Lenovo is the greenest consumer electronics giant while Apple (AAPL) turned brown in Greenpeace’s latest ranking of companies according to their e-waste recycling policies and their use of toxic materials in their computers, mobile phones and other gadgets. The Chinese computer maker, which now own IBM’s (IBM) personal computer division, won kudos from the environmental group for taking back old computers for recycling and for reporting the volume of waste it recycles as a percentage of its sales. “Given the growing mountains of e-waste in China – both imported and domestically generated – it is heartening to see a Chinese company taking the lead, and assuming responsibility at least for its own branded waste,” said Greenpeace official Iza Kruszewska in a statement. “The challenge for the industry now is to see who will actually place greener products on the market.” Greenpeace ranked Apple last for what it calls its "failure to take a green initiative." The enviro group has campaigned against Apple (see ad above) in recent years but the company has denied the group’s charges that it is among the least environmentally friendly of the major consumer electronics giants. But unlike Dell (DELL) and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), Apple has not gone out of its way to portray itself as clean and green. Nokia (NOK) took the No. 2 spot on the Greenpeace list while Sony Ericsson (SNE) came in third, Dell fourth and Samsung fifth. Greenpeace highlighted Sony’s efforts to remove toxic materials like phthalates and beryllium from its products.
Bad Apple: iPod Maker Ranks Last on GreenPeace Green List
April 3, 2007 by Todd Woody
Green Wombat 
The ridiculous part of these comments on Apple is that they recieve no credit for the millions of CD and tons of CD packaging material that are not needed and eventually saved from going to the landfills because of their I-tunes business model. If this change in comsumer behavior, initiated by Apple, is factored in, they should get a gold medal from the green people.
They are full of poo… Checkout this report out of Business Week.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070329_721408.htm?campaign_id=yhoo
Donny, do you mean to say that Apple created the MP3 and decidedly designed it as a method to reduce waste in the world!!! Holy crap, I’ve missed the entire point of the iTunes model, I thought it was to make money off the coat tails of a popular trend… man am I ever stupid…
I’ve worked for companies that supply Apple, Lenovo, Dell, IBM and HP in the past. Believe me the US companies put a lot more credence in their RoHS (Hazardous substance reduction) programs than Lenovo. I predict that Lenovo will be under heavy cost pressure as they try to maintain their place in the PC hierarchy and the IBM programs they are coasting on now will fall to the wayside. Sad but true …. the Business Week article has it right.
Just FYI, Apple has a computer recycling program too.
Circumstancial evidence: I bought 6 Lenovo laptops for my small business, and they consume 20 watts each when fully operational. That’s damn good, compared to the power-sucking apples our art people have. Why are all those cute glowing lights necesary when the apples aren’t even turned on? Steve is an inspirational guy in many ways, but I think he’s more theatrical than practical. How long will people forgive him for being part of the problem?
Apple does not have a computer recycling program. It only recycles ipods.
When Apple’s bread and butter for making money, the iPod, is a product specifically designed to be replaced (read thrown away) every 18 months how on earth could anyone justify a green image for the company?
While I a agree that iTunes does indeed make the pressing and packaging of CDs a moot endeavor, one needs to take into account the masses of iPods, and the materials contained within, piling up at waste disposal sites around the world. This truth should entirely countermand any gold star awards from environmental groups or individuals the company (or fans thereof) think they are entitled to.
We live in a society of ever increasing ease of use throw away products that Apple continues to promote, for profit (of which few will ever see the benefit). The very crux of the environmentalists argument is limited natural resources cannot sustain this blatant disregard for recycling or reuse of these types of products.
But Bob, didn’t Apple pretty much CREATE the digital music industry (Not the technology – the INDUSTRY)? So let’s imagine the world without the IPod. All those kids with 1000 songs on their IPod might have done the same thing by bying 100 CD’s. CD’s that would have been created (Haz chemicals), transported (energty waste) and eventually ended up in landfill. So what did the Ipod actually replace? The portable CD player which has arguably more environmental impact than the IPod.
So aren’t you really suggesting that I’m more likely to throw away my $300 IPod than my $20 CD player? Not likely.
Somehow I see a net positive gain for the environment here. Bash away though.
To Matt B: you can’t compare the energy usage of professional graphics systems (Mac Pros or G5 towers probably) to laptops. My 2GHz macbook has been drawing exactly 16 watts as I write this. If you compare COMPARABLE systems, you’ll find that the Apple is almost always more efficient than any PC. The 20 inch, 2GHz iMac draws only around 72W normal load, and that includes the monitor and peripherals. It uses 1W while sleeping.
As far as being disposable, Apple computers last much longer than PCs. They just keep kicking. I’ve got a 9 year old iMac that still works great. In general, they only get old because of speed limitations, because the field of personal computer technology is changing so fast.
And finally, to put the other misinformation to rest, Apple has had a recycling program for ages. Get informed, people! The reason consumers most people don’t recycle their old macs? Because they still work perfectly; they get re-used (ie. turned into “kids” computers or traded on ebay). It takes about a decade for them to become obsolete, then they can be recycled. Remember, it’s far better to reuse than recycle.
As far as toxic chemicals, they do very well. Check out http://www.apple.com/environment/materials/
Apple has always had its uninformed, emotional antagonists, and greenpeace seems to be one of them.