×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lenovo Tops Eco-Friendly Ranking

ScuttleMonkey posted about 7 years ago | from the laptop-hugging dept.

Businesses 94

gollum123 writes to tell us that according to a recent list compiled by Greenpeace, Lenovo has topped the list of "eco-friendly" companies scoring an 8 out of a possible 10 while Apple fell to the bottom of the list with only a 2.7. "Iza Kruszewska, Greenpeace international toxics campaigner, said the industry had made some positive steps in the last 12 months with firms starting to act rather than just issue statements of intent. Of the 14 companies profiled, said Ms Kruszewska, nine now score more than five out of 10."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

94 comments

But apples grow on trees (4, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | about 7 years ago | (#18612493)

But apples grow on trees, you can't get any greener than that.

Mind you, think of the poor turtles murdered each year for Steve Jobs' wardrobe.

Re:But apples grow on trees (1)

biocute (936687) | about 7 years ago | (#18612567)

But apples grow on trees, you can't get any greener than that.

Depends if you're talking about red apples or green apples. The latter is usually greener.

Apple Inc usually produces black or albino apples, not good.

All you do is promise you'll be good (5, Insightful)

saikou (211301) | about 7 years ago | (#18612589)

Say, in 2009 and you get the top billing [sci-tech-today.com].
Greenpeace is weird. But we already know that :)

Re:All you do is promise you'll be good (3, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 7 years ago | (#18612925)

The article you linked to was fluff. To summarize, it says "I feel Apple is green, Steve Jobs is a vegeterian and Michael Dell eats meat. Why is Apple ranked so low?"

Read Greenpeace's report here. [greenpeace.org]

It's quite simple why Apple's on the bottom of the list. All the other companies have done something to green up. Sony Erricson's eliminated PVC & BFRs. Dell's adopted a worldwide takeback policy & committed to a date for elimination of PVC & BFRs. Lenovo's also got a takeback policy & reports on recycling as a percentage of sales (as opposed to Apple's "just trust us" policy.

Re:All you do is promise you'll be good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18613359)

In other words, Dell got high marks for saying they'd shape up.

Re:All you do is promise you'll be good (2, Informative)

grouchomarxist (127479) | about 7 years ago | (#18613491)

Greenpeace's claims have been analyzed in this BusinessWeek article [businessweek.com] and in a series of articles at roughlydrafted.com [roughlydrafted.com]. One conclusion both sources make is that Greenpeace applies different criteria to different companies and seems to be targeting Apple due to the company's visibility.

Roughlydrafted.com??? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18614679)

Citing an Apple fanboi site like roughlydrafted shows what a moron you are. The only question is, who has more fantasies about have sex with Steve Jobs - you or the idiots on roughlydrafted.

Re:All you do is promise you'll be good (1)

turing_m (1030530) | about 7 years ago | (#18614787)

It does sound rather like an extortion racket... threaten whoever has the most to lose. I wonder if cash payments or expensive gifts would improve Apple's rankings, if they were given to the right people.

Re:All you do is promise you'll be good (4, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 7 years ago | (#18615945)

Greenpeace's claims have been analyzed in this BusinessWeek article and....

That business week article is the same article the OP posted - just syndicated on a different website. Do you read the threads you're responding to?

....and in a series of articles at roughlydrafted.com.

Roughly drafted? Sorry. They have no credibility after being busted spamming digg [googlepages.com]

One conclusion both sources make is that Greenpeace applies different criteria to different companies and seems to be targeting Apple due to the company's visibility.

Errrr, I didn't read that conclusion in the Business week article. Can you please explain how Greenpeace is applying different criteria to different companies?

I don't get it. (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | about 7 years ago | (#18614253)

If you read the MDDS of Intel CPUs [pcnalert.com], you will find that all Intel CPUs contain BFRs. Do those commitments about eliminating BFRs mean those company like DELL will stop using Intel CPU?

Re:I don't get it. (0, Troll)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 7 years ago | (#18618939)

find that all Intel CPUs contain BFRs. Do those commitments about eliminating BFRs mean those company like DELL

How about Apple stop using BFRs in their portable line? Nokia & Sony/Ericsson mangaged to.

Oooooooh right. We should only compare Apple to Dell.

Re:All you do is promise you'll be good (1)

NtroP (649992) | about 7 years ago | (#18620297)

It's quite simple why Apple's on the bottom of the list. All the other companies have done something to green up.

Have you ever received an Apple product in the mail? The efficient packaging alone must save a ton on the amount of shipping space (and thereby the number of ships, planes, trucks, etc. to ship their products world-wide) and raw materials required. Add to that the fact that, in general my Apple products stay useful almost twice as long as the Dells I have and I'd say that if you take the whole package, Apple is far "greener", FWIW, than many other computer companies. Also, I still have all of the packaging for my Apple's (up to and including my old dual-G4 500MHz tower) because they are small, durable and easily stored. On top of that, I know that when I eBay my older Macs, I'll need them. My Dell packaging hits the landfill the next day. I've never even considered trying to keep them for repackaging. People will accept an old PC backed in newspaper and packing-peanuts without thinking twice.

So from my limited experience, Apple's products, if not Apple themselves, would seem to be pretty green when taken as a whole. Also, in my opinion, Green Peace has no credibility. They are a hype and marketing machine, plain and simple. Right about now I think they know that by putting Apple dead-last they get the most hype and attention. I wonder if they put their money where their mouth is and only buy products from Lenovo. I think they all have their Birkenstocks on too tight and their roaches wrapped too loosely .

Re:All you do is promise you'll be good (1)

4e617474 (945414) | about 7 years ago | (#18615283)

Apple would rather get bottom marks on a ranking than tell you anything about what it plans to do in 2009. These are the people who wanted a modern day Sacco-Venzetti trial over someone finding out what their service manual said on the subject of thermal grease. They will *not* be telling you about their manufacturing processes in advance - even when they get a letter warning them that the alternative is a little bad press. That's their call, let them live with the consequence. No one's going to care in three months anyway when the rumors of the 3-D Holographic iPod start floating around.

Toxic substances? (2, Interesting)

biocute (936687) | about 7 years ago | (#18612623)

From the FTA: "However, Lenovo lost marks for still using some of the most toxic substances to make its products. Other firms in the top five, such as Sony-Ericsson, have already eliminated toxic chemicals including brominated fire retardants, polyvinyl chloride, beryllium and phthalates from their factories."

So can we really say Lenovo tops the list?

But everyone knows (3, Funny)

arcite (661011) | about 7 years ago | (#18612715)

... absorbing a daily dose of toxic chemicals into the tips of your fingers strengthens the immune system, thus making us less vulnurable to the common cold. It's all explalined in the manual, somehwere near the back in smallish print.

Re:Toxic substances? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18612813)

They probably "donated" the most to Greenpeace, so yes.

Re:Toxic substances? (5, Funny)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 7 years ago | (#18613471)

However, Lenovo lost marks for still using some of the most toxic substances to make its products.

Yeah, but they're doing that in China, which as we all know, Doesn't Count.

Re:Toxic substances? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18622535)

Don't you get it? If you die in China, you die in real life!

Re:Toxic substances? (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 7 years ago | (#18638779)

Of course you do, it's just that when you die in China nobody cares.

Same with Rwanda, American coal mines, Russia during WW2, the Sudan (at least until about a year ago) or Israeli civilians.

But... (3, Insightful)

Lord Satri (609291) | about 7 years ago | (#18612629)

I had such a conversation with friends recently... does such analysis includes:
- The time computers can be effectively used (Apple computers have a significantly longer lifespan on my desks than the PCs)
- The waste of time / energy required to manage the computer (security, virus, etc)
- The user-efficiency related to the operating system itself
- The differences in sleep modes and energy consumption at low usage
- The longevity and eco-friendliness of laptop batteries
- etc etc etc.

See also this previous /. story [slashdot.org] and Green My Apple [greenpeace.org]. In short, I believe not everything is black or white, it's rather grey. Of course, I agree that all computer producers should improve their eco-friendliness, but measuring this eco-friendliness is not a simple task.

Re:But... (3, Insightful)

Qwavel (733416) | about 7 years ago | (#18613011)


Agreed. Measuring eco-friendliness is difficult and fuzzy.

On the other hand, companies only make changes to their environmental practises if they are afraid of (A) a financial penalty (ie. getting caught breaking the law), or (B) bad publicity.

And that's why we need studies like this. But whenever these studies appear, the company and its supporters look for ways to undermine the study and its source. This is a constant. If consumers buy into this, then the company escapes from having to make any changes. Consumers must accept that, as imperfect as the study and its source are, it is an opportunity to put pressure on the company to improve.

In related news... (3, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | about 7 years ago | (#18613233)

Apple computers have a significantly longer lifespan on my desks than the PCs
...and Porsches have significantly longer lifespans than Fords. One of the main factors people take into account when replacing something is how much the replacement will cost.


So, yes, if you consider the total environmental impact of a company, those with more expensive products will have a smaller effect. But this says nothing about the relative impact per unit sold, which is what really matters when you evaluate how "eco-friendly" a corporation is.

But Macs aren't more expensive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18613377)

N/T

Re:But Macs aren't more expensive. (1)

toddestan (632714) | about 7 years ago | (#18629341)

How about the used market? Used PCs are extremely cheap, if not often free. There is little reason to mess around with an old P2 PC system, even if it works, when you can get used P3 and P4 systems for dirt cheap or free. On the other hand, the used Mac market is insane, with crusty old iMacs selling for over $100, when I have considerably more powerful PC systems in my closet I can't even give away.

Re:In related news... (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | about 7 years ago | (#18614583)

What evidence do you offer when making the claim that Porsches have significantly longer lifespans than Fords?

There are a lot of durable old Ford trucks on the road. Porsches lead coddled lives.

And furthermore, any analogy that says Porsche=Apple, Ford=PC belongs on apple.slashdot.org not here. This is regular Slashdot, not RDF Slashdot.

Re:In related news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18618903)

Well, you bring up an excellent point. Maybe if a car looks cool, people will have a natural tendency to treat it better and thus it will last longer. So maybe good visual design actually makes things more eco-friendly? An interesting thought to be sure.

Re:In related news... (1)

NeMon'ess (160583) | about 7 years ago | (#18616675)

Eco-impact per unit sold isn't the right metric. Eco-impact per user, is. If a Mac gets used twice as long as a Dell, the eco-impact of the Mac should get halved when comparing it to the Dell.

Re:In related news... (3, Interesting)

Sunrun (553558) | about 7 years ago | (#18616889)

"Apple computers have a significantly longer lifespan on my desks than the PCs"

...and Porsches have significantly longer lifespans than Fords. One of the main factors people take into account when replacing something is how much the replacement will cost.

So, yes, if you consider the total environmental impact of a company, those with more expensive products will have a smaller effect. But this says nothing about the relative impact per unit sold, which is what really matters when you evaluate how "eco-friendly" a corporation is.



Except that "relative impact per unit sold" is actually largely meaningless when comparing one company which sells ~3.5 million PCs/year to one which sells an order of magnitude more than that per year. The one that sells 10 times more product must also be 10 times "greener" -- i.e. contain 1/10th the amount of pollutants -- in order to pollute less than the one that sells less.

That said, it's still in Apple's best interest overall to be or become the most aggressive at producing "green" hardware, especially in light of their rapid rise in popularity and hence public scrutiny.

- 'Drew

Re:But... (3, Informative)

fm6 (162816) | about 7 years ago | (#18613503)

Yes, it's a positive thing when a computer lasts longer and is easier to use. But does that outweigh Apple's refusal to move away from toxic chemicals in manufacturing? I think not.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18613595)

God do you Apple fanboys ever give up. Yes Apple isn't perfect, far from it.

Re:But... (3, Interesting)

Superfarstucker (621775) | about 7 years ago | (#18613923)

Repeating "Apple computers have a longer useful life" doesn't make it any truer. I've got a PII 233 that is a router (running m0n0wall). I've got a 1.2 GHz K7 (running linux) I use as a fileserver/repository (it originally had a 800 MHz K7 in it but I got an upgrade for free). That's some vintage equipment in my book.

In addition I have numerous left over components from machines long since gone which I could easily work into something servicable should the need arise. I think the exact opposite of what you're trying to argue is true. When a PPC Apple machine expires you'd be hard pressed to find a good source of cheap components to bring it back into action. There are so many cheap pc parts available people practically give them away.

Unless of course you're trying to imply that an Apple machine does more "work" per MHz, which is a laudable claim at best.

XP and linux both run just fine on my notebook with the processor throttled to 600 MHz. The disk subsystem is also in line (1.8" 4200 RPM drive with ~10 MB/s sequential reads), and it only has 512 MiB of memory.

Go have fun burning candles on those faulty G4 iBook logic boards hoping to resolder the BGA.

Re:But... (1)

Moofie (22272) | about 7 years ago | (#18621191)

"There are so many cheap pc parts available people practically give them away."

Well, that might be true, but it's not necessarily indicative of the way computers actually get used by regular people. If Bubba's current $350 PC is full o' crapware, is he going to pay ThinkGeek $300 to fail to fix it, or is he going to go buy another $350 PC?

Re:But... (1)

edschurr (999028) | about 7 years ago | (#18616995)

Not that this is indicative of any trend, but I ran Windows 2000 for about 5 years 4 months, on a 1200MHZ Athlon Thunderbird. It feels a bit slow in comparison to the new one I got for free, but I could have run it forever. Now that I'm using GNU/Linux and KDE, but lots of small S-Lang/curses-type applications, I can't imagine ever upgrading. It'll probably be because I want more processing power for my experimental personal programs before a must-have new paradigm comes along.

Re:But... (1)

subl33t (739983) | about 7 years ago | (#18625543)

- The waste of time / energy required to manage the computer (security, virus, etc)
- The user-efficiency related to the operating system itself
- The differences in sleep modes and energy consumption at low usage


These points only apply to the OS, not the hardware manufacturer...

As a thinkpad owner; its so obvious (4, Funny)

arcite (661011) | about 7 years ago | (#18612665)

It's simple really. Thinkpads are so well made that they never need to be replaced.

Incidently mine is in the shop with a dead processor cooling fan unit, soon to be replaced. Just testing the faith in the black monolith, thats all.

Re:As a thinkpad owner; its so obvious (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | about 7 years ago | (#18612823)

black monoliths are ok, but the crowds of monkeys throwing sticks in the air that turn into spaceships can be a real inconvenience some days....

as i write this on an ibook g3 circa may 2001 (0, Troll)

hildi (868839) | about 7 years ago | (#18612873)

Screw you hippie, i have never met a wintel machine that could keep up with the times 6 years later. if it hasnt been slathered in viruses, then every 'new' program winds up grinding the machine to a halt.

Re:as i write this on an ibook g3 circa may 2001 (1)

winkydink (650484) | about 7 years ago | (#18613055)

I have an Thinkpad X21 that was purchased in early 2000 that's just fine for basic computing tasks, surfing, email, etc... so you know not of what you speak.

Re:as i write this on an ibook g3 circa may 2001 (1)

lekikui (1000144) | about 7 years ago | (#18622609)

Who said I'm going to be running Windows on it?

Stick a lightweight Linux install on it, probably Slackware, and Plan 9, and I'm good to go. This box is a 10 year old beige box, and it's running Ubuntu fine.

Incidentally, I'm looking at switching to a Thinkpad T30 sometime. Cheapish, a slight step up on the processor and disk space, and portable.

Re:As a thinkpad owner; its so obvious (1)

robogun (466062) | about 7 years ago | (#18614133)

True enough, but I notice the R series all have their USB ports falling out after only a couple years of use.

Re:As a thinkpad owner; its so obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18614307)

We just got the new T60s at my work, and let me tell you, they're not like the Thinkpads of old. I feel as if I could break one by just touching it. My friend has one of the tablets, and that thing is absolutely solid. Guess it's hit or miss with 'em.

I understand the humor of the parent, just putting forth my observation of the new ones.

Bah. (0, Troll)

His Shadow (689816) | about 7 years ago | (#18612747)

Greenpeace has no credibility on this subject. They target Apple for the pure media blizzard it generates. They give hi marks to marketing bullshit on company websites and dismiss international standards which companies like Apple have already met or exceeded.

Re:Bah. (2, Interesting)

Qwavel (733416) | about 7 years ago | (#18612887)

What? No this is terrible PR for Greenpeace. All over the world Apple owners are grabbing at any anti-Greenpeace thought or news they can get to rationalize their love for Apple. I mean, Apple is cool (isn't that what the ads tell us?) so if Greenpeace disses Apple, Greenpeace must be making it up for propaganda reasons.

Re:Bah. (1)

kestasjk (933987) | about 7 years ago | (#18615367)

These days the kind of environmentally friendly things Apple do are to sell LCD screens, which use less power than CRTs.
They have a whole paragraph on "Say hello to the stunning Apple Screen, which uses 1.7x less power than a CRT screen. Using the Apple Screen you can save your business and your marriage, and now you can save the planet too!"

Re:Bah. (5, Informative)

owlnation (858981) | about 7 years ago | (#18613137)

Greenpeace has no credibility on this subject.
Absolutely 100% correct! Greenpeace has very little credibility in most subjects. They have considerable history with manipulating data to suit their fund raising profile, and have been caught doing on a number of occasions - Bret Spar is one example, though others can be found easily . Remember Greenpeace is NOT a charity. Historically, they have provably lied to make money.

Environmental economics was the subject I studied at university; I have undertaken environmental assessments in the field. .To perform a fair, accurate and precise assessment of a company's environmental impact requires weeks, if not months, of intensive on-site research and measurement. It requires full access to all processes within the company, and access to privileged information.

There is no way Greenpeace has access to this information. A true and fair assessment cannot be done externally. This is a fund raising publicity stunt and absolutely nothing more. It has no credible science or economics behind it whatsoever.

Re:Bah. (1)

mektronik (997698) | about 7 years ago | (#18615245)

I'd really love to know who is auditing Greenpeace for "green" standards! Greenpeace has existed for around 30 years, pollutions has increased markedly in those 30 years, is Greenpeace doing anything at all!! What the world needs is personal accountability not more self serving lobby groups( particularly ones that fly people all over the world to tell other people( who didn't fly to hear it) why they're so harmful to the environment.

Re:Bah. (3, Insightful)

cliffski (65094) | about 7 years ago | (#18617897)

"to perform a fair, accurate and precise assessment of a company's environmental impact requires weeks, if not months, of intensive on-site research and measurement"

and when the company involved tells you to fuck off, your only conclusion is to do nothing and ignore the topic? If any of these companies wanted to dispute their positions, they could invite GP in to take a look. You seem to think that the best information to have on the eco-friendliness of products is either none-at-all, or just to parrot back the greenwash spin that their PR companies put out.

Newsflash -> sometimes companies do stuff they would rather their customers didn't find out about. Without lists like this, and groups like greenpeace, we would have even more destructive and toxic process being carried out. We don't use lead paint anymore, and we don't put asbestos in school buildings. This is because campaign groups (it never starts with governments) make a fuss about this stuff.
Good for them.

They'll say anything for a buck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18619375)

One day, in the early 90's, a girl was going around asking for money for Greenpeace. I told her that I was opposed to the policies that they advocate. After some discussion, she claimed that Greenpeace OPPOSED the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970.

Re:Bah. (1)

DogDude (805747) | about 7 years ago | (#18613621)

Wrong. Read the report. [greenpeace.org]

Re:Bah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18614655)

Nice logic.
GP: Greenpeace has no credibility.
You: Wrong, read the report (which was issued by Greenpeace).

It's the report itself that highlight Greenpeace's lack of credibility. You need to prove that the report actually is unbiased. Otherwise, it's a circular logic: Greenpeace is credible because the report is true because Greenpeace is credible because the report is true...

Go to this site [epeat.net]. Apple scored at/near the top in many categories. They still can do better and attempt for the gold (as of now, no company scores gold), but they are one of the top performers.

Re:Bah. (1)

His Shadow (689816) | about 7 years ago | (#18615065)

I read the report. As long as companies say what Greenpeace wants to hear, Greenpeace will blow sunshine up their ass. What Greenpeace thinks company should be doing and what they actually have done appear to operate in two different universes. Timeline statements are meaningless. Apple is committed to phasing out the chemicals of concern and has eliminated many toxic chemicals in advance of RoHS directives. But complying with and being better than industry standards is _BAD_ if it's not done according to Greenpeace's expectations? We'll see where Lenovo is with it's promises in 2009.

Re:Bah. (1)

dharbee (1076687) | about 7 years ago | (#18625785)

Wait wait wait, you think a report issued by Greenpeace establishes Greenpeace's credibility?

So, how long have you been in Greenpeace?

Re:Bah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18617923)

I've carried out research on low energy light bulbs for GP. They do not pick a target randomly, the target companies are always the lowest on a ranking of green credentials, and that evidence is gathered at the coal face by volunteers who collect the information from stores (in the case of lightbulbs).
You clearly know zero about the way GP works, so I suggest you stop flinging unfounded accusations about their methods around.

Why Apple came last .... (4, Insightful)

Qwavel (733416) | about 7 years ago | (#18612765)


Apple came last in this ranking because, when they've done poorly in this ranking in the past, they sent out the PR attack dogs to undermine GP and the study, rather then making any changes to the practices in question.

Of course, many companies behave this way. When MS discovered during the anti-trust trials that the public's perception of them was a problem, they too responded with PR rather then changing their behavior.

Yes, Yes, I know that both GP and this study are far from perfect, but they are a more objective judge of this matter then Apple itself (or the Apple fanboys who are modding me down as we speak).

Re:Why Apple came last .... (1, Flamebait)

falcon5768 (629591) | about 7 years ago | (#18612841)

Um no, a ton of people in the computing world, many reporters with no connection to Apple completely blasted the GP report for what it was, complete bullshit propaganda targeting a major company with a hippy image to spur publicity with no evidence anything they reported was true (and infact much of it was not yet they refused to retract the story)

Read real info before you ever read greenpeace PR. They are like PETA completely batshit insane making a industry out of scaring people and activism. Only that would explain why the founders of the group have publicly come out against its new leaders in recent years.

Re:Why Apple came last .... (3, Informative)

His Shadow (689816) | about 7 years ago | (#18612949)

You'll get modded down for defending an essentially useless "report" for the sake of trolling for Apple supporters. Everything Greenpeace does is designed to generate press for Greenpeace to boost donations. EPEAT's ranking, using real world metrics and not the nonsense Greenpeace invented, reverse Greenpeace's findings. Is the US EPA now an Apple "fanboy" as well?

Re:Why Apple came last .... (1)

Qwavel (733416) | about 7 years ago | (#18613053)

No, I'd put some faith in an EPA study. Please post the link.

Re:Why Apple came last .... (5, Informative)

smithwis (577119) | about 7 years ago | (#18613323)

Go to here: EPEAT [epeat.net]
And check out the silver awards in all the categories. Notice that no manufacture has been awarded a gold yet.

In all of the categories Apple is represented by a few models which score at or near the top of the pack.

Re:Why Apple came last .... (1)

GaryPatterson (852699) | about 7 years ago | (#18614029)

Got anything to back that up?

You should be modded down, not because people are "Apple fanboys" but because you're making unsubstantiated claims. That's not insightful, that's trolling. Post something to back up your claim.

Re: Why Apple came last .... (1)

triso (67491) | about 7 years ago | (#18625291)

I'm shocked and appalled that Apple came last. I thought they were a lot of granola-munching, liberal, tree-hugging hippies but they are just like every other corporation: polluting, spin-controlling, anti-contractor and profit-oriented.
Does anybody want to buy a used iPod?

Most unexpected (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Bullard (62082) | about 7 years ago | (#18612885)

Most unexpected, considering that Lenovo is mostly owned by Chinese Communist Party regime-held corporations with their in-house Communist Party political officers and all, and the regime's environmental record since they converted from communism to the more lucrative fascism hasn't been anything short of catastrophic for the common Chinese people.


As an environmentally conscientious person I must give this particular corporation some credit for trying to do the right thing environment-wise, but I still wouldn't choose to allow my money to fund the militaristic policies of the Chinese state. Arrogant, expansionist and rich Chinese dictatorship is at the bottom of my personal wishlist.

Are they still allowed to use the IBM logo to fool people?

Re:Most unexpected (3, Interesting)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 7 years ago | (#18613073)

but I still wouldn't choose to allow my money to fund the militaristic policies of the Chinese state.

I wouldn't buy a computer then (or just about anything else).

You do realise that Apple PCs are made in exactly the same Chinese factories as other PCs? Using the same cheap 60-hours-a-week-isnt-overtime labour?

Re:Most unexpected (5, Interesting)

wellingj (1030460) | about 7 years ago | (#18613575)

So buy a Panasonic ToughBook. Engineered and Made in Japan, and aguably more bomb proof than a ThinkPad.

Re:Most unexpected (2, Informative)

steelfood (895457) | about 7 years ago | (#18621387)

Actually, GP might as well not buy anything. There's so much stuff that's made in China these days, and even if the product as a whole isn't, numerous parts are. And even if not that, the same companies have business interests in China. Hell, if GP is living in the US, it's time to leave. The US government owes the Chinese government a lot of money...

Fact of the matter is, China is not a communist regime. It's a not-quite-so benevolent dictatorship. However, dictatorships (and all governments for that matter) can only survive when there's order in the realm, and when there's actually people in the realm. An unstable environment unstablizes governments. Look at the aftermath of Katrina. If a disaster of that magnitude were to hit the rest of the US all at once, the US government itself would be destroyed in the process, likely replaced by a military dictatorship or facist state (as if it isn't happening already...). China realizes this, and all the environment-friendly policies these past few years works towards this end.

Re:Most unexpected (2, Informative)

delire (809063) | about 7 years ago | (#18614561)

The Macbook (and around 70% of all other portables) is made by Taiwanese company Quanta Computing [engadget.com] along with your iPod [appleinsider.com]. Apple products are about as American-made as Grass Jelly [wikipedia.org].

Re:Most unexpected (1)

SEE (7681) | about 7 years ago | (#18615917)

the regime's environmental record since they converted from communism to the more lucrative fascism hasn't been anything short of catastrophic for the common Chinese people.

Oh, China's environmental record wasn't any better.

For example, consider the backyard steel smelters Mao Zedong imposed. They were fed ten percent of China's forests in just two years, polluting the air with tremendous quantities of soot and smoke, all to convert vast quantities of scrap iron into worthless slag.

Re:Most unexpected (2, Funny)

ady1 (873490) | about 7 years ago | (#18618207)

but I still wouldn't choose to allow my money to fund the militaristic policies of the Chinese state

Damn right soldier. Neither would I, as we all know that Chinese are are one famous for misusing their military power throughout the world.

Oh wait!
Never mind.

Re:Most unexpected (1)

tbone1 (309237) | about 7 years ago | (#18619201)

Most unexpected, considering that Lenovo is mostly owned by Chinese Communist Party regime-held corporations with their in-house Communist Party political officers and all, and the regime's environmental record since they converted from communism to the more lucrative fascism hasn't been anything short of catastrophic for the common Chinese people.

As an environmentally conscientious person I must give this particular corporation some credit for trying to do the right thing environment-wise, but I still wouldn't choose to allow my money to fund the militaristic policies of the Chinese state. Arrogant, expansionist and rich Chinese dictatorship is at the bottom of my personal wishlist.

You and I seem to have very different political views. (For example, I consider environmentalism to be a movement of urban rich kids, for the most part, and I grew up with a small town, quasi-rural blue collar background.) However, I agree with your cynicism about this report since Lenovo is run by a group who have no problem having armored personnel carriers run over their own citizens who are assembling peaceably. China does not have a good record in environmental responsibility in agriculture and large public works like dams. Why we would expect a leftist organization like Greenpeace to be honest with regards to the last large Communist institution on earth is beyond me.

You want an eco-friendly computer? Here it is! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18612889)

Check it out here:

The Damn Small Machine! [damnsmalllinux.org]

This guy is the same guy who produces the distro Damn Small Linux. The distro is basically Knoppix cut down to fit within a 50MB CD. Well, he decided, being a tree-hugger California type, to build fanless and low-power boxes for people to buy. They use VIA's low-power (8 watt peak) x86 "Eden" CPU's and are actually pretty good.

There are now even newer ones by other folks which use the VIA C7; I saw a couple of models at TigerDirect. The C7, while requiring a fan for the highest CPU speeds, goes up to 2.0GHz [mailto] and uses 20W at full tilt, max. If I didn't already have a bunch of computers (I'm an IT consultant), I'd have bought one already. Matter of fact, my next one will indeed be one of these.

Re:You want an eco-friendly computer? Here it is! (1)

jcgf (688310) | about 7 years ago | (#18613389)

I'd be carefull buying a via cpu again. I had a 533MHz 6000 C3 and it wasn't even as fast as an equivalently clocked celeron. Don't get me wrong the C7s might be better but I'm still kicking myself for not just buying a mac mini.

Caveat emptor.. (1)

dino213b (949816) | about 7 years ago | (#18614077)

Be careful in labeling that as an "eco-friendly" computer. The issue is not power consumption as much as it is the overall production impact on the environment. I am, quite frankly, impressed at the power consumption footprint of the VIA EPIA series (and their acoustic noise reduction); however, the issues are how close the machine comes to positive on the environmental ledger sheet when you account for negative cost adjustment due to pollution.

In other words, in the standard view of the product it is temporarily profitable for companies to produce the "Damn Small Machine." However, once you consider other factors (such as pollutant cleanup costs) does the base profitability of the machine become questionable?

In all likelihood, the "Damn Small Machine" is eco-friendly only as far as leaving externalization out of the big picture. Once you consider where various compounds end up on a case-to-case basis, it might shock you. In other words, how can a private company be allowed to make profit (think eco-friendly as a marketing tag line in any particular case) in exchange for public debt (in terms of environmental drain)?

Just something to consider..

Re:Caveat emptor.. (1)

Moofie (22272) | about 7 years ago | (#18621095)

Seems to me like all of those factors should be evaluated with respect to the state of the art. It may be possible to create circuit boards from recycled edamame husks and smug, but nobody's figured out how to do that yet.

Re:You want an eco-friendly computer? Here it is! (2, Informative)

evilviper (135110) | about 7 years ago | (#18614443)

The C7, while requiring a fan for the highest CPU speeds, goes up to 2.0GHz and uses 20W at full tilt, max.

That 2.0GHz, isn't remotely comparable with an Intel or AMD 2GHz CPU. Indeed, I'd expect it to perform less than half as fast as you might expect from that rating... Much worse than even a 2.0GHz Pentium 4...

For a high-performance system, I'd suggest a Turion... $80 on newegg for a 25W MAX, 2.0GHz AMD CPU, that will work in many cheap and available socket 754 motherboards. Not to mention that Cool'n'Quiet should give much lower idle power usage than anything VIA has to offer.

For miniITX systems, look for Geode CPUs. I see several on eBay regularly, and occasionally a few on pricewatch. For $200, you can get everything but the case, PSU, and HDD, and with a Geode NX CPU, that will smoke the fastest VIA CPUs, and still be lower power. Older "Mobile Athlons" will also work quite well, but expect the Geodes to be lower power, easier to get, and inexpensive.

More expensive, but equally good, are Intel's low power "ULV" CPUs, but good luck finding a miniITX motherboard for any of them.

Why bother? (2, Insightful)

grumpyman (849537) | about 7 years ago | (#18613097)

The article is an apparent flame-bait for slashdotters. There's such a sentiment that "Apple is great", "Lenovo is evil, coz they bought our beloved thinkpad and it is run by a Chinese company". There's nothing to see here, in the comment page.

Something seems fishy.... (4, Informative)

God of Lemmings (455435) | about 7 years ago | (#18614141)

This seems to be part of a campaign bend apple into more of a green product.

On their own page, they go as far as manipulating the truth to make it appear that
Apple is doing less work than it is actually doing: http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/about.html [greenpeace.org]

"Apple finally came around to a limited recycling program in the US, but they can do better."

This is worded as if it just happened recently. Except that the US (and Japan) take-back program started
up in 2002. (Announced in 2001) It includes not only recycling of its own computers, but also other
vendor's computers and monitors. I wonder which way they consider this to be "limited"?

http://www.apple.com/environment/recycling/ [apple.com]
http://www.apple.com/environment/ [apple.com]

The images at the top of the Greenpeace site show Chinese children holding color iMac keyboards dating
before 2000.... before recycling programs in the US and Asia actually existed.

The page is designed to get Apple to do two things:
        * Remove the worst toxic chemicals from all their products and production lines.
        * Offer and promote free "take-back" for all their products everywhere they are sold.

The question here is, is it reasonable to persecute Apple for not meeting an arbitrarily set "worst toxic chemicals" goal? And I say this because "worst toxic chemicals" is fairly ambiguous.
They recycle plastics, foam, paper and whatnot from their products, they follow a number of environmental standards in the US and Europe and maintain their own.

Should Apple offer free "take-back" worldwide? Even Levono doesn't do so.
http://www.pc.ibm.com/ww/lenovo/about/environment/ ptb_us.html [ibm.com]

However, in the very least, it should be reasonable for Apple to accept recycled equipment worldwide, if at
a fee.

Al Gore (1)

feranick (858651) | about 7 years ago | (#18614261)

"Apple fell to the bottom of the list with only a 2.7."

Don't tell that to Apple's famous, eco-conscious, board member.

What about AL GORE! (2, Interesting)

JesseJackson (309813) | about 7 years ago | (#18614313)

Wouldn't one think that Mr. Al Gore, the warrior that is leading us all to carbon utopia in his private jets and SUV's would be able to do something about this? As a member of the board at Apple you would think he'd be leading the company towards a greener way
I suppose he'll just educate us carbon hogs and make it everybody elses problem to reduce their pollutants. As long as he talks about the problem it's ok that him and the companies he is afiliated with are some of the worst offenders.

Apple crybabies on Slashdot!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18614343)

Apple got on the bottom of the list, and Steve Jobs f-a-g patrol is out in force. Slashdot is turned into Apple's homo palace and its days and numbered.

I've Got All The Rejected Ones! (1)

Joel Rowbottom (89350) | about 7 years ago | (#18620099)

Basically, they're "recycling" them by sending me busted ones.

Blog entries passim starting here [joel.co.uk], with pretty much all the posts here [joel.co.uk].

(in short, 15 repair tickets so far and counting, replacement's arrived and is bust...)

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...