Lenovo Tops Eco-Friendly Ranking

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."

But apples grow on trees

But apples grow on trees, you can't get any greener than that.

Mind you, think of the poor turtles murdered each year for Steve Jobs' wardrobe.

All you do is promise you'll be good

Say, in 2009 and you get the top billing [sci-tech-today.com].
Greenpeace is weird. But we already know that :)

Re:All you do is promise you'll be good

The article you linked to was fluff. To summarize, it says "I feel Apple is green, Steve Jobs is a vegeterian and Michael Dell eats meat. Why is Apple ranked so low?"

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.

Re:All you do is promise you'll be good

Greenpeace's claims have been analyzed in this BusinessWeek article and....

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?

....and in a series of articles at roughlydrafted.com.

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?

Toxic substances?

From the FTA: "However, Lenovo lost marks for still using some of the most toxic substances to make its products. Other firms in the top five, such as Sony-Ericsson, have already eliminated toxic chemicals including brominated fire retardants, polyvinyl chloride, beryllium and phthalates from their factories."

So can we really say Lenovo tops the list?

But everyone knows

... absorbing a daily dose of toxic chemicals into the tips of your fingers strengthens the immune system, thus making us less vulnurable to the common cold. It's all explalined in the manual, somehwere near the back in smallish print.

Re:Toxic substances?

However, Lenovo lost marks for still using some of the most toxic substances to make its products.

Yeah, but they're doing that in China, which as we all know, Doesn't Count.

But...

I had such a conversation with friends recently... does such analysis includes:
- 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 /. story [slashdot.org] and Green My Apple [greenpeace.org]. In short, I believe not everything is black or white, it's rather grey. Of course, I agree that all computer producers should improve their eco-friendliness, but measuring this eco-friendliness is not a simple task.

Re:But...

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.

In related news...

Apple computers have a significantly longer lifespan on my desks than the PCs

...and Porsches have significantly longer lifespans than Fords. One of the main factors people take into account when replacing something is how much the replacement will cost.

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.

Re:But...

Yes, it's a positive thing when a computer lasts longer and is easier to use. But does that outweigh Apple's refusal to move away from toxic chemicals in manufacturing? I think not.

As a thinkpad owner; its so obvious

It's simple really. Thinkpads are so well made that they never need to be replaced.

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.

Why Apple came last ....

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:

You'll get modded down for defending an essentially useless "report" for the sake of trolling for Apple supporters. Everything Greenpeace does is designed to generate press for Greenpeace to boost donations. EPEAT's ranking, using real world metrics and n

Re:Why Apple came last ....

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.

Re:

EPEAT Results [epeat.net]
I see "Silver" ratings on almost all of them, but the numbers put Apple highest.

Most unexpected

Most unexpected, considering that Lenovo is mostly owned by Chinese Communist Party regime-held corporations with their in-house Communist Party political officers and all, and the regime's environmental record since they converted from communism to the more lucrative fascism hasn't been anything short of catastrophic for the common Chinese people.

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

but I still wouldn't choose to allow my money to fund the militaristic policies of the Chinese state.

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?

Re:Most unexpected

So buy a Panasonic ToughBook. Engineered and Made in Japan, and aguably more bomb proof than a ThinkPad.

You want an eco-friendly computer? Here it is!

Check it out here:

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.

Why bother?

The article is an apparent flame-bait for slashdotters. There's such a sentiment that "Apple is great", "Lenovo is evil, coz they bought our beloved thinkpad and it is run by a Chinese company". There's nothing to see here, in the comment page.

Something seems fishy....

This seems to be part of a campaign bend apple into more of a green product.

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/ ptb_us.html [ibm.com]

However, in the very least, it should be reasonable for Apple to accept recycled equipment worldwide, if at
a fee.

Re:

What? No this is terrible PR for Greenpeace. All over the world Apple owners are grabbing at any anti-Greenpeace thought or news they can get to rationalize their love for Apple. I mean, Apple is cool (isn't that what the ads tell us?) so if Greenpeace

Re:Bah.

Greenpeace has no credibility on this subject.

Absolutely 100% correct! Greenpeace has very little credibility in most subjects. They have considerable history with manipulating data to suit their fund raising profile, and have been caught doing on a number of occasions - Bret Spar is one example, though others can be found easily . Remember Greenpeace is NOT a charity. Historically, they have provably lied to make money.

Environmental economics was the subject I studied at university; I have undertaken environmental assessments in the field. .To perform a fair, accurate and precise assessment of a company's environmental impact requires weeks, if not months, of intensive on-site research and measurement. It requires full access to all processes within the company, and access to privileged information.

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.

Re:Bah.

"to perform a fair, accurate and precise assessment of a company's environmental impact requires weeks, if not months, of intensive on-site research and measurement"

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.