On Oct 15, 2007, at 9:37 PM, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
It is one thing to make hazardous materials when more envorinmentally
friendly alternatives are available, it is quite another to do so
right
after saying that you won't.
These things take time. I don't think Apple ever claimed that
immediately after their statement they'd suddenly have 100%
environmentally friendly products across the board. Per Apple's
environment page (http://www.apple.com/environment/), they're
claiming complete elimination of PVC from their products by the end
of 2008. Last I checked it's only 2007.
The iPhone was not developed overnight. I don't know enough about
electronics manufacturing to be sure, but I suspect that changing
these things takes time. Props to Nokia for getting it done in all
their products, but if you read the between the lines of the next
sentence ("Motorola and Sony Ericsson have already[sic] products on
the market with BFR free components...") it seems that Motorola and
SE still have a way to go themselves, so why isn't Greenpeace giving
them a hard time? And why the hard-on for the iPhone? If Greenpeace
were trying to do as much good as possible, shouldn't they be going
after the iPod, which has sold a hundredfold more units than the iPhone?
It seems that Apple may have actually done itself a disservice by
making such a strong initial statement about their products and the
environment. Now, in addition to having to live up to their stated
goals, they also have to live up to fantasy goals created by
organizations who decide from the outside what Apple "could have done."
--
Joshua Penix http://www.binarytribe.com
Binary Tribe Linux Integration Services & Network Consulting
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
