Apple challenges Greenpeace to ‘think different’ on environment
In the years since Greenpeace singled out the company, pimping the Cupertino, California-based Mac, iPod and iPhone maker’s high-profile name and products to push its agenda, Apple has moved aggressively to seize the initiative and is now trying to change terms of the debate.
“I thought Greenpeace was being very unfair with us at the beginning, and that they were using us to get visibility,” says Steve Jobs in an interview published by BuinessWeek. “To have people saying we didn’t care and that we were callous in this area was very painful—and untrue.”
Now, with Apple winning high marks from Greenpeace, the company has turned its focus to changing the rules of how a company’s “greenness” is measured by focus sing on the environmental impact of a product’s whole lifecycle. Jobs et al want businesses and environmental groups to measure and emphasize real world impacts, rather than promises and marketing hype.
“A lot of companies publish how green their building is, but it doesn’t matter if you’re shipping millions of power-hungry products with toxic chemicals in them,” says CEO Steve Jobs in an interview. “It’s like asking a cigarette company how green their office is.”
Apple’s expanded Environment site:
— Lifecycle impact
— Product usage impact
— Product environmental reports
— Environmental newsSee also: Apple reframes the green debate, backs it up with new data (Ars)
Specifically, Apple wants impact ratings and green rankings to refocus on the impact products have, which the mothership says accounts for 53 percent of their total yearly carbon emissions. The next largest carbon imprint not fully accounted by green group’s methodologies is the impact of manufacturing — 38 percent of the total according to Apple — another where both Dell and HP fail to fully account for the damage they and their customers do to the environment.
“We’re not being intellectually honest with ourselves if we don’t deal with the products that we make,” says Apple COO Tim Cook.
And, that’s the source of my general contempt for Greenpeace and their ilk, which ranked HP and Dell above others, including Apple, for years based on their promises and skewed reporting rather than the actual, measurable impacts they and their products are having. To me, that means holding HP, Dell, Apple and everyone else to their word by performing actual testing on products actually being used in the real world.
Doing the real science is a lot harder and less glamorous than hanging off the side of bridge, but it’s the only way to sort the real green wheat from the marketing chaff…
What’s your take?
Related Posts:
September 25th, 2009
I agree. Action that comes in the form of visible protests, hanging signs, banging bongo drums, and finger pointing has always been much easier than all the other processes of actually assessing and making environmental impact. Changing ourselves (i.e., oneself) is the hardest of all. Finger pointing at others is always easier.
The same goes for Greenpeace. Wouldn’t it be a hoot to have an organisation assess the environmental impact that Greenpeace as an organisation is having on the world? E.g., the cars they drive, the offices they have, the way they conduct their business, the type of electronics they use, etc. etc.
September 25th, 2009
Why not assess the impact all of those emergency vehicles and highly trained professionals “hanging around” waiting for the “protestors” to call it a day? Assess then bill…
September 25th, 2009
Man, I hate it when I get marketing chaff in my green wheat.