Readers Write: Can Apple and the Tech Industry Be 'Green'? [AlterNet]

AlterNet, February 3, 2007 [Link]
Response to "Apple Computers: Fun For You, Toxic for the Environment", by AlterNet staff, with my response at the end.

Our readers questioned whether Apple deserved its low environmental rating from Greenpeace and what can be done to green the tech industry.

These days technology is so much a part of our lives that we sometimes forget to think about where it comes from -- and importantly, where it goes when we are done with it. This week we published a story by Jess Hemerly about Apple computers, which was recently ranked by Greenpeace at the bottom of the list of eco-friendly tech companies.

The story elicited a number of passionate responses from readers, some of whom felt the folks at Mac were unfairly targeted considering the rest of the industry's track record.

Greenman wrote:

Apple is certainly no worse than its peers, and is better than some, regarding the environment. Seriously, the idea that any computer is good for the environment is pretty crazy. There's nine times as many PC's as there are Apples in the trash heaps of the world, and there's not a nickel's worth of difference between an Apple carcass and a Dell carcass, I'd wager, in terms of harm to the environment.

As other posters have pointed out, what is needed for electronics and computers -- especially -- and for all products in general, is a pricing system that would include "cradle to grave" provisions for mitigating harm to the environment for the entire life of the product. Everything would quickly become of much higher quality, would last longer, and would be more expensive, too. That's the kind of carrot-and-stick regulation that government could impose, but doesn't for all the grubby reasons we are all too familiar with these days.

Other people also mentioned the issue of durability and thought that Apple's lifespan should be taken into consideration -- arguing that people go through their PCs quicker than their Macs.

In her article, Hemerly compared Apple's environmental policy to that of Dell, citing Dell's recent commitments to providing free recycling to their customers worldwide and their recent "Plant a Tree for Me" campaign that allows consumers to pay an extra $2 for their computer purchase to go towards reforestation.

But one reader said that that Dell's efforts were more symbolism than actually productive environmental efforts. Thoughtcriminal wrote:

Just because Dell allows you to make a $2 donation to a 'plant a tree campaign..." -- that makes them a responsible greenwashed company? What's needed is a generalized government-regulated e-waste recycling industry that provides safe working conditions; you could simply place a small tax on all computer and electronics gear sold in the U.S. to help fund such a program.

I mean, go down to your nursery, buy some trees, and plant them yourself -- your $2 feel-good donation to Dell is nothing but green marketing (that you get to pay for!)

Several other readers also thought that since Apple was abiding by the laws, they shouldn't be singled out for punishment, but did suggest that this is a problem that should be addressed with federal regulation.

TheGrunger wrote:

Dell may be marginally better than Apple -- but neither one is going to bend over backwards to do what is right if it cuts too far into their bottom line.

While I think it is valuable to point out things like this, unless they are actually breaking the law I don't see any value in singling out Apple or any other company. We cannot expect corporations to do the right thing (in any situation, environmental or otherwise) if there are not strict regulations in place to punish them harshly for doing the wrong thing.

The problem is the entire corporate system and the weak regulatory laws of our government -- that is where we should focus our efforts. That is the only way to force companies like Apple to pay attention.

While some people felt that it was the government's job to legislate change, others found the article helpful in letting consumers know that they can begin demanding that Apple and other companies, start doing more to protect the environment.

Ghoulman, a Mac user, wrote: "I think all the right points are put out in this article. Computers, and electronics in general, are a dirty little landfill secret ... I'm glad someone is upping the environmental anti."

Likewise LarryGroff wrote:

I am also a long time Mac and PC user who is very concerned about the environmental impact of my computers. I would agree with those who take Jess Hemerly to task for not investigating thoroughly enough about Apple's environmental record and the superficiality and grandstanding of Greenpeace's Green my Apple campaign.

However, Apple is a large corporation whose business goals are far ahead of any other concern, to think otherwise is naive. Apple is not a movement regardless of how we might wish it so. But it is good that Apple is getting the green lights blasted on its facade as it may prod them to indeed move ahead and make their environmental decisions even more carefully and boldly if they fear that their reputation and popularity are at risk.

Hemerly herself, responded to our readers' comments and asked that we see the bigger picture intended in her piece.

She wrote:

First, I can assure you that I did very thorough research that included conversations with both Apple and Greenpeace. The Apple spokesperson I talked to was very friendly but there was little room for discussion because that's simply how the company operates. She walked me through their site and I read everything. I wrote my piece based on the information I was provided. If Steve Jobs wants to sit down with me and talk about environmental policy and the Greenpeace campaign, I will jump at the chance. As it stands, that hasn't been presented as an option. The spokesperson from Apple directed me to the Roughly Drafted site, which is a great spin on things but it is, like my own piece, one writer's conclusions. As the reader, you are your own filter and it's up to you to choose what you want to accept or dismiss.

I do not envision Steve Jobs as some evil king looking down on a polluted world from his gleaming white polymer spire. I do envision Apple as a company of innovation and one that has in its own words asked people to "Think Different." And now that Greenpeace has decided to turn it around and ask them to do the same, everyone is up in arms. Is it because Greenpeace is the organization doing the asking? Greenpeace is not hurting Apple. Apple continues to gain market share and turn in record profits as a result of the Halo Effect the iPod spawned. Greenpeace is simply asking a company that champions innovation to pitch in and be as innovative when it comes to the environment.

Michael Dell and his company were used in this piece to contrast Apple's tight-lipped attitude toward environmental policy. Dell is not perfect and neither is Apple, or Nokia, or Fujitsu, or any of the companies who make the devices we take for granted everyday. They all have serious faults and questionable practices when it comes to various aspects of business. But is Dell bringing green ideas to the table? Absolutely. And a table full of ideas is where change begins.

Yes, better regulations should exist, and so should a litany of regulations that require all companies, technology and otherwise, to do more to help the environment. But given the political climate of the United States right now, it's unlikely that any progress will be made here anytime soon. Thus, Greenpeace has been forced to turn its efforts toward something that can produce results. Have we become so jaded that we are willing to give any company a bye just because it's "business as usual"?

Of course, Apple is not the only company contributing to the e-waste mess. But they are the only company that makes beautiful machines that people are willing to shell out extra money to carry with them for reasons ranging from cool factor to basic operation. Is it really so crazy to ask them to make their beautiful machines cleaner than the rest, to really go out and set the standard? They are not the "little guy" anymore. They're a serious contender and that becomes more evident every time they gain a percentage of the PC market share.

You ask me, "Why Apple?" I ask you, "Why NOT Apple?"

In the end, there is no doubt that the technology we use is toxic -- and that more can and should be done to ensure that it is made and disposed of as safely as possible. It is always easier to point to someone else to take the responsibility for making that happen -- but whether we want the government to regulate it or companies to prioritize it -- it is still up to us to make that happen.

Apple Computers: Fun for You, Toxic for the Environment [AlterNet]

AlterNet, January 30, 2007 [Link]

Apple positions itself as the technological haven for the hip, the progressive and the revolutionary. But when it comes to the environment, Apple is quite out of touch.

Before an audience of tech lovers, developers, and Mac enthusiasts, Steve Jobs unveiled the creation everyone has been speculating about for years: the iPhone. Fans hung on every word as the Apple CEO stood onstage during his keynote address at the Macworld Expo in San Francisco. Dressed in a black mock turtleneck, he told the rapt crowd about patents for polymers, innovative user interfaces and corporate partnerships.

Jobs went on for nearly two hours about how amazing and revolutionary his gadget will be. But he did not mention the company's environmental policy once.

Then again, who talks about environmental policy at an electronics fair? Michael Dell does. At the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas during the second week of January, the head of struggling Dell Computers raised the stakes for the entire PC industry: "I challenge every PC maker to join us in providing free recycling for every customer in every country ... all the time -- no exceptions," he said.

Jobs and the PR wizards at Apple have done a fantastic job of positioning the company as the technological haven for the hip, the progressive and the revolutionary. But when it comes to the environment, Apple is out of touch.

In December of 2006, Greenpeace released a report ranking the overall environmental policy of major technology companies. Dell was at the top but Apple found itself at the bottom. While top companies like Dell and Nokia have made great strides to eliminate the most toxic chemicals from their products and offer strong recycling programs, Apple has not.

"Today you can't recycle most of these products because you're recycling toxic waste," says Rick Hind, legislative director of the Greenpeace Toxic Campaign. "We're looking at it from a complete life cycle approach, from where we make these to where they end up. Twenty to 50 million tons of e-waste a year end up in China; that [e-waste] is endangering to migrant families trying to remove a very small percentage of the materials for recycling."

Following the release of the report, Greenpeace launched "GreenMyApple," a full-force PR campaign complete with an informational website that impressively mimics Apple's website. Activists distributed flyers outside of the Moscone Center during the full week of Macworld Expo. The group also altered the video of the famous Steve Jobs keynote address, creating their fantasy version of the keynote in which Jobs would announce that Apple plans not only to step up their environmental policies but will make environmental responsibility a part of the company's identity.

To date, Apple has done only what is legally required. They are in compliance with RoHS standards ("the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment"), which were put in place in the European Union in July 2006. Pressure from environmental groups like the Computer Take Back Campaign combined with changing legal standards forced Apple to come up with a recycling program that at least looked like it was green -- but that's about it.

Apple refuses to make "green" part of their image. Just finding the environmental section on its website requires either a search of the site or knowing that "apple.com/environment" will get you there. Among all of the tabs in the navigation bar at the top of the pages, "Environment" is nowhere to be found. "As their website shows, green can be turned into greenwash," says Hind. "What we're talking about is measuring them based on toxics and recycling that is a serious physical problem."

Apple spokesperson Kristin Huguet provided the official Apple response to the Greenpeace ranking and campaign: "We disagree with Greenpeace's rating and the criteria they chose. Apple has a strong environmental track record and has led the industry in restricting and banning toxic substances such as mercury, cadmium, hexavelent chromium, as well as many brominated flame retardants. We have also completely eliminated CRT monitors, which contain lead, from our product line. Apple desktops, notebooks, and displays, each score best in class in the new EPA ranking system EPEAT, which uses new international standards set by IEEE."

Apple contends that it is as green as it needs to be and supports that contention with the Silver medal it earned from the EPA's U.S. Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) back in July of 2006. But the sets of criteria used by Greenpeace and the EPA are very different.

For one, the EPA criteria apply to specific products and apply only to stateside programs. Greenpeace's criteria evaluate the company as a whole and are more critical. In a Jan. 12 article on IT Week's Green Business News, Scot Case, marketing director at EPEAT, said, "My initial reaction was that comparing the two systems was like comparing apples and oranges, but on closer inspection it is more like comparing apples and cows."

Yet Apple uses the EPEAT results to refute the Greenpeace grade. Obvious disparities aside, even though Apple did well by EPEAT standards, it still didn't earn a Gold medal. Shouldn't an industry leader strive to achieve the highest possible grade?

Through its "Think Different" campaign a few years ago, Apple positioned itself as the "alternative" computer manufacturer using pictures of idols ranging from Einstein to Gandhi. It targeted a particular segment of the consumer computer market, and to this day, many of its users remain loyal. Many of those users also happen to be socially, politically and environmentally conscious. Yet, Apple has been resistant to take the lead, and Jobs himself has been, at times, downright indignant.

In 2005, in the wake of criticism from environmental organization Silicon Valley Toxic Coalition, Jobs commented on Apple's being "singled out" and called it "bullshit." Barbara Kyle at the Computer Take Back Campaign, a group instrumental in the first push for Apple to establish a recycling program, says, "They're the company that 'thinks different.' We were puzzled all the way along with Apple's behavior."

Since Apple has only gone as far as it needs to, the company already has a lot of catching up to do in order to keep up with other companies in the market who make green policy a priority.

On Jan. 10, 2007, Dell announced that it had teamed up with the Conservation Fund and carbonfund.org to offer a program called "Plant a Tree for Me." When a new Dell computer is purchased, the consumer can opt to add an extra $2 to the cost of the computer. That money will be turned over by Dell to its environmental partners and be dedicated to reforestation. Dell also already offers free recycling of all of its old systems as well as other brands' systems to new Dell customers. Those not buying new Dell systems or recycling old ones can send their e-waste to Dell to be recycled for less than the California sales tax on a new MacBook: $10 per box under 50 lbs.

Compare Dell's program to that of Apple. Before 2005, Apple's recycling programs were virtually nonexistent. Recycling an old Mac meant finding other uses, like turning them into MacQuariums, iMacquariums, or, for G4 Cube owners, Cubequariums.

It has since developed recycling programs in the continental United States and only in foreign countries where mandated by law. It accepts computers only when you buy a new Mac from an Apple retail store or through Apple's online store, and the box you click before checkout is not easy to find.

"It's one thing to say that we're going to have another take-back program, but it's another to say that we're really going to try to make people use it," says Kyle. In addition to the poorly publicized recycling program, Apple is no longer making products to last. "Recycling should be the second thing you do after reusing and extending the life span," says Hind. "That is not an environmental obstacle, it's an intentional obsolescence designed to sell more products."

While Bill Gates publicizes his dedication to philanthropy and Michael Dell rolls out environmentally conscious policy after policy, Steve Jobs is prank-calling Starbucks with the iPhone. And now Greenpeace is calling Apple out on its hypocrisy.

"It's a great irony that the company that markets itself as revolutionary is actually the most reactionary on these policies compared to all of the other major companies," comments Hind. "If once a big user says 'I want it toxic-free,' the engineers and other suppliers are going to scramble to make that; they want that customer. It is crucial that the corporate policies of these companies take the lead."

It is the contradiction between image and action, though, that gives Greenpeace hope that Apple will eventually come around. "That kind of contradiction can't be sustained if you continue with that kind of marketing profile," says Hind. "They have a lot of customers who are critical thinkers, and they have a lot of future customers who are critical thinkers. Don't try to look green, be green."

Barbara Kyle is also hopeful. "If Apple is really willing to make the commitment and actually follow through with it on a number of things -- on takeback, on green design, on any number of things -- they have a chance to shape people's consumer behavior in a way that I think other companies are really challenged to do," says Kyle. "Apple can make this stuff cool."

— Jess Hemerly, 2007