Slashdot Log In
Lenovo Tops Eco-Friendly Ranking
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Apr 04, 2007 04:47 PM
from the laptop-hugging dept.
from the laptop-hugging dept.
gollum123 writes to tell us that according to a recent list compiled by Greenpeace, Lenovo has topped the list of "eco-friendly" companies scoring an 8 out of a possible 10 while Apple fell to the bottom of the list with only a 2.7. "Iza Kruszewska, Greenpeace international toxics campaigner, said the industry had made some positive steps in the last 12 months with firms starting to act rather than just issue statements of intent. Of the 14 companies profiled, said Ms Kruszewska, nine now score more than five out of 10."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
But apples grow on trees (Score:4, Funny)
Mind you, think of the poor turtles murdered each year for Steve Jobs' wardrobe.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends if you're talking about red apples or green apples. The latter is usually greener.
Apple Inc usually produces black or albino apples, not good.
Re: (Score:2)
All you do is promise you'll be good (Score:5, Insightful)
Greenpeace is weird. But we already know that
Re:All you do is promise you'll be good (Score:4, Informative)
Read Greenpeace's report here. [greenpeace.org]
It's quite simple why Apple's on the bottom of the list. All the other companies have done something to green up. Sony Erricson's eliminated PVC & BFRs. Dell's adopted a worldwide takeback policy & committed to a date for elimination of PVC & BFRs. Lenovo's also got a takeback policy & reports on recycling as a percentage of sales (as opposed to Apple's "just trust us" policy.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:All you do is promise you'll be good (Score:5, Insightful)
That business week article is the same article the OP posted - just syndicated on a different website. Do you read the threads you're responding to?
Roughly drafted? Sorry. They have no credibility after being busted spamming digg [googlepages.com]
One conclusion both sources make is that Greenpeace applies different criteria to different companies and seems to be targeting Apple due to the company's visibility.
Errrr, I didn't read that conclusion in the Business week article. Can you please explain how Greenpeace is applying different criteria to different companies?
Parent
I don't get it. (Score:2)
Toxic substances? (Score:3, Interesting)
So can we really say Lenovo tops the list?
But everyone knows (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Toxic substances? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but they're doing that in China, which as we all know, Doesn't Count.
Parent
But... (Score:3, Insightful)
- The time computers can be effectively used (Apple computers have a significantly longer lifespan on my desks than the PCs)
- The waste of time / energy required to manage the computer (security, virus, etc)
- The user-efficiency related to the operating system itself
- The differences in sleep modes and energy consumption at low usage
- The longevity and eco-friendliness of laptop batteries
- etc etc etc.
See also this previous
Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. Measuring eco-friendliness is difficult and fuzzy.
On the other hand, companies only make changes to their environmental practises if they are afraid of (A) a financial penalty (ie. getting caught breaking the law), or (B) bad publicity.
And that's why we need studies like this. But whenever these studies appear, the company and its supporters look for ways to undermine the study and its source. This is a constant. If consumers buy into this, then the company escapes from having to make any changes. Consumers must accept that, as imperfect as the study and its source are, it is an opportunity to put pressure on the company to improve.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In related news... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, yes, if you consider the total environmental impact of a company, those with more expensive products will have a smaller effect. But this says nothing about the relative impact per unit sold, which is what really matters when you evaluate how "eco-friendly" a corporation is.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, yes, if you consider the total environmental impact of a company, those with more expensive products will have a smaller effect. But this says nothing about the relative impact per unit sold, which is what really matters when you evaluate how "eco-f
Re:But... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition I have numerous left over components from machines long since gone which I could easily work into something servicable should the need arise. I think the exact opposite of what
As a thinkpad owner; its so obvious (Score:5, Funny)
Incidently mine is in the shop with a dead processor cooling fan unit, soon to be replaced. Just testing the faith in the black monolith, thats all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why Apple came last .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple came last in this ranking because, when they've done poorly in this ranking in the past, they sent out the PR attack dogs to undermine GP and the study, rather then making any changes to the practices in question.
Of course, many companies behave this way. When MS discovered during the anti-trust trials that the public's perception of them was a problem, they too responded with PR rather then changing their behavior.
Yes, Yes, I know that both GP and this study are far from perfect, but they are a more objective judge of this matter then Apple itself (or the Apple fanboys who are modding me down as we speak).
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Read real info before you ever read greenpeace PR. They are like PETA completely batshit insane making a industry out of scaring people and activism. Only that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I see "Silver" ratings on almost all of them, but the numbers put Apple highest.
Re:Why Apple came last .... (Score:5, Informative)
Go to here: EPEAT [epeat.net]
And check out the silver awards in all the categories. Notice that no manufacture has been awarded a gold yet.
In all of the categories Apple is represented by a few models which score at or near the top of the pack.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You should be modded down, not because people are "Apple fanboys" but because you're making unsubstantiated claims. That's not insightful, that's trolling. Post something to back up your claim.
Most unexpected (Score:3, Insightful)
As an environmentally conscientious person I must give this particular corporation some credit for trying to do the right thing environment-wise, but I still wouldn't choose to allow my money to fund the militaristic policies of the Chinese state. Arrogant, expansionist and rich Chinese dictatorship is at the bottom of my personal wishlist.
Are they still allowed to use the IBM logo to fool people?
Re:Most unexpected (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't buy a computer then (or just about anything else).
You do realise that Apple PCs are made in exactly the same Chinese factories as other PCs? Using the same cheap 60-hours-a-week-isnt-overtime labour?
Parent
Re:Most unexpected (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fact of the matter is, China is not a communist regime. It's a not-quite-so benevolent dictatorship. However, dictatorships (and all governments for that matte
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You want an eco-friendly computer? Here it is! (Score:5, Interesting)
The Damn Small Machine! [damnsmalllinux.org]
This guy is the same guy who produces the distro Damn Small Linux. The distro is basically Knoppix cut down to fit within a 50MB CD. Well, he decided, being a tree-hugger California type, to build fanless and low-power boxes for people to buy. They use VIA's low-power (8 watt peak) x86 "Eden" CPU's and are actually pretty good.
There are now even newer ones by other folks which use the VIA C7; I saw a couple of models at TigerDirect. The C7, while requiring a fan for the highest CPU speeds, goes up to 2.0GHz [mailto] and uses 20W at full tilt, max. If I didn't already have a bunch of computers (I'm an IT consultant), I'd have bought one already. Matter of fact, my next one will indeed be one of these.
Caveat emptor.. (Score:2)
In other words, in the standard view of the product it is tempo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That 2.0GHz, isn't remotely comparable with an Intel or AMD 2GHz CPU. Indeed, I'd expect it to perform less than half as fast as you might expect from that rating... Much worse than even a 2.0GHz Pentium 4...
For a high-performance system, I'd suggest a Turion... $80 on newegg for a 25W MAX, 2.0GHz AMD CPU, that will work in many cheap and available socket 754 motherboards. Not to mention that Cool'
Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
questionable conclusions (Score:3, Informative)
Something seems fishy.... (Score:5, Informative)
On their own page, they go as far as manipulating the truth to make it appear that
Apple is doing less work than it is actually doing: http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/about.html [greenpeace.org]
"Apple finally came around to a limited recycling program in the US, but they can do better."
This is worded as if it just happened recently. Except that the US (and Japan) take-back program started
up in 2002. (Announced in 2001) It includes not only recycling of its own computers, but also other
vendor's computers and monitors. I wonder which way they consider this to be "limited"?
http://www.apple.com/environment/recycling/ [apple.com]
http://www.apple.com/environment/ [apple.com]
The images at the top of the Greenpeace site show Chinese children holding color iMac keyboards dating
before 2000.... before recycling programs in the US and Asia actually existed.
The page is designed to get Apple to do two things:
* Remove the worst toxic chemicals from all their products and production lines.
* Offer and promote free "take-back" for all their products everywhere they are sold.
The question here is, is it reasonable to persecute Apple for not meeting an arbitrarily set "worst toxic chemicals" goal? And I say this because "worst toxic chemicals" is fairly ambiguous.
They recycle plastics, foam, paper and whatnot from their products, they follow a number of environmental standards in the US and Europe and maintain their own.
Should Apple offer free "take-back" worldwide? Even Levono doesn't do so.
http://www.pc.ibm.com/ww/lenovo/about/environment
However, in the very least, it should be reasonable for Apple to accept recycled equipment worldwide, if at
a fee.
Yeah (Score:2)
Al Gore (Score:2)
Don't tell that to Apple's famous, eco-conscious, board member.
What about AL GORE! (Score:2, Interesting)
I suppose he'll just educate us carbon hogs and make it everybody elses problem to reduce their pollutants. As long as he talks about the problem it's ok that him and the companies he is afiliated with are some of the worst offenders.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They have a whole paragraph on "Say hello to the stunning Apple Screen, which uses 1.7x less power than a CRT screen. Using the Apple Screen you can save your business and your marriage, and now you can save the planet too!"
Re:Bah. (Score:5, Informative)
Environmental economics was the subject I studied at university; I have undertaken environmental assessments in the field.
There is no way Greenpeace has access to this information. A true and fair assessment cannot be done externally. This is a fund raising publicity stunt and absolutely nothing more. It has no credible science or economics behind it whatsoever.
Parent
Re:Bah. (Score:4, Insightful)
and when the company involved tells you to fuck off, your only conclusion is to do nothing and ignore the topic? If any of these companies wanted to dispute their positions, they could invite GP in to take a look. You seem to think that the best information to have on the eco-friendliness of products is either none-at-all, or just to parrot back the greenwash spin that their PR companies put out.
Newsflash -> sometimes companies do stuff they would rather their customers didn't find out about. Without lists like this, and groups like greenpeace, we would have even more destructive and toxic process being carried out. We don't use lead paint anymore, and we don't put asbestos in school buildings. This is because campaign groups (it never starts with governments) make a fuss about this stuff.
Good for them.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)