Oooh my god, these guys are full of crap. Is someone else paying them to do this. Freaking Nokia, Toshiba, LG, Philips, and sharp, etc. are greener than APPLE. That is pure crap!!! Freaking LG and sharp produce TV's and heating/cooling equipment, helloooo anybody there, did they analyze that?

Greenpeace do something for the nature.
But when they have to pick
1) Do something that do a lot for the nature, but don't give any PR.
2) Do something that do little for the nature, but gives a lot of PR.
Then they always pick nr. 2.

hehe "Use of recycled plastic content" BAD.

Well Apple are using a lot less plastic then many of the orhter companys.

Because when you read macworld's take, they thought Greenpeace was great to Apple... http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=26484

Are you telling me I have to think for myself to figure this out??? Because that is not the way news is supposed to work. It is supposed to validate my preconceptions.

I took a few minutes to look at the report, and Steve Jobs is right - they're giving out a lot of points for talk, rather than for action. Of their five criteria on toxic chemicals, for example, four (80%) are talk, not action.

If you look at the criteria that *aren't* just talk, Apple is one of the greenest companies out there. But oh no, they don't have Greenpeace-approved wording about the Precautionary Principle on their web site, and their aluminum notebooks don't use enough recycled plastic! :)

(I work around multilateral environmentalism and have friends at Greenpeace, but thankfully they're more sensible ones who are into less complicated stuff like saving whales.)

Almost feels like that sometimes

I'm an environmental guy (drive a veg van, got solar panels, etc.) and I'm so tired of this CRAP from Greenpeace. It's so blatant that these idiots are just riding the coattails of Apple's success. We should go to the Greenpeace site and take a look at all the videos they have... hmmm... wonder what it was edited on? If I remember too, they also had a video with one of the head guys and on his desk was a Mac laptop. Talk the talk, walk the walk please!

Based on their own analysis, they shouldn't be using any. They shouldn't be driving cars, either. This is one organization that sickens me. They are always right, even when facts are in the way. They are definitely not above breaking the law. They are always glad to demand things, with no care to other issues such as costs and jobs, or Other People's Money. I would never make a decision based on what they say. I do not consider them a trustworthy source.

GUYS GUYS...

So I went on their website to check the article and they actully said good things about APPLE and that they are the leader in the computer industry. Read this...

"Apple makes BFR-free and (almost) PVC-free computers
Apple's new computer lines, virtually free of PVC and completely BFR-free, demonstrate the technical feasibility and supply-chain readiness of producing alternatives to these hazardous substances. Dell, Lenovo and Acer have also stayed ahead of HP, putting models on the market that are free, or at least significantly reduced in their use, of PVC and BFRs. Dell recently engaged in a public spat with Apple over Apple's claims to have the greenest family of notebooks.

It's ridiculous that some companies, such as Dell, are busy challenging Apple's advertising claims when Apple is clearly leading its competitors on toxics phase out. All PC companies should be concentrating on matching or beating Apple’s lead on this important issue."

Greenpeace, ACLU = lunatic fringe

Greenpeace is nothing more than a group of lunatic, anti-business, anti-Capitalist, mindless myrmidons. Nobody should take anything they say or do seriously.

I respect and support Greenpeace, but do think that in this case the organisation should look at Apple's efforts again.
Funny though how Greenpeace has no qualms about using an Apple-design-like 'brushed aluminium' appearance for the green dial...

So 9 to 5 says Greenpeace is hatin' on Apple while Macworld UK say GP praises Apple....which is it? I think ALL journalists are dumb@$$es anyway and try to write headlines that grab hits and viewers as opposed to stating the facts up front.
News Flash!! 9 to 5 have 180 degree opposing view of the world!! Dumb@$$es...

First, Greenpeace just can't be taken seriously when they think that wording is as important as action. Really guys? You're yelling at Apple because they don't talk your talk but they walk your walk?

And about politics, it's worth noting that Greenpeace has a large problem with truth precisely because of their political foundation. (The philosophy of liberalism has no concept of an absolute truth, thus there can be no independently-verifiable truth.)

Just looking at this from a mobile phone standpoint, how many Sony Ericcson, Samsung and Nokia, and Motorola cellphones are in landfills all over the planet? How many iPhones are in landfills?

Sure, you can make the argument on the side of time. But after 3 years, I'd already gone through 2 mobile phones. I still have my original iPhone and my 3GS. I actively use my 2G and have no intention of throwing it into a landfill.

[This is where I'll tilt off course a bit] You can blame the user, but in the end, people throw phones away because they're made poorly. If manufacturers actually made good products anymore, we wouldn't have to upgrade/rebuy things every 2 years, contributing to global waste.

Apple is one of the last, if not the only American company to produce quality consumer products. Yes, production and assembly is done overseas, but what other American brand has a consumer quality stamp like Apple?

New models all have the highest standard in energy go suck a lemon Greenpeace that is why people spit on you in the street when you ask for money.

Greenpeace is an typical NGO pseudoauthority, behaving like a religious sect.

If Apple is on their negative list it will stay so. Like US politics, nuclear energy, animal hunting or youname it. It is more likely that the pope will sell condoms on St. Peters square than Greenpiss will ever able to change their dogmas. For instance the role of CO2 cought them on the wrong antinuclear foot but they cannot adjust. They are neither really green (in the sense of responsible to the environment) nor peaceful, although they hate being called ecoterrorists.

So why should apple or apple users bother what they say ? Just don't mention them. An apple a day keeps the doctor away.

Greensleaze?

Oxygen is toxic and an oxidant, maybe we should have a phaseout schedule for that too.

Look I'm pretty much a tree hugger and admire some of the stuff Greenpeace does, but like PETA the last few years they are just out for attention with this kind of crap.

How is there NO mention what-so-ever of Apple drastically reduced packaging? That was their (Greenpeace's) big complaint a few years ago and yet not one mention of of it.

Further, promises and figures on companies' websites is that absolute worst source of info they could possibly choose to base their bogus rating on.