Apple Is Rotten at Being Green; Where's Director Gore, or the Media?

Photo of Tom Blumer.
By Tom Blumer | May 10, 2008 - 09:04 ET

It must be nice to be on Old Media's "free pass" list.

For years, Apple Computer has been on that list (disclosure: yours truly is a 23-year Mac user). Apple has been the cool, innovative tech darling, the noble foil of big, bad monopolist Microsoft.

Another free-pass beneficiary is Al Gore, who sits on Apple's Board of Directors.

Wait until you see what ClimateCounts.org thinks of Apple's record on "fighting global warming," especially in comparison to its industry peers (HT InfoWorld via Kevin at Pundit Review):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

ClimateChgOrgRanksAppleAtBottom0508.jpg

(Links: Sector Company Scores; Apple's Overall Scorecard)

According to Apple's detailed scorecard (PDF), the company scored a zero in 18 of the 22 measurement criteria. Some of them include (bold is mine):

  • Item 13 -- Has the company achieved emissions reductions?
  • Item 5 -- Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and reporting (where applicable)?
  • Item 18 -- Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference to those that do?
  • Item 19 -- Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change action by business?

In 2006, Apple's score was "2." I doubt that ClimateCounts.org has set aside a "most improved" award for the company's 9-point 2007 pickup.

Note that I do not subscribe to any of this nonsense. "Climate friendliness" is part of the broader, dangerous notion of "Corporate Social Responsibility" (CSR). As I have noted before, companies that embrace CSR, or cynically give into it in the name of appeasement, are engaging in an an economic and ideological sellout to groups who are, at bottom, hostile to capitalism. The late Milton Friedman was and still is right when he wrote that CSR is a "fundamentally subversive doctrine," and that "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits."

But, though he is careful about when and where he talks about it (note that his Nobel Prize acceptance speech makes no direct reference to business), Al Gore does subscribe to CSR.

Here's an interesting possibility: One of the reasons Apple is financially outperforming its peers under Gore's "oversight" may be that it's not allowing itself to be overly distracted by CSR, and that Gore's mere presence on the Board is enabling the company to escape activists' wrath. If so, how "convenient."

You would think that journalists who have swallowed whole the gospel of globaloney (my term for the mistaken beliefs that catastrophic global warming is taking place, and that it's largely caused by human activity) to be giving Apple and Gore some, uh, heat over the company's "disgraceful" (as ClimateCounts.org defines it) record of environmental stewardship.

But it appears that when you're on the "free pass" list, all is forgiven.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I think you're right

Al on the board insulates them a bit. But what really leads them to profits is a variety of excellent, well-engineered products. Enviroweenies also complain about packaging, but I love the experience of opening any Apple product.

I had an early Apple II in the '80s, then I went to Windows for a while, and then went back to Mac notebooks exclusively about a decade ago. Even with the trauma of the changeover to OSX (now a dim, bad memory) I can't imagine doing anything else. I don't get along with Windows, and Linux is still too geeky for me. That means I have no real choices except "which Apple notebook and when to upgrade." Even if I ever eventually switch to Linux, I might still keep buying Apple hardware, although that "Toughbook" product intrigues me...
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Typical Al

Hypocrite all the way.I have never own a Apple.Always prefered a real computer...J/K ...maybe

Actually, this proves

Actually, this proves nothing about media bias.  This "research" is all over the news because Apple = big story.  The real story is Apple basically told them absolutely nothing so they give it a zero in almost every category.

The real story is that Apple probably is better then most electronics companys at reducing waste because for years they stopped selling CRTs and they have reducing packaging - before all the hubbub (well the latest hubbub) of "climate change."   Also, they recycle all computers when you get a new Mac (including antique PCs).  Ok, probably not all, I don't think they are set up to recycle one of the big room size computers.

My own personal opinion (admittedly biased - love my Mac)  I think Apple basically says "its none of your business what our company's internal policies are on the environment,we don't report to you, No one has ever heard of your company, so go away and don't bother us.  It's not as if you can actually hurt us."

Well Said

My sentiments exactly. These Green groups seek out big names to focus on, mostly for the spin they think they'll get. Bottom line - most companies worldwide would fall in to the same results category.

I disagree --

The media bias is that tech darling Apple, who has the world's leading environut on its board, is refusing at best to jump through the CSR advocates' reporting hoops, and at worst not employing the "Sustainability" practices the Goracle advocates for everyone else.

Yet, I'll bet if you asked the average person, they would give Apple an 8 or 9 out of 10 for being an envoronmentally-conscious good corporate citizen. That's because the media doesn't report stories such as these.

Average person, maybe

But as a mildly interested but average Apple product user, I've known for years that Apple drives the greenies nuts. It's almost a tradition with them at this point, despite the fact that Apple Computer is a company supposedly filled with lefties. I just didn't care enough about what I considered a minor California-spat to change my behavior a bit.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Apple is filled with "Lefties"

No more proof is needed then this:

Al Gore joins Apple's board (News.com)

I don't use Apple products because they are overpriced, overhyped and in many cases poorly designed. 

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Both ways

Seems to me that Al is having it both ways. Subscibe to CSR and work for a company (based on previous comments) that does not subscribe to CSR. If he is really a true believer he would  want Apple to join. Lead by example.

The real way you get a

The real way you get a higher score on those kinds of things is to "support environmental causes" in other words, it is a shakedown. Donate money, you get a good score. Don't donate, well you see what you get.

 

 

Another perspective

Here's a link from the perspective of a mac fan:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/05/10/climate-counts-fake-attack-on-apple 

 Gives an overview of the "reviews" of  Apple's commitment to being green. It's an interesting system, where if you tell them what they want to hear, even if you are not following through, you are "graded" better than if you don't tell them anything at all.  

 

Apple's Poor Environmental Record

I love how liberals eat their own:

Jobs rapped over Apple's recycling record (The Inquirer, UK, April 2005)
Apple flunks Greenpeace's toxic test (The Age, Australia, August 2006)
Greenpeace Gives Apple Low "Green" Grade (CBS News, April 2007)
Apple iPhone Contains 'Hazardous' Chemicals, Greenpeace Charges (Information Week, October 2007)
Apple's 'Green' Notebook Doesn't Impress Environmentalists (Wired, January 2008)
Poisonous Apples hit bottom of eco barrel (The Inquirer, UK, May 2008)

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

So, if Apple is a "liberal"

So, if Apple is a "liberal" company, shouldn't the bias come through and no reporting be done on their "toxic record?"

Al Gore is an Apple Board Member

Al Gore joins Apple's board (News.com)
Steve Jobs proposes Al Gore for president (PC Advisor, UK)

Hello, the liberal media bias is that they are NOT reporting this.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

But PT, your first "set o'

But PT, your first "set o' links" (tm) showed historically the press IS reporting Apple's poor green record.

Liberal Media Bias in the Techworld

Yes it is being reported but mainly by tech publications than the MSM. Anything Apple does is always reported by tech pubs - it is the MSM which is not making a big deal out of this as they would if this was Microsoft.

FYI The Inquirer, Wired, Information Week, News.com and PC Advisor are all tech pubs.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Visibility

These are relatively light placements of pretty infrequent stories, given the low grades. If HP or Dell (or Microsoft in software) were this bad, it would get a lot more coverage. A non-tech company would get ripped limb from limb.

There's a difference between HP/Dell and Apple

If HP or Dell angers their customers, they can easily buy from someone else, like Dell or HP. The proprietary nature of Apple combined with the overall quality of the user experience protects the company, though. Steve Jobs can do minor, annoying things like removing the internal dialup phone modem and force me to buy a dongle or change the locations of some keys on my latest keyboard and they get away with it. I may sorta bitch about it and talk about abandoning Apple "someday when Linux becomes idiot-proof," but I kept buying Apple's product.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

What "user" experience?

HP and Dell are NOTORIOUS for using proprietary parts, Dell has until last month used proprietary power supplies in all their PCs, HP and Dell have always used proprietary motherboards. Your have no argument.

What "user" experience are you refering to? Not having a large selection of games or software to choose from? Paying a ridiculous amount of money for overpriced hardware? Only Apple fanboys think Apple is anything special.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Your "logic" is as usual, flawed

As you show with the name calling at the end. If they were not special due mainly to the proprietary OS, people would not pay/"overpay" for them. Quitcherbitchin and learn to argue coherently.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

My Logic is Not Flawed

Please explain to me how Windows is not proprietary and why someone would want to use an OS that gives them less hardware and software options and makes their computing experience more expensive.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Nope, I stand by my words.

1. I never said Windows was not proprietary. As I've requested of various others here, please respond to my words instead of your hallucinations.

2. I don't need to, the free marketplace does that explanation just fine for me. Apple stock has been a good buy over the years despite people like you bitching about Apple. Get over it and deal with the real world's economics. A large number of people like this choice, and prove it by paying for it.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Apple OS X is such a good choice yet has no Market Share?

Funny how you think Apple is doing just fine when it has only 7% Market Share? I mean there are only so many people you can sucker into paying more for the same hardware with an OS that offers you nothing other than LESS software and hardware options.

So you pointing out that Apple's OS X is proprietary was meaningless then.

Yes, yes many people are fooled into buying iPods because they don't know any better - that is where Apple is making all it's money. 

I suggest you get over the fact that once people are computer educated they would never pay more for less. You still did not answer my question:

Please explain to me why someone would want to use an OS that gives them less hardware and software options and makes their computing experience more expensive?

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

7% != "no"

And I already told you the free marketplace answered the question FOR me. Reading is fundamental.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

You never answered the question

Please explain to me why someone would want to use an OS that gives them less hardware and software options and makes their computing experience more expensive?

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Reading is fundamental.

The marketplace explains it, as I keep repeating to you. READ.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

The Market Does not answer the Question: WHY?

The Market does not answer my question not even remotely. It does not answer "WHY".

I find it ironic that someone who is a big supporter of free markets would choose the most expensive and least flexible market choice. 

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Yes it does.

I don't understand why people buy Corvette automobiles for the same reason you claim not to understand this market phenomenon. I just don't whine about it and get furious and call buyers "Corvette fan boys" because they don't use money the same way I would. Just because I answered you in a way you dislike does NOT mean I haven't answered you. Quite the contrary. But maybe Apple users simply like having features like this.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Is this a joke? Remote Desktop?

Wow, Remote Desktop - I have never seen that before. Apple is only about 8 years behind Microsoft - Yawn. Not to mention it is not a good idea to have your computer automatically connect to mac servers for remote access when you connect it to the Internet. But anyone with half a brain can disable this and make finding your laptop via this method worthless. 

You still have not given me a real reason why you are paying more for less. 

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

I gave you the reason a few replies ago

You're just unable to read, apparently. Different people like different things in their computers, as reflected by the reason, which remains the free marketplace just as I told you. Deal with it.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

So essentially for emotional reasons

You are unable to defend why you pay more for less. Yes I can deal with you having emotional attachments to something - I was just hoping for some logical reason.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

No, for emotional reasons YOU

Fail to admit the obvious. A minority which doesn't just include me likes Apples better, so people like Tom Blumner and Rush Limbaugh pay more for them, willingly, in the computer marketplace. I think we're seeing the reincarnation of "Sportpolitics," folks.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

You have stated this already

But since this is technology - I base my decisions on logical reasons not emotion. You really have me convinced now, the technological guru Rush likes it therefore it must be good! I can ask anyone why they bought a car even a Corvette and they never give me an answer like this: "a minority likes it better". If you are spending your money on something you should be able to explain why.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource