
8	HP ↓	Lenovo ↑	Panasonic
9	Acer↓	Sony ↓	Toshiba
10	Toshiba↑	Panasonic↓	Fujitsu-Siemens
11	Sony ↓	LGE ↓	Apple
12	LGE ↓	Samsung ↓	Acer
13	Panasonic↓	Toshiba ↓	Motorola
14	Apple↔	Apple ↓	Lenovo

Lenovo went from worst to first, while Apple has languished in last on the enviro-friendly meter over the past 18 months. Here's how Lenovo compares to Apple on the Greenpeace scoring bracket and why they scored the way they did:

 

Ranking Criteria	Criteria Explanation	Lenovo Score	Apple Score
Precautionary Principle	Avoiding materials that are suspect and could cause environmental damage, even if the jury is still out on the long term effects of a material to the environment.	3/3 Lenovo scores top marks by improving its definition of Precautionary Principle.	1/3 Definition of precautionary principle reflects poor understanding of this principal in chemical policy
Chemicals Management	How companies manage their supply chain, in order to ensure that suppliers do not continue to use substances that are banned or restricted.	3/3 Lenovo has now updated its Engineering Specification 41A7731 to reflect its commitments on eliminating PVC and BFRs. More information.	1/3 Apple provides only examples of substances that are on its Regulated Substances Specification 069-0135, but the Spec itself is not publicly available.
Timeline for PVC phaseout	Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is a chlorinated plastic used in some electronic products and for insulation on wires and cables. PVC is one of the most widely used plastics but its production, use and disposal create toxic pollution.	3/3 Lenovo's target for elimination of all uses of PVC by 2009 earns the company top marks. More information.	1/3 Although Apple commits to eliminating PVC, there is no timeline for complete phase out.
Timeline for BFR phaseout	BFRs, used in circuit board and plastic casings, do not break down easily and build up in the environment. Long-term exposure can lead to impaired learning and memory functions. They also interfere with thyroid and oestrogen hormone systems. Exposure in the womb has been linked to behavioural problems. TBBPA, a type of BFR used in circuit boards has been linked to neurotoxicity.	3/3 Lenovo's target for elimination of all BFRs by 2009 earns the company top marks.	0/3 Although Apple commits to halogen-free printed circuit boards, there is no mention of eliminating all BFRs, and no timeline for complete phase out.
PVC-free or BFR-free models	PVC and BFR are hazardous to the environment (see above) and manufacturers should offer products without these materials.	0/3 Although Lenovo has added Product Environmental Data Sheets, no products are entirely free of PVC or BFRs.	0/3 No PVC-free or BFR-free product systems. Apple lists only some PVC-free peripherals on its website
Individual producer responsibility	It is important for a company to support Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR) as this shows positive action on getting its own brand products back for reuse and recycling.	3/3 Lenovo earns an extra point for strengthening their IPR position and for their support for legislation.	1/3 Apple refers to its "individually responsible approach" to recycling through its own takeback initiatives and national collective take-back programmes. The definition of IPR needs to be more explicit.
Voluntary takeback	Not all countries require a company to help recycle its products, this criteria looks at what companies do in countries where there are no laws requiring them to do so. (Europe, Japan and South Korea require take back and recycling, most other countries do not)	3/3 Voluntary takeback is now offered in all countries where Lenovo has sales of its products. In December 2006, Lenovo announced in China, free take back and recycling of Legend and Lenovo branded PCs, laptops, monitors and servers, and ThinkPad laptops, ThinkCentre PCs, and ThinkVision Monitors, whether produced by Lenovo or IBM. Product recycling programs.	1/3 No voluntary takeback for every country where Apple products are sold and not for every type of product.
Information to individual customers	This criterion rates companies on the information they provide to individual customers on what to do with their discarded electronics products e.g. free postal service, collection depots etc. Top marks on this criterion go to companies who provide easily accessible information to individual customers on what to do with their branded discarded electronics in every country where their products are sold.	3/3 Lenovo now provides takeback information to both business and individual customers in all the countries where the company's products are sold.	1/3 No information in every country where Apple products are sold, not even in every country with EPR laws.
Amounts recycled	Those companies that report on electronic waste recycling do so by providing annual or cumulative weight or units of electronic waste recycled. This metric does not allow an evaluation of how companies are doing based on (past) sales. It also makes it impossible to compare the recycling rates of different companies, given that every company makes a different portfolio of products of various weights e.g. mobiles only versus wide range of household appliances. Ideally, Greenpeace wants companies to report on recycling volumes/units based on the sales in year X (average age of the product when it becomes electronic waste). So, if the average age of an X PC when it becomes waste is six years, we want X company to report how many PCs (units or weight) it recycled in 2006 based on sales of PCs in 2000 as a percentage.	3/3 Lenovo now provides figures of e-waste recycled based on past sales, but is hampered by many of its business customers selling their e-waste to other companies and the fact that Lenovo's global sales operations is only a year old.	2/3 Apple reports on amounts recycled based on weight and not percentage of sales. On the positive side, Apple acknowledges importance of responsible recycling i.e. no export of collected e-waste and bans recovery of plastics in smelters.

 

The overall score was Apple 2.7/10 and Lenovo 8/10. More details on each company's environmental efforts, and what Greenpeace based much of its scoring on, can be found on their websites:

• http://www.apple.com/environment/materials/
• http://www.pc.ibm.com/ww/lenovo/about/environment/EnvReport.html

Greenpeace ranking explanations for Apple can be found here, and for Lenovo can be found here.

I will say that the Greenpeace ranking doesn't look at the total picture. Apple is a minimalist when it comes to product packaging, that's good and cuts down on waste. Greenpeace is also very focused on the production and end of life stages of a laptops life. Power management tools for a laptop are important in conserving electricity during the time a laptop is actually used, and Greenpeace didn't look at this power efficiency aspect at all. Apple notebooks offer good power management tools. However, I think Greenpeace makes a strong point that Apple needs to get up to speed with some initiatives Lenovo has taken.

It's more likely that somebody using a MacBook would have a Save the Planet bumper sticker than the banker who uses a business oriented ThinkPad. I'm certain most Mac owners wish Apple would do a better job avoiding PVC and BFR materials in their products and come up with a time table for phasing them out like other companies have commited to. We should applaud Apple for their design efforts, user friendly products, and great customer service. They should aspire to be like Lenovo and Dell in being more open and progressive about what their products mean to the environment. Right Al?

 

Ahem,
Where is ASUS...
For God's sake, it can't be even worse than Apple...

 

Well, Asus manufactures the MacBook right? So, probably down on the list somewhere! Greenpeace didn't rank Asus.

 

well a wake up call for apple lets hope and all the other manufaturers

 

Part of the problem is that Apple isn't playing ball with Greenpeace on some of these issues (not providing some of the information they requested about their manufacturing processes, etc.). So they inherently get ranked lower.

And of course, Greenpeace knows they can get a lot more attention for this cause by going after Apple, because of the perceptions of Apple as a corporation. If, say, Acer was at the top of this list, it wouldn't get nearly the same kind of attention that Greenpeace is seeking.

Having said that, Apple certainly can do more, but I don't think Greenpeace's tactics particularly are going to get them to change anything.

 

well thats clears alot of uncertaaities and fits into the equation just right

 

That's what I was dreading.
But ASUS has a green homepage so IMO there are 3 cases :
a ) ASUS is totally green.
b ) ASUS is becoming green.
c ) ASUS is pretending to be green while it's not.
Since my current mobo is ASUS M2N-E Green (a little more expensive), I hope it's either "a" or "b".

 

What Asus does in terms of manufacturing a computer for Apple is completely independent of their own laptops.

It's not like the MacBook is an Asus laptop with an Apple logo slapped on it. Apple designed the MacBook and then provides the specifications, materials, etc. and Asus constructs it based on that. Things that may make the MacBook less "green" by Greenpeace's standards do not necessarily apply to whatever Asus does for its own laptops.

-Zadillo

 

You know...I really don't care if my laptop is green or not. All I care about is if it runs my stuff well.

 

greenpease just pushes out these lists to with whom they have a beef with. this is more of a political statement than actual fact. Saying Lenovo is #1 is a slap in the face. Just go undercover to any of the villages lenovo dumps parts for recycling and you will find mercury and lead contamination beyond belief. China has a deplorable environmental record.

 

Apple could do better, and a quick look at their website shows that they are working on it. But seriously, this list is a little fishy in some places. First of all, they talk about PVC-free or BFR-free products, of which both companies got a 0/3. But the thing is, Apple does sell some PVC-free and BFR-free peripherals, while Lenovo sells nothing.

On top of that, let's look at the recycling programs. They mention that Lenovo offers take-back programs in all countries that Lenovo is sold. And yet, when I go to Lenovo's webiste on recycling for Bulgaria, it mentions that only products manufactured after May 1, 2005 can be returned, and that this is a "limited time offering" (though I'm not sure which part that is referring to). A look at Apple's recycling website makes no mention of a manufacture date, and looking at the Japan site they mention that not only do you have recycling, but it is free of charge for individuals and products manufactured after 2003 (they actually printed recycling labels on the computers themselves). A look at the Europe site offers similar conclusions. Apple states that they currently offer recycling in countries that make up over 75% of Apple's sales, and are working on the others. It just seems that this article is a little biased. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of organizations like this, because they always seem to have hidden motives. Note how the review says,

 

I don't think all of the criteria's in that table can be maimed by such things.
And grave things will face the already desperate Lenovo if they try to buy the officials.

 

Hopefully the iPud is more environmentally friendly than their laptops. How many of the 100 million iPuds sold do you think are in landfills?

 

Probably not all that many, relatively speaking - a lot of people just sell older models to other people when they get new ones, so you end up with even old ones still in use. I don't think they're any more or less environmentally friendly than most other consumer electronics devices (especially ones with rechargeable batteries in them).

And "iPud"? Very clever....

 

I don't see this as news. I see this as propaganda, especially considering that global warming has already been debunked multiple times due to the simple fact that global temperatures on Mars and Venus are rising proportionally to the rate temperatures are rising on Earth. The Sun is not a big round ball of energy that stays the same shape all the time--infact it's highly unstable and has been the cause of temperature fluctuations for our planet as well as our neighbors. There are no such things as greenhouse emissions and gasses on Mars, yet the temperature is still rising.

Gore may have won an award for his movie, but the man is the biggest hypocrite on the planet right now with those huge energy-guzzling mansions and all those private jet flights back and forth across the country. Greenpeace is right up there with Gore. Attacking electronics manufacturers and lobbying for them to do what a fringe extremist group wants is bad for consumers. The market should decide what people want to buy, not what Greenpeace wants people to buy. What if I don't want Dell to plant a tree for me? Price and power are why I buy things like laptops. Enough of my tax money already gets wasted away on environmental projects. I don't want to get hit again when I buy electronics too.

I don't like extremist groups telling me what to do or what to buy. I don't like them telling the people I vote into office what to do and what to or not to make law. I think the environmental issues have been sufficiently addressed already and more is not needed. I want to supersize my meals. I want to own exotic pets. I want to run (not walk) on sidewalks in public places. I want to own SUV's. I want to watch violence on TV. I want to play violent video games. I want to own big powerful electronics. I don't like groups like Greenpeace trying to tell me what to do.

Exactly! I want speed, power, versatility, and a low price tag. The environment is not on my mind when a buy a computer or some sort of electronics device.

 

Ummm, I really don't want to get into a debate on this, but global warming (or specifically, mankind's role in contributing to global warming on Earth) has not been "debunked" because of observations on Venus and Mars.

Generally speaking, the "global warming isn't manmade" argument has lost almost all credibility.

If you read most of the debates right now, it has shifted more from debating whether it's occurring or whether mankind has a role in it to something else.

The general debate now is more along the lines of whether there is anything that can actually be done about it - issues like whether it is economically feasible to curb the production of greenhouse gases, the impact it would have on developing nations, etc.

Aside from that though, this doesn't really even have anything to do with global warming, in and of itself. Environmental issues go beyond global warming, after all.

Even if you truly feel that global warming has been debunked, that doesn't mean there aren't other valid reasons for considering the materials that we release into the environment through manufacturing processes, and the materials we create and what their long term effects will be on the market (non-biodegradable materials, etc.).

Generally, even if you hate environmentalism as a concept, there are still practical issues we'll all have to deal with, as we try and find out what to do with the increasing amounts of trash we generate that can't be recycled.

The attitude that many people have though, that all they care about is the products they buy, etc. and could care less about the long term impact, etc. of them is a good example of how shortsighted humans can be, unfortunately. Generally speaking we don't really see things long-term.

If something is only going to be a problem 100 years from now, for example, we don't really even think about it. Think about the issue of fossil fuels....... like it or not, we're running out of them, and in the next 100 years they're likely to be gone. But the long term impacts of this are not really on many people's minds; you or I may not care about this, but it's something we know will affect our children's children. That isn't even to mention the geopolitical implications (i.e. what happens to the Middle East, for example).

-Zadillo

 

It's not so much about global warming with these products, it's the toxicity of the leftovers and how they can effect human health (causing cancer, neurotoxins etc. when the dumped products contaminate human water supplies or the air when burned).

 

I'll bet the more recent RoHS compliance is why these companies are bombing (lenovo only manufactured after 2005? yeah ok)

 

Exactly

We do not need arguments from global warming and Al Gore sceptics, because this is more about environmental damage from the point of view as described by Andrew

Personally there wouldn't be an issue if everyone collected gadgets like me I never throw anything away, even when its way past working/being used

 

" The attitude that many people have though, that all they care about is the products they buy, etc. and could care less about the long term impact, etc. of them is a good example of how shortsighted humans can be, unfortunately. Generally speaking we don't really see things long-term."


You are my hero zadillo

 

There's a limit to how many times you can resell. The market is without a doubt saturated and they just sell more by making people want to dumb the old ones. And you can't replace the battery of the iPod (for any reasonable amount of money) so people just rather buy new ones instead.

 

Eh. I really don't care if Apple is the worst. I will still buy their products. This is kinda unusual for me since I basically worship the ground Ingrid Newkirk walks on. If you don't know who she is, she's the President of Peta. And of course I'm all for boycotting companies that aren't nice to animals, but really could care less about companies who aren't "nice" to our environment.

 

Goes to show Al-gore is a hypocritical numb nut.

And honestly I don't care what Greenpeace says. Greenpeace sucks.

 

Oh please, does anyone care what Greenpeace thinks? If you look closely, they list Lenovo as being the worst in Aug 2006. How the hell have they changed to the best in a span of months?

What a bunch of BS.

 

Well regardless of what someone's opinions of al gore or greenpeace are, this is the most overtly political main page post I've ever seen at NBR. I've seen Gore's movie and I happen to agree with it, but in the current political climate, its almost impossible to make a post about any aspect of the environment without it being a post about politics as well.

 

Gore is full of deception and lies!!!

 

lol.

I think the reason why Apple is on the bottom of the list is their high profit margins. Don't get what I'm saying? Think harder.

 

Don't forget about his hypocrisy. But then again, the entire socialist left in the US defines hypocrisy.

 

Or just Think Different.

 

Yup, because no-one on the right is a hypocrite.... hypocrisy is a specifically leftist thing.

 

To be fair, that doesn't in and of itself make the list BS. As Greenpeace has explained, Lenovo apparently made a lot of improvements since then. It isn't inconceivable.

It's not to say what the merits of the list itself are, but it does mean that by the criteria Greenpeace laid out, Lenovo has made significant changes.

If the short timeframe bothers you, it seems like a fair amount of it is just adopting new policies, etc. which don't really take much time at all.

-Zadillo

 

Btw, just as a general point, can we PLEASE move beyond the "attack the messenger" line of debate?

Seriously, the way some people argue this stuff, it's like they think that if they just tear town Al Gore, it is like disproving global warming entirely or something. This is of course ridiculous.

It would be great if we could go back to have serious discussions about these topics, rather than these silly "Oooh, Al Gore doesn't do everything that he is suggesting society should do, that must mean everything he says is worthless and the issue doesn't exist.".

This is frankly one of those issues where hypocrisy is kind of irrelevant; Al Gore could be fueling his mansion with baby seal corpses and burning down the Amazon rainforests on the weekends and it wouldn't change specifically the issue as a whole. This is a much bigger issue than one person; I hate to think that 300 years from now, our descendants are going to read in the history books how humanity didn't act sooner on some of these issues because people thought Al Gore was a hypocrite.

-Zadillo

 

I hate to break it to ya, but the computer industry is one of the most polluting and wasteful industries on the planet.

Huge environment damage is the result of the manufacturing technology that supports computers and pcb boards. And the products are essentially throw away after 1-3 years.

Combine that with the total lack of any environmental concern on the part of China who builds the gear (now you know why it is built in China), and you have a hugely destructive industry. I don't know how Greenpeace can serious claim any company who manufactures its product in China is "eco-friendly".

 

Al Gore represents the hyperwealthy, and to them a green planet means everyone else does with less so that they can continue to live with more. The end result of Gore's global warming fantasies is the starvation and death of 1/3 of the population of the planet.

The working schmo's bike to work, freeze in the winter, sweat in the summer, and use products produced withing 100 miles, all to free up carbon credits for the super rich to live high on the hog with no guilt.

 

I think that is plain ironic considering the hippy artsy stereo-type Apples have.

 

There are plenty of aftermarket replacement batteries for reasonable prices for all iPods except for the iPod Shuffle ranges. Just do an online search for them and you'll find a range of them. Many improve on the storage capacity of the original batteries. The lifetime of these rechargeables means that the effort to replace the batteries, when considered against their life means that is is not such a chore.

I have a GPS system that takes AA cells, either alkaline or rechargeable: I go through many more cells by using alkaline primary cells than rechargeables because it is more convenient than removing the batteries, charging them up, then returning them to the unit, but this is almost certainly worse for the environment.

Building an iPod like a mobile phone with their batteries, or using standard replaceable (AA or AAA) cells would give users more options, but then again, so would building in an FM or satellite radio tuner. Each is a tradeoff against something else. Nobody is forced to buy an iPod: there are still dozens of alternatives out there.

Bill

 

John Milton had it right, truth will always defeat falsehood in the free competition of ideas. I get really concerned when I see groups trying to stamp out that competition no matter what side they are on, and it causes me to treat their ideas as suspect.

Being a long time left-of-the-road type, I have grown increasingly disillusioned with the Left in the US since Clinton took over the left. They are scared of the free competition of ideas. They represent the hyper-wealthy elites of the left, not the working man and they seem more interested in their perks and patronage than in the people. They are no longer a progressive party.

This little blast from Greenpeace is perfect example. They just made it up for propaganda purposes or to pressure Apple into donating more cash. They have become an organization more concerned with publicity and self-perpetuation than with actually doing good works.

The end result is a nightmare for progressives in the US. You have a tyranny of two party rule where both parties represent the classes of extreme wealth and they only pay lip service to the other classes. Except for a few hot-button issues like Abortion or Religion which they use the keep the masses distracted, both parties political programs are 95% identical. It certainly is not a democracy or a republic when two parties can completely exclude all other political viewpoints. Multi-party parliamentary systems seem to be much more effective, although offering less long term stability, at accommodating all political views.

Ok....got that off my chest....sorry for the rant

 

I think you are confusing "the left" with "the Democratic Party". Either way, there is more to the "left" than Clinton, for example - and the Clintons represent more like the Centrist DLC anyway, not the people who would identify themselves as Progressives, who are still out there.

Either way, "the left" includes a pretty broad range of people, organizations, etc. I don't really see a reason to get disillusioned with the entire "left" just because you have a problem with how certain people or organizations operate (just as it would be silly for someone to get disilluioned with "the right" because they didn't like the way some of the people or organizations that are included in that categorization operate).

Regarding this thing, I don't think there's anything to say that Greenpeace "made it up"; as far as we know, Apple hasn't denied the things that Greenpeace is claiming here. At face value, all we know is that Apple isn't doing what other computer manufacturers are.

It's fine to accuse Greenpeace of propaganda, but one could also argue that, given Apple's corporate history, and their attempt to associate themselves with socially conscience issues, it is not surprising that Greenpeace would see them as a company worth highlighting with these issues.

Greenpeace is not looking to just pressure Apple into making a big donation to them or something, so I'm not sure where you got that from.

Now again, I'm not defending Greenpeace here, but it is pretty obvious why Apple is targeted here, because of how they brand themselves as a company, and what their corporate culture is all about. Apple frankly brings this kind of attention on themselves.

I'm not saying Apple is bad for doing that; it's one of the things I like about Apple. But you can't present yourself as a socially and environmentally conscience company and then be surprised when an organization like Greenpeace calls you to task on areas where you aren't living up to the standards you set for yourself.

Also, it's not like Apple hasn't tried to use these issues to their benefit. When the second generation iPod Nano came out, Apple actually made a really big deal about the change in the packaging, which allowed more iPods to be shipped at a time, cutting fuel costs, etc. and having less impact on the environment.

So while I may not personally agree with the way Greenpeace is going about this, and while I also recognize that Greenpeace is going after Apple in particular because of what kind of company Apple is, I also see that it is a two-way street.

-Zadillo

 

Didn't see this last edit while I was replying to you.

I think this makes more sense; it sounds like you do understand that there is a distinction between "The Left" and "The Democratic Party".

Regarding multi-parliamentary systems; I think you sort of pointed out the problems yourself there - less long term stability is a problem. It is nice that parliamentary systems can accommodate more political views, but this also sometimes ends up as a detriment. I don't think any system is really perfect.

But generally, I would say that the end result even with a two-party system is that the Democratic and Republican parties are both made up of a fairly wide range of people within that political spectrum. Fundamentally, I don't think it is quite so different from having dozens of parties and coalition governments.

 

My primary issue with the report is that they spend quite a bit of time in several of the evaluations blasting companies for belonging to industry trade groups that are lobbying for something greenpeace doesn't like. I don't mean to say that this isn't at all a valid criticism, but these trade organizations do lots of things and lobby on lots of issues, you aren't going to pull out just because you disagree with them on one issue, and one company can't dictate policy. Go read their evaluation of LG for an example of this.

I'm a moderate environmentalist myself, and I find it extremely disappointing that Greenpeace has politicized this report like this, they could have produced a well researched non-biased report that would have been a great help to the industry and opened a dialogue for improvement. Instead they seem to be more interested in scoring PR points.