4 posts tagged “environmentalism”

From Greenpeace: Tasty news from Apple!

We've seen the enthusiasm with which Apple fans have greeted our campaign to make Apple a green leader. They've made clear what they want-- an Apple which isn't just skin-deep green, but green to the core. One that creates products free from the most hazardous chemicals, that they can buy and return with a clear conscience, secure in the knowledge that Apple will re-use or recycle them responsibly, and that won't end up in scrapyards or add to the mountains of e-waste that the electronics industry has created.

Apple already is and has been a leader in developing Green technology in consumer electronics. Despite this, Greenpeace ranked Apple close to last on their list of green-friendly tech companies simply because Apple had not set deadlines for their commitments. Lets be clear: Greenpeace was upset because Apple hadn't said they were working on green technology, despite their actions that actually do. From Steve Jobs' article:

In one environmental group’s recent scorecard, Dell, HP and Lenovo all scored higher than Apple because of their plans (or “plans for releasing plans” in the case of HP). In reality, Apple is ahead of all of these companies in eliminating toxic chemicals from its products.

I'm looking at you Greenpeace.

It seems to me that Greenpeace's protests against Apple were aimed at targeting Apple simply because they're Apple. Apple makes news, Dell and HP are boring.  Marching outside of retail stores, where no one but the employees suffer, is equally assholy.

Greenpeace: Fuck off.

Steve Jobs

Today Steve Jobs released yet another open letter to the public, similar to his "Thoughts on Music" but this time he is addressing naysayers in the environmental movement. Lately, Greenpeace (and likely others, but I'm certain about Greenpeace) have been attacking Apple, especially their iPod player, for their environmental policies. From where I sit, little of it was based on fact and they seemed to be just making a stink because if you make a stink about Dell nobody gives a rats ass. Personally, I find the environmental movement politically hijacked by the left and far too unwilling to embrace technologies that will actually make a difference. But that's just my opinion.

Steve Jobs on Apple's environmental policies:

Apple has been criticized by some environmental organizations for not being a leader in removing toxic chemicals from its new products, and for not aggressively or properly recycling its old products. Upon investigating Apple’s current practices and progress towards these goals, I was surprised to learn that in many cases Apple is ahead of, or will soon be ahead of, most of its competitors in these areas. Whatever other improvements we need to make, it is certainly clear that we have failed to communicate the things that we are doing well.

Apple's progressive use of technology is a great example of what unrestrained innovation brings you: better products for a better world.

UPDATE: Also see this translation from PR speak of Jobs' letter, which I mostly agree with (mostly). Especially this part:

Dear Greenpeace,

Fuck you.

Love,
Steve.

Lots of people have a knee-jerk reaction that electric vehicles are better than their hybrid or gas powered counterparts. However, you have to be really careful making this judgment. According to this life-cycle assessment on the issue, if your electric car is powered up by electricity generated by coal, you're not gaining anything. Except, y'know, a quite ride. The articles recommendation? If you're not sure where your area gets its electricity, go with a hybrid:

But certainly the most important lesson of this LCA is the importance of the source of electricity used to power an electric car. Coal-based electricity leads to CO2 emissions nearly as high as for a gasoline-powered car! Yet hydropower results in dramatically lower CO2 emissions. If you want to make an impact on CO2 emissions with your next car purchase, you need to know how the electricity in your region is generated before making your choice. And if in doubt, the best advice is once again to go hybrid, as we indicated in the last issue of the Leaf.

Stewart Brand

Here is the article by Stewart Brand in Technology Review that the NY Times article was based on. Some points on GE crops, population growth and nuclear power:

Nuclear certainly has problems -- accidents, waste storage, high construction costs, and the possible use of its fuel in weapons. It also has advantages besides the overwhelming one of being atmospherically clean. The industry is mature, with a half-century of experience and ever improved engineering behind it. Problematic early reactors like the ones at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl can be supplanted by new, smaller-scale, meltdown-proof reactors like the ones that use the pebble-bed design. Nuclear power plants are very high yield, with low-cost fuel. Finally, they offer the best avenue to a "hydrogen economy," combining high energy and high heat in one place for optimal hydrogen generation.

The storage of radioactive waste is a surmountable problem (see "A New Vision for Nuclear Waste," December 2004). Many reactors now have fields of dry-storage casks nearby. Those casks are transportable. It would be prudent to move them into well-guarded centralized locations. Many nations address the waste storage problem by reprocessing their spent fuel, but that has the side effect of producing material that can be used in weapons. One solution would be a global supplier of reactor fuel, which takes back spent fuel from customers around the world for reprocessing. That's the kind of idea that can go from "Impractical!" to "Necessary!" in a season, depending on world events.

The environmental movement has a quasi-religious aversion to nuclear energy. The few prominent environmentalists who have spoken out in its favor -- Gaia theorist James Lovelock, Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, Friend of the Earth Hugh Montefiore -- have been privately anathematized by other environmentalists. Public excoriation, however, would invite public debate, which so far has not been welcome.

Nuclear could go either way. It would take only one more Chernobyl-type event in Russia's older reactors (all too possible, given the poor state of oversight there) to make the nuclear taboo permanent, to the great detriment of the world's atmospheric health. Everything depends on getting new and better nuclear technology designed and built.

There is also this interview with Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, mentioned by Brand in the passage above, on an old episode of Penn Radio. Patrick Moore has been vilified in environmentalist movement for supporting capitalist solutions to environmental issues.