I was upset with Apple after Greenpeace attacked them a few months ago. Apple, they say, uses harmful materials in many of their consumer electronics. Just recently, however, the EPA rated Apple's products as the *most* eco-friendly in the entire industry. How do they commensurate that?

This most recent act is simply bizarre, as not only does Apple have a recycling program for *all* iPods (except a small handful licensed to HP which HP is responsible for), the program even gives an incentive for recycling in the form of 10% off the cost of a new iPod, whether or not the old one works. The recycling plan has been active for more than a year at this point - all it requires is that you drop it off at a brick-and-mortar Apple Store and ask for it to be recycled. And if you can't do that much, you certainly aren't making much of an effort.

If anyone works on behalf of Greenpeace, I'd love to hear your perspective on this. I work for Apple, but I'm a Greenie before an Apple slave - what the dilly?

I really think Greenpeace are doing some great stuff here. I know they receive a fair amount of criticism for some of their work, but this is a really positive way to encourage Apple to make some changes.

Hi Peter,

well, I work with Greenpeace International and I’m co-author of the ranking. The EPA ranking is nothing new to us, and it is around for some time already (funny to see Apple coming out with it half a year after their computer were ranked, one can speculate why – may be because Greenpeace presence at Macworld Expo?).

To compare the EPA ranking and our’s is simply comparing apples with pears. Greenpeace ranks on corporate policy and practice (across the whole product portfolio) and EPA on single products.

EPA ranking is most probably (it is not explicit) NOT global. This means that their requirements to the companies are not global. Let’s take the example of an iPod you mentioned. I of course know that Apple is taking back their products back in US when you buy a new one (but excluding Hawaii and Alaska). Yes they do it also for example in EU – but they have to because the law requires it. But what we want from all the companies (including Apple) is to take back GLOBALY – anywhere where their products are sold. Folks in Argentina or India are not second-class people and should be treated the same way (and have their environment protected the same way).

For some third party comparison of the ranking you can read this piece from ENDS (it is on our web page because otherwise the people would have to pay to see it). http://www.greenpeace.org/international/assets/binaries/endsreport

What I would like see Apple to do? To commit to (and start implementing) a global takeback of their products and of course to bring out the products without PVC and all BFR’s.

The EPA silver star???

It's really not much more than a pat on the head for complying with US law, and US law is weak compared to European law and an extremely low benchmark against the Greenpeace criteria.

One of the differences that accounts for Apple's high ranking notebooks in the EPA rank is that Dell and other manufactures get no points for phasing out PVC and brominated fire retardants: something Apple still hasn't done or even committted to do.

That counts for points in the Greenpeace ranking and raises Dell and others while bringing Apple down.

And besides, since when is a silver star good enough for Apple when there's a gold to be had? They ought to be innovating at the leading edge, not mumbling about compliance.

Full disclosure: I work for Greenpeace.