Lenovo Tops Eco-Friendly Ranking 94
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."
All you do is promise you'll be good (Score:5, Insightful)
Greenpeace is weird. But we already know that
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
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).
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: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.
Why bother? (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.
Re:But... (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
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.