By now most of us have heard about the Guide to Greener Electronics recently put out by Greenpeace. In the report, the world wide organization ranks leading mobile phone, game console, TV and PC manufacturers on their global policies and practice on eliminating harmful chemicals, taking responsibility for their products once they are discarded by consumers, and their impact on the climate. All rankings of the companies are based on information that is publicly available, supplemented with clarifications and communications with the companies. That being said, after the release of the June 2008 edition, we here at MacBlogz disappointing and not really surprised to hear that Apple, a company so innovative and progressive in product functionality, design and culture, was falling behind the likes of HP, Dell, Samsung, Toshiba, Nokia, Sony and Panasonic (to name a few) in the race to be the first to “go green”. Thus, we decided to delve into said report and find out what, exactly, Apple is doing to fall behind the pack- to give us better insight into what Apple can do in the upcoming years to lead the way to green-greatness.
In yesterday’s post (Apple Going Green(er)), I spoke about Steve Jobs’ recent vow to make a “greener Apple.” With the purchase of biodegradable packaging for the newest iPhone and the removal of certain toxins in their products, Apple is surely on their way. According to the Greenpeace report, Apple comes in 11th position, scoring a miserable 4.1 points (out of 10), mainly due to putting products on the market whose key components are free of “brominated flame retardants” (BFRs) and PVC vinyl plastic.
Another area where Apple thrives is the energy efficiency of their newer models, where all computers (portable and desktop) conform with the requirements set out in the stricter Energy Star version 4.0 standard. The iPod and the iPhone power adapters, on the other hand, far exceed Energy Star efficiency requirements and already meet California’s stricter appliance efficiency regulations that take effect July 1st, 2008. According to Apple’s website,
With lower demand for energy, Apple products mitigate waste, thereby helping to reduce the environmental impacts associated with CO2 and other emissions from power generation plants. Apple does this by shipping their products with power management enabled, meaning that a low-power sleep mode will automatically activate if there has been no user activity for 10 minutes. “Mac OS X allows your computer to rapidly scale processor performance to optimize energy use depending on how much work the processor is doing, or operate at reduced processor speed to save even more energy.” Meaning, your computer will consistently work just about as hard as you are; Only increasing the amount of power and energy used, when needed most.
On the not so bright side, Apple looses points for portions of its chemical policy. While Apple does provide examples of additional substances that it plans to eliminate with times lines (i.e. arsenic in LCDs and mercury by moving to LEDs) they fail to mention a target date for the phase-out of their small remaining applications of beryllium as well as make no mention of phthalates (both toxic chemicals).
Regarding Apple’s “recycling score”, Greenpeace feels that Apple’s take-back initiative, that includes battery take back, free recycling for iPods and mobile phones (of all brands) and their new free recycling of old Apple monitors and PCs (as if anybody ever gives those up) lacks marketing and proper customer education with many programs still only operating in the United States.
Other pitfalls for Apple are found in the lack of information they provide in the areas of the company’s own carbon footprint. While Apple reports electricity consumption at its manufacturing facility in Cork, Ireland they offer no information on the amount of renewable energy used company-wide. I suppose no news equals bad news according the Greenpeace. And in some cases I am sure they are right.
At least Apple is beating out Microsoft, who maintains a safe spot at the bottom of the green heap (by neglecting to set goals to eliminate PVC or hazardous flame retardants). Apple can also boast a 9.5% recycling rate on products sold seven years ago. According to Apple’s website, their future will have a greener side, citing their continued work to reduce the environmental impact of the work they do and the products they make. “A Greener Apple“, a memo written by Apple CEO Steve Jobs himself, talks about the future and keeping the public up-to-date on how Apple is applying their talents as innovators and engineers to becoming environmental leaders as well.
We are eager to see how Apple paves the future for the rest of the industry when it comes to environmental standards. Even though Apple was far from praised by Greenpeace, we know they will take this information and make their policies more visible and their consumption known. With the tech companies now aware that all eyes are on them, we hope they take their brilliant minds, share what they know and what they learn with each other, and do their part to help their, and our, environment.
One Comment to “Apple still struggling with “Going Green.” Scores 4.1 out of 10 by Greenpeace.”
Congratulations. You’ve fallen into GreenPeace’s “trap”. Apple cannot “go green” enough for GreenPeace, unless they stopped producing computers, razed all the land that Apple owns and switched to growing organic fruits and vegetables. Every year, Apple and the other high-tech companies improve their ‘greenness’, then GreenPeace arbitrarily makes up a whole new different set of goalposts, and announces that everybody is still doing crappy. Stop falling for this!
Reply