Greenpeace

Hey check this out Apparently the report that Greenpeace put together cost $50,000 and unequivocally proves that their original slander against Apple being and environmental laggard was totally unfounded. Despite this, it looks like Greenpeace is continuing to dig at Apple on the content of non-banned TBBPA in an internal fan assembly. But even their own report (page 11) says that they only managed to find 'trace' amounts. In fact the amounts are so low that you could quadruple the quantity of TBBPA that Greenpeace found and still be legally within a European definition of a banned substance. http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/ABC6DFDA-9DE9-4EA8-A269-65EAAB628676.html The European Commission also recently published this report in June saying that there are no detrimental effects associated with the flame retardant TBBPA. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/newsalert/pdf/27na2.pdf#search=%22EU%20TBBPA%20risk%20assessment%22 As a long term contributor to Greenpeace campaigns, should I be concerned about the way Greenpeace is spending my money. There are far too many important, pressing toxic issues out there for Greenpeace to be spending our money on the wrong campaign!!! Answers please????

I'm confused. Greenpeace's "toxic technology" campaign slams Apple as an environmental laggard. But I'm seeing growing evidence on the web (provided by a materials specialist from the IT sector) that Apple has the strictest substances restrictions in the industry, it just doesn't publish it due to its world famous secrecy around product design. It has also been brought to light that HP and Dell are not as great as the Greenpeace ranking system makes them out to be. HP and Dell are still shipping lead containing PC's and CRT's on a global scale. Apple seems to be the only company that has eliminated lead and heavy lead containing CRT's worldwide. Looking more closely at Greenpeace's scoring system it appears that companies scored highest when they gave future commitments to eliminate PVC and bromine. Apple gets a low score for not making these commitments. Surely, a distant commitment from a company that can't even meet the EU RoHS substance ban directive is a commitment that shouldn't be ranked. Nokia gets top marks from Greenpeace for PVC commitments, but its 2006 substances specification doesn't even ban PVC http://www.nokia.com/A4126711. Apple has been ranked by the US Environmental Protection Agency as having the top environmental performing desktops, portables and monitors in the industry. Perhaps Apple just didn't want to give Greenpeace a commitment because it felt that design actions speak louder than words. I'm sticking with Apple products, until I see a ranking system that tells me what is "actually happening" in practice, rather than what large corporations say "might happen in the future". Chloe