MacWorld doesn't like it green
Today is the start of the big MacWorld event in San Francisco, where thousands of Apple devotees gather to hear Steve’s words of wisdom. Those of you who have been paying attention will know Apple fans have been asking Apple to be a green leader.
We wanted to pay for a stand at MacWorld to spread the word for a green apple at the event. Unfortunately Paul Kent from the organisers turned down our application for a stand, only saying that the message for a green apple "didn’t fit" with MacWorld. Although MacWorld’s own brochure says 47 percent of visitors come to "keep up-to-date on industry trends/issues, the issue of e-waste and leading computer manufactures’ environmental policies are obviously not an issue MacWorld thinks its visitors should know about. MacWorld organisers didn’t even have the courtesy (or confidence?) to put their reasons for our refusal in writing.
If you want to know more you could try posting a question to the same Paul Kent who also runs the MacWorld blog. It sure could do with livening up…..
Even if the organisers don’t want us inside we’ll still be at MacWorld spreading the green apple message to Apple fans outside.
Over at the more lively Infiniteloop blog an article appear yesterday titled "EPA information should make GreenPeace red-faced over Apple targeting". It claims we don’t have our facts straight (this from folks who can't get the capitalization on Greenpeace right!) about Apple’s environmental record because they get... wait for it... silver ranking in the EPEAT procurement guide!
Ha! The EPA silver star is little more than a consolation prize which the US government hands out to corporations for complying with the law. And, to be honest, Apple really shouldn't be content with the Bush Administration stamp of approval. (Let's see, Bush gives the thumbs up to Nuclear Power, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and... Apple?) And since when is Apple content not to be Gold Star quality?
Our criteria are different, and more stringent. For example we want toxic PVC plastic eliminated, the EPEAT criteria allow it in parts less than 25g. (quick pop quiz - how many parts over 25g in an iPod nano?)
At least we do agree on the final line, Mary on Infiniteloop said "Apple also has a ways to go in being really "green." This is an area where Apple could innovate and really leave their competitors in the dust." Which sounds pretty similar to our site to me: "We're not asking for just "good enough." We want Apple to do that "amaze us" thing that Steve does at MacWorld: go beyond the minimum and make Apple a green leader."
So what will Steve say in his keynote tomorrow? Will he even mention the environment? Apple says:
We say:
Comments
Is there anything in the rumor that Greenpeace asked Apple to pay them money and when they refused you started talking them down?
Posted by: John | January 8, 2007 8:23 PM
"Our criteria are different, and more stringent. For example we want toxic PVC plastic eliminated, the EPEAT criteria allow it in parts less than 25g. (quick pop quiz - how many parts over 25g in an iPod nano?)"
Ok? How many? Do you know? How much PVC is there in a Nano? Do you know? No, you don't.
And give me a break. There is more PVC in one 50 foot garden hose than in all the iPod Nano's ever sold.
A Walmart store probably has half a million pounds of PVC on the shelves.
Posted by: zato | January 8, 2007 8:53 PM
"(this from folks who can't get the capitalization on Greenpeace right!)"
And this from folks who can't get the capitalization on Macworld right!!
Posted by: Twig | January 8, 2007 11:01 PM
There is no truth in the rumour that Greenpeace asks or takes money from any company of government.
This clear to anyone looking at the green my apple site or the main greenpeace site:
"Greenpeace is independent because we accept no money from companies or governments."
http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/questions.html#q4
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about
Posted by: tomD | January 9, 2007 12:30 PM
Thanks Tom for your great work. Keep up!! Who believes the Bush EPA anyway?
Posted by: juantxo | January 9, 2007 12:39 PM
Hi John
We don't even accept donations from corporations (or governments), for exactly the reason we would lose our ability to campaign objectively.
So - the rumour is utterly false and just the kind of thing that uninformed folk do to distract people from the real crux of the issue.
Posted by: Adele | January 9, 2007 12:57 PM
To Zato:
We campaign to get chemicals like PVC subsituted wherever possible, but e-waste and electronics are a big and growing issue, especially when the impacts move from the affluent West to poorer nations in Asia and Africa. So this particular campaign is focusing on this issue, with Apple as trendsetter.
How many garden hoses are dismantled and burnt by children in China when you're finished with them? How many garden hoses have a massive publicity machine behind them proclaiming environmental responsiblity? How many garden hoses have high-profile competitors who have already committed to phasing out dangerous chemicals in their products?
If you are actually concerned about PVC, rather than just trying to shoot down our campaign, why don't you do something about it?
Here's a good place to start:
www.pvcfree.org
Posted by: Adele | January 9, 2007 1:01 PM