>It sounds like they’re not any worse than any computer company, but people think that Apple is the most likely to adopt new policies.

Er no, I think that Apple is just an easy target given their current advertising campaign. I think Greenpeace could be a bit more imaginiative than this. Maybe they need a new PR agency.

Let's see, there's ten times as many Macs than Windows-flavoured boxes.

There's a conservative estimate that 50% of Windows users who want to upgrade to Vista will need new parts or an entire new computer.

Even if Mac and Windows owners are equally environmentally sensitive, that means there are twenty times as many Windows users as Mac users who are going to hose some or all of their computers shortly.

And Macs are damaging the environment?

>Let’s see, there’s ten times as many Macs than Windows-flavoured boxes.

I'd recommend laying off the iBong when posting to typophile ;-)

ROFL.

OK, so it's the other way around: a girl can dream, can't she? ;-) It's been a long day....

Tap your heels together three times, and say there's no place like home. Maybe you'll wake up in the Land of Woz? ;-)

>it’s the other way around

Just checking, it's *way* the other way 'round. Macs are 2-3 % of the market. So we are talking 40+ pc's for every mac.

Maybe they need a new PR agency.

Greenpeace needs a lot more than that...

the sad truth is that all electronics are a massive environmental problem, both in manufacture and disposal. i say bravo to greenpeace and anyone who points to the problem and even better if they try to deal with it. i'm not sure if singling out apple
makes any sense. we are all responsible.

most of my hi-tech friends in the usa seem to consider themselves "progressive" but we all throw our hardware and media in the trash. flat screens are somewhat less toxic than the old cathode ray tubes, but there are still issues. do you know where the tin in your cellphone came from ?

i've worked in broadcast design for years and the volme of media discarded is shocking. when dvd's replaced 3/4" tapes as standard house media, truckloads of tape libraries were discarded by so many production companies, and even before that the short tapes used for in-house and client review were discarded daily in huge numbers.

germany is way ahead in the recycling effort. there are companies sprouting up in the usa that handle discarded hardware and media for small fees. greendisk is the one i use.
it's worth searching in your local area for drop-offs or recycling programs.

I'm with sii and Ch on this one. Hey, if recycling technology in your city is big pain in the ass (like it is for me), then try a site like Freecycle. There's always someone who can use our so-called obsolete hardware. Post your stuff, leave it out for pickup once someone says "I want that", then it goes to a new home with almost no effort on your part. That Greendisk service is pretty darn cool, too. I'm going to check that out. But technology recycling will not catch on with the public as long as it costs them money. Easier just to junk it.

Hardware (and often software) companies all benefit immensely from the high-speed obsolescence of technology, and we as consumers generally clamor for it. Are Macs damaging the environment? Sure. Along with every other piece of technology we buy and dispose of. Plus, there's a layer of security concerns here that's important to note. Some people don't want to donate old tech, for fear of old data being exposed to abuse. I suppose it's not that hard to fix that, but we all know how people are with unfamiliar technical challenges.

...there are companies sprouting up in the USA that handle discarded hardware and media for small fees.

A fee? That might be what's keeping the majority of America from making the effort to recycle their electronics properly. A service needs to be in place that will either take it for free, offer some sort of tax deduction, or actually give you money back.

Maybe an up-front fee, similar to when you purchase a new car battery. The store assumes you're replacing your old hardware with new hardware and charges you a few dollars until you bring your old hardware back in, then they refund that up-front fee. Maybe they could give you a discount on your purchase if you bring your equipment in and have the upgrades preformed by their technicians.

I'd put more responsibility on the reseller as much as the producer of these products. Staples already has a battery and ink collection effort in place, maybe they should start offering a used hardware collection service.

> the sad truth is that all electronics are
> a massive environmental problem, both in
> manufacture and disposal.

But less trees get cut down and less paper gets recycled all over again because people get their news off the Internet.

Things are interconnected. Looking at them in isolation makes no sense.

A.

who said anything about looking in isolation ? we're all generalizing here, but the statistics are ominous. these issues are important BECAUSE we are NOT isolated. to ignore or deny them is to isolate oneself.

> But less trees get cut down and less paper gets recycled all over again
> because people get their news off the Internet.

you'd have to prove that to me. forests of the world are still dwindling at accelerating rates, not so much for paper but for lumber (northern hem) and cattle grazing lands (southern hem). the main problem with technology is heavy metals, toxic chemical processes, and unscrupulous labor practices in resource mining and parts assembly.

the pollutants will make it harder for forests to grow, and we can all read about the labor practices in our on-line newspapers.

I think it's a genius move to go after Apple. They're a small enough company with a vise-like grip on their hardware that implementation could actually happen. The fact that they are so prominent in the media despite their world market share plays a significant part as well. In fact, it's almost perfect.

Despite the fact that Apple is as dirty and back handed in the way it deals with other businesses as Microsoft, it still has a pristinely clean public image. In the minds of most people, the other PC manufacturers are all nameless, faceless industrial plants that shoot out box after box of blah. But Apple is cool. They're the cool kid who dares not lose face in front of all of his friends and girlfriends.

Do they deserve the finger-pointing-at any more than the other companies? Who cares? If you can get Apple to do it, others might play along because they have no choice.

totally agreed. the media supported & manufactured cult of "cool" is an interesting topic,
suitable for the "ethical design" thread elsewhere on this site. i suspect we are all complicit in this phenomenon.

recommended reading: "captains of consciousness" by stuart ewen. "commodify your dissent" and "the conquest of cool" by thomas frank. "no logo" by naomi klein. "emotional branding" by marc gobe.

i am not endorsing the opinions in these books, only recommending them as food for thought.

By focusing on this problem, we can ignore true injustices in the world.
How much energy is greenpeace wasting?

Yea, current computers could be better for the environment. Yes, Apple is an easy target. Yes, that means Apple might capitulate once pressure is put upon them. And maybe that will have a snowball effect.

That said, Apple has always been about design, so making a safer computer only enhances their better design sales pitch.

"Just checking, it’s *way* the other way ‘round. Macs are 2-3 % of the market. So we are talking 40+ pc’s for every mac."

But the operating system has nothing to do with this issue. The issue is computer MANUFACTURERS, of which Apple is typically always in the top-5. So they are a major player in the production of computers. And don't forget the iPod. Which is a computer. Which has a 65% market share of that sector.

"But less trees get cut down"

I'd say the computer has done nothing in terms of reducing our dependance on paper. I could be proven wrong with some numbers, of course. ;o)

"By focusing on this problem, we can ignore true injustices in the world."

That argument always comes up but it's absurd. There are enough injustices in the world to go around. Everyone can focus on their own.

> By focusing on this problem, we can ignore true injustices in the world.

that's absurd. "your" injustices do not eclipse or even compete for relevance with "my" injustices. injustice is injustice and it all deserves attention.

> How much energy is greenpeace wasting?

that depends how you define waste. every effort takes and possibly wastes some energy. the question is: what is the effort ? the efforts toward reform are not invalidated by the necessity for current tools, fuels, and expenses. some effort is better than no effort. defeatism empowers all forms of exploitation.

Despite the fact that Apple is as dirty and back handed in the way it deals with other businesses as Microsoft, it still has a pristinely clean public image. In the minds of most people, the other PC manufacturers are all nameless, faceless industrial plants that shoot out box after box of blah. But Apple is cool.

Apple's positive reputation is a result of Apple very carefully making itself seem small. If you study attacks on American business over the last two centuries, you'll see that the insults appearing most often attack the size of the corporation above all else–big tobacco, big oil, etc. It's a nearly perfect attack, because the size of corporations is incredibly elastic, so the true size at which a big company is a bad company never needs to be defined.

By carefully pitching itself as an underdog Apple has made itself the sweetheart of the American public, the Yin to the Wintel yang. Target handles itself similarly, by avoiding the over-the-top behavior of Wal-Mart and donating profits to communities, it pitches iself as a good smaller alternative to big evil Wal-Mart.

This is why Greenpeace's attacks will ultimately have little impact. Apple need only make a few small changes and mention them at press conferences to convince people that it remains a valiant underdog. And because Apple still has relatively little real competition for products other than the iPod, it is unlikely that any changes Apple makes will spread to other companies.

Going after a larger PC maker, one without and underdog reputation—perhaps Dell—, would likely result in more changes being made to satisfy consumers, and due to Dell's size, large competitors may have reciprocated to avoid being the next target.

http://www.greenmyapple.com/itox.html

There is a reason they are not going after Dell.
Tim

> I’d say the computer has done nothing in terms of
> reducing our dependance on paper. I could be proven
> wrong with some numbers, of course

I barely buy any newspapers, don't use paper notebooks, don't issue paper receipts or invoices. For the last four months I have not used my printer even once -- it's not even connected.

The computer sure has done a lot to reduce *my* dependance on paper.

A.

Aluminum, Ch,

This particular effort is a waste of time and energy. It's chasing the whale instead of simply protecting whales. That's the real absurd.

>The computer sure has done a lot to reduce *my* dependance on paper.

And a lot to expand your dependence on electricity, which during the generation process damages the environment.

It's hard to win…

But there are choices to be made.

peace

There is a reason they not going after Dell.

Touché, but I was really just using Dell as a hypothetical example because of its size. But now that I think about it, Dell and HPaq are really the only PC giants left in the US, so Apple is really the only other company for Greenpeace to go after.

I barely buy any newspapers, don’t use paper notebooks, don’t issue paper receipts or invoices.

Interestingly enough, Apple now gives customers the option of just having a receipt emailed as opposed to printed. I love this one because Gmail does a much better job of handling receipts than I ever will.

Is wood more environmentally friendly?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zapwizard/sets/476089/

More environmentally friendly was my first Mac which was so expensive that I upgraded and tweaked it out and kept it running for almost 10 years. Second Mac lasted 5, also with upgrades and externals. Nowadays they're so cheap it pays to just replace them altogether. Hence the pile-up.

Ditto with the new phone I get everytime I get a new service contract, when nothing at all was wrong with the old phone except that it didn't do my laundry for me.

I once had a TV for 25 years.

>> The computer sure has done a lot to reduce *my*
>> dependance on paper.
> And a lot to expand your dependence on electricity,
> which during the generation process damages the
> environment.

Especially that instead of a TV, a VCR, a stereo, and possibly a few other devices, I just use one notebook connected to just one socket.

I don't need my newspaper delivered to me every morning, so the printing presses consume less energy when producing the newspapers, less couriers drive through the city distributing the papers and burning fuel. Computers allow logistics to be smoother and more streamlined: less empty runs, less redundant runs, that again, burn fuel. IT-aided public transportation allows people to move around more economically and to actually consume less energy than if every single person drives around a huge SUV.

By saying "Things are interconnected. Looking at them in isolation makes no sense," I did not mean looking at things as an isolated person, but looking at isolated things, without seeing how they affect other things. Of course computers consume energy, produce waste, and harm the environment, but they also help reduce energy consumption and pollution elsewhere.

Doing some computations that are limited only to computers by themselves, and then arriving at the conclusion that computers are "only harmful" makes no sense.

After all, I bet Greenpeace's report was not handwritten and distributed only by traditional post in envelopes made of recycled paper. Wait... imagine how many sheets of paper would they have to mail out if e-mail did not exist.

A.

Apple need only make a few small changes and mention them at press conferences to convince people that it remains a valiant underdog. And because Apple still has relatively little real competition for products other than the iPod, it is unlikely that any changes Apple makes will spread to other companies.

Apple has little (actually NO) competition for its computers because it exercises a monopoly: as a result, it charges a lot more than its systems are actually worth because it is so effective at getting people to drink its Kool-Aid. (Patty, new Macs may be cheap compared to old Macs, but they are considerably more expensive than comparable Wintel machines.) And I believe, in light of the recent stock-option backdating scandal, that the days are gone when anyone else other than a totally indoctrinated Machead will believe anything is so because Steve Jobs says it is. Apple is no different from any other company, and Steve Jobs is no different from any other greedy, overpaid CEO: he's just better at selling the sizzle.

The article targets Apple because Apple proclaims "Think Different" while it actually just does the same...

Is wood more environmentally friendly?

It all depends on the wood. Ikea does a great job managing huge tracts of constantly renewed birch forests, and companies in Asia and South America are growing great bamboo that's being put to wonderful use.

Redwood furniture, however, makes me want to kick butt and take names.

...and Steve Jobs is no different from any other greedy, overpaid CEO...

Given the success of Apple, Pixar, and to some degree even NeXT, it's hard to believe that Steve Jobs is overpaid. If anything, Jobs is a perfect example of why good executives really do deserve tremendous salaries.

Wait… imagine how many sheets of paper would they have to mail out if e-mail did not exist.

Greenpeace uses a pretty hefty amount of paper for all that fund-raising they do. They're among the organizations I refuse to support on the grounds that when I was a member, they clearly spent almost every dollar I gave them begging me for more money.

More environmentally friendly was my first Mac...

For me, a computer is environmentally friendly almost entirely based on energy consumption. I almost never throw anything away; it all either ends up on Craigslist, dumped on the local *nix nerds, or given away in a cardboard box on the sidewalk. So above all else I focus on using the computer that needs the least watts to get the job done.

new Macs may be cheap compared to old Macs, but they are considerably more expensive than comparable Wintel machines

That is really dependent on what Wintel machine you buy from a vendor, you might get a machine that stands good processor-wise but the vendor may have cut other corners such as embedding modem chipsets and soundcards together or going with less cache.

Also, the amount of time you wind up spending maintaining that machine vs. its Mac equivalent needs to be considered... if you value that time.

I am by no means anti-PC. I have 2 PCs and 2 Macs in my studio right now. The PCs were cheaper than their closest Mac equivalents because I bought the parts for them over the internet and I built the machines myself. They are my fastest machines, but that is only because I spent a lot of time on R&D and then used that info to customize the bejeezus out of them. That took time.

When I buy an Apple, I get it in the mail, it works right out of the box. I spend a fraction of the time maintaining it compared to the PCs in my studio. I'd rather pay a little more (and that amount has indeed shrunk in the past few years) and not have the headache.

Getting back on subject, I think Greenpeace is targeting Apple because they are likely to comply with what's being asked... and as Apple is in the spotlight so much I think a lot of other manufacturers would take notice and follow suit.

That is really dependent on what Wintel machine you buy from a vendor, you might get a machine that stands good processor-wise but the vendor may have cut other corners such as embedding modem chipsets and soundcards together or going with less cache.

That may be true for the desktops, but Apple's laptops are made by the same Taiwanese companies that makes everyone else's (Austek and Union Camera Ltd.) with the same cheap commodity components. And lately that's been irritating me, because if I had bought a Dell I could get this bad USB port fixed without having to mail my laptop to Cupertino for a week, and the system wouldn't crash every other time I put it to sleep.

> This particular effort is a waste of time and energy. It’s chasing the whale instead of
> simply protecting whales. That’s the real absurd.

typequake, please explain. seriously, i have no idea what you are saying in this opaque and mixed metaphor. i consider environmental pollution to be a real problem for the future, and any attention or brainstorming in that direction is not only valid, it's vital.

chasing the whale ??????

>targeting Apple
Apple are targeted because of their policies to reduce the use of PVC and BFRs and poor reporting of takeback/recycling, significantly worse than other computer manufacturers, not because they are cool or likely to comply/adopt new policies (Greenpeace acknowledge that there are other areas of environmental concern – labour standards, energy use etc. but choose not to address those subjects as part of this campaign), so, they do “Think Different”.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/cop...

Tim

Slightly off topic but appropriate: Not the paper but the ink on the paper is so incredibly unhealthful. Depending in the type of ink: petroleum, U.V. and even soy based products you have different levels of toxicity. Manufacturing process of inks is (from my extensive first hand experience) very bad for our earth.

My heart goes out to the workers involved in the production process. Many of them unaware of the dangers they face.

Mikey :-(

Given the success of Apple, Pixar, and to some degree even NeXT, it’s hard to believe that Steve Jobs is overpaid. If anything, Jobs is a perfect example of why good executives really do deserve tremendous salaries.

Tremendous salaries with which they are not content, so they ILLEGALLY backdate stock options to make themselves even wealthier, at their own stockholders' expense. More Kool-Aid, jpad?

Given the success of Apple, Pixar, and to some degree even NeXT, it’s hard to believe that Steve Jobs is overpaid. If anything, Jobs is a perfect example of why good executives really do deserve tremendous salaries.

Tremendous salaries with which they are not content, so they ILLEGALLY backdate stock options to make themselves even wealthier, at their own stockholders’ expense. More Kool-Aid, jpad?

Now Nick, that's not exactly true. The investigation proved that there was no financial gain on Jobs' behalf. Hell, his salary at Apple is only $1. He makes all of his money at Pixar.

chasing the whale ??????

Better than jumping the shark.... ;-)

"And lately that’s been irritating me, because if I had bought a Dell I could get this bad USB port fixed without having to mail my laptop to Cupertino for a week"

You need to find an Apple store. I've never liked the mail-in support from Apple but the in-store stuff has always been great for me.

(and yea, I had no idea what we were talking about when it came to chasing whales either...)

More Kool-Aid, jpad?

Big business and lassiez-faire until the day I die!

You need to find an Apple store. I’ve never liked the mail-in support from Apple but the in-store stuff has always been great for me.

The Apple stores here can't support the number of users that they have. Getting an appointment is next to impossible, and because they're so busy, most hardware problems are resolved by shipping the machine out to Cupertino.

Chasing the whale = Ahab?

"we all throw our hardware and media in the trash"
Never, ever, ever, have I done so. Never even crossed my mind. Do people really do this? What do they use for door stops (printer)? wind chymes old (palm pilots)? and X-mas tree decorations, (ethernet cables and CDs)?

Never, ever, ever, have I done so. Never even crossed my mind. Do people really do this?

It's pretty common for large business to trash old PCs because donating them can be legal and logistical nightmare. It's also hard to find charities that want or need large numbers of old computers, because in many cases, they simply aren't useful enough to justify the cost of dealing with them.

multiplied times.... ?

X-mas tree decorations, (ethernet cables and CDs)

me too! With nail polish. Forgive the size...

Garbage isn't the most pressing environmental problem, global warming is.
And in that sense, it's rapid product obsolescence that is most damaging, because manufacture and transport use lots of energy.

Apple has certainly done its part to make e-commuting a possibility, although I'm not so sure about the energy footprint of the internet.

I do know that there is a cost to transferrning data. One large data center can consume enough juice to power a small city of 30,000 to 40,000 people.
Server farms require massive cooling, and should be located way north, not in the desert.

Energy rationing is the only way to deal with global warming.

those are excellent points, nick, but we have to be careful not to imply that because "this" problem is greater, "that" problem isn't an issue. it still is, and they are interconnected.

in my previous post dumping was simply easier to illustrate, and i suspect it's also easier for all of us to deal with. don't throw the stuff in the trash. we can all make a small effort and encourage our employers and clients to do so as well. yes, there can be a cost attached, but isn't the future cost of apathy far greater ?

Steve Jobs wears turtlenecks, doesn't he? Therefore, he must be an environmentalist!!!
DB~

Wait until the iPods start being garbage.

they are interconnected.

Right, and "reduce, reuse, recycle" is a criterion that can be applied across the board.

Just don't tell your client they only need a one-color job, not four, or a dense quarter page ad instead of a whole page with lots of lovely white space :-)

***

However, when it comes to reducing the consumption of new typefaces, I say no to reusing Helvetica. Because if I can't make a living making fonts, I will be doing something much more damaging.

So perhaps user-generated content is the solution, if everyone is spending their time being an artist, rather than a consumer. Problem is the equipment needed to do it, and its short life-span, which makes every artist a consumer.

In fact, by the time artists have got their grant and paid for their hardware and meagre living expenses, there's nothing left in the kitty, so software piracy is de rigueur. So much arts money goes to infrastructure it seems, architecture and support staff dedicated to showcasing dead guys' stuff.

>Wait until the iPods start being garbage.
http://www.londonist.com/archives/2007/02/londonist_inter_2.php

Tim

>Energy rationing is the only way to deal with global warming.

Not going to happen any time soon. Too many drivers (who see cheap gas, roads, and parking as natural rights). If we could just expose more of the true cost of private automobile use (level the playing field in transportation options) that would help greatly. But I don't see that happening any time soon either.

.

Wait until the iPods start being garbage.
I have a 20Gb iPod with a bad hard disk. Any takers?

While we're worrying about whether to donate, trash, recycle, or store indefinitely that old computer, read this:

Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage

It's pretty interesting.

dangayle - i do know some local hacker artists who would like yr dead iPod.

i can't vouch for music file security but i can vouch for essential identity ethics.
they're cool and smart and just like to scramble hardware and make recombinant
art machines.

let me know if you want to unload the thing...

Garbage isn’t the most pressing environmental problem, global warming is.

Electronic garbage is a more pressing problem than people realize. After all that stuff gets smashed up and starts leaching chemicals into landfills it ends up in the water table. Given how many people around the world get their water out of the water table—such as most of the American midwest—it's pretty important.

I have a 20Gb iPod with a bad hard disk. Any takers?

Apple used to give discounts on new product if you brought in iPods to recycle, I don't know if that's still the case.

Ch, By now you should have had a chance to find out what chasing the whale means (and maybe even to reconsider your usage of "mixed metaphor"). Yes, I support protecting the environment. It doesn't mean I'm not allowed to question Greenpeace or to express an unpopular opinion.

typequake: i'm not questioning your right to any opinion - i've got plenty of maverick views that would start a flame torrent even among my friends. i was questioning the meaning of your ambiguous post, and it's still not entirely clear to me.

WHOSE effort is a waste of time and money ? greenpeace's ? our discussion ? my advocacy of recycling ? a general advocacy of awareness ?

and after that's clarified: WHY is the effort a waste of time and money ?

i think general advocacy of awarenesss is primarily what greenpeace is doing,
and i support that, no matter how unlikely the odds of immediate change.
change is slow, competing with the inertia of markets, business plans, consumer trends, and shareholder majorities.

but it all starts with awareness.

the most remarkable example recently was the report issued by the CEO's of 10 major corporations advocating greater action on global warming. who saw that coming ?

http://www.us-cap.org/ClimateReport.pdf

this very discussion is proof to me that the greenpeace campaign has had some effect, however trivial it might seem to you. very small effect is the beginning of very large change. it happens slowly, almost imperceptibly. examples are all around us, including global warming.

the i Ching calls it "the triumph of the very small". thats how trees grow through stone walls and water wears down canyons - cell by cell and drop by drop. and accumulating trash landfills gradually leach more heavy metals, and water supplies become toxic.

the small begets the large. apathy breeds disaster, awareness breeds change.

I don't care if it's big, small, or extra large. I care about the wisdom of the policy. And no ambiguity was intended: Going after whaling ships? You bet. Going after Apple? I'm not sure the benefits outweigh the costs.

only time will tell

:)