Gizmodo
This morning we published allegations by the bromine industry claiming that Greenpeace's report on the iPhone was inaccurate and alarmist. Tom Dowdall, Greenpeace International's Web Editor, contacted Gizmodo to present a rebuttal against those allegations and talked about our coverage:
Greenpeace welcomes the debate that has been sparked by our report analyzing hazardous chemicals used in the iPhone.We are confident that, whatever opinions are expressed, airing this issue will help increase pressure on manufacturers such as Apple to do the right thing and eliminate the use of hazardous chemicals.
I'm glad we agree on one key issue—the benefit to consumers in the long run.
But there are a number of issues in your blog which, in the interests of integrity, we would be grateful if you would address.
Let us first address the major accusation, that of "faulty methodology":
- The study clearly identified bromine in a wide range of materials and components in the iPhone. The technique used is widely recognised for this purpose (XRF; X-Ray Fluorescence spectrometry).
- Similarly, analysis of other hazardous chemicals in the iPhone, such as phthalates, were conducted using recognised techniques.
As so many components were found to contain bromine (9 of the 18 materials tested), it was not feasible for Greenpeace to undertake the extensive and costly work necessary to determine (as far as it is possible to do so) the exact brominated chemical or chemicals present in all these samples.
However, the study did include additional analysis in order to characterise as fully as possible the nature of the brominated chemicals in two of the nine materials. This relied on using an additional technique (gas chromatography/mass spectrometry), as is detailed in the report.
Despite use of this appropriate and widely recognised technique it was not possible to determine the nature of the brominated chemicals in these two materials.
This, however, was not due to the use of faulty methodology or techniques.
As the report states, it is likely that the bromine present in the materials is present in a reactive polymeric form.
To obtain information by analysis on the chemical nature of the bromine in this form is extremely difficult and may not even be possible with any currently available analytical technique.
Ultimately this information may only be available from the manufacturers themselves. Unfortunately this information has not been made publicly available by Apple.
The report does not raise "an alarm without any basis for doing so."
As the report states, due to the iPhone containing bromine in whatever form, impacts can result at the product's end of life. These arise from the unintentional formation of toxic brominated by-products (including brominated dioxins) during some disposal or recycling operations. This has been demonstrated in another recent independent scientific study (Gullett, B.,K., Linak, W.P., Touati, A., Wasson, S.J., Gatica, S., King, C.J. (2007) Characterization of air emissions and residual ash from open burning of electronic wastes during simulated rudimentary recycling operations. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 9(1): 69-79.)
The other inaccuracies:
1. Electronics Industry Analyst Group Dismisses Greenpeace Claims on iPhone?
This is inaccurate. BSEF is the international organisation of the bromine chemical industry. The title of the article would more accurately be: "Chemical Industry Group Dismisses Greenpeace Claims on iPhone."
[Editor's note: actually, the "analyst" was corrected and replaced to "group" when this was pointed out this morning. Gizmodo's policy is to strike any factual errors and correct next to them. Many other technology blogs just delete and re-write, but we believe that our faults should be recorded and disclosed in this way. We think "Electronics Industry Group Dismisses Greenpeace Claims on iPhone" is a correct, factual and neutral headline]
2. Greenpeace study is not only alarmist, since all substances are approved for use by EU regulatory requirements.Despite current EU regulations being the most stringent in the world, these regulations do not cover all kinds of hazardous chemicals, including all BFRs. It is surely reasonable to expect that an industry which prides itself on innovation should be well ahead of the curve on issues as fundamental as the use of hazardous substances.
3. No alternatives as effective as BFRs to prevent fires in consumer electronics:
This suggests we are stuck with BFRs. However, it is possible to significantly reduce the use of BFRs by substituting non-flammable materials for plastics in mobile phones, as some manufacturers already do.
[Editor's note: this fails to address the fact that these changes can't be made in a product in a day without a major economic penalty, as Gizmodo has pointed out before. In addition to that, it looks like Greenpeace is agreeing that BFRs seem to be unavoidable for the time being, as the only thing manufacturers can do is "significantly reduce the use of BFRs," which brings us to the original question: What is low enough to be accepted? Who sets this standard? At this point, the law seems to be the only standard. See point 2 above.]
4. The BFR most likely used in the iPhone is actually a reactive—i.e. it reacts with other substances to form a plastic and, once reacted, it is also no longer available to the environment.This fails to take into account the real-life situation in which consumer electronics are dismantled by hand, in countries such as China.
Tom also makes other allegations in his mail:
Hi,Pasted below is our rebuttal for public use—it's quite long but if claims are made about our reports and science being wrong then it needs a long explanation in response.
It's late in the evening here in Amsterdam, I also posted this on our weblog as the story has been posted on other blogs.
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/2007/10/bromine_industry_lets_out_the.html
We would appreciate if you either post our response text or link to the weblog with a link from the current article. If you want it in a different format or have questions let me know.
I've followed your coverage of our story and while its fine to be critical (we are not in the business to be liked by everyone anyway) and even poke fun calling us 'Greenpeace corporation'—it's a step to far to inaccurately headline a chemical industry press release as "Electronics Industry Analyst/Group Dismisses Greenpeace Claims on iPhone" without even mentioning exactly who is making the accusations. [Editor's note: see above for explanation of this. The headline is correct.]
If you think we just protest against Apple then look out for soon a report covering a wide range of manufacturers as we have done in 2006. While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it doesn't mean that we are not focusing on all manufacturers to remove toxic chemicals from their products.
Regards,
Tom
We have published Greenpeace's rebuttal in its entirety, but we feel we also needed to clarify our position regarding our coverage on this story, for Greenpeace and our readers. First, we are not defending the industry or attacking Greenpeace, even if we joke about it. We object to this:
"While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it doesn't mean that we are not focusing on all manufacturers"
This is the heart of the matter: that Greenpeace is using the iPhone (and Apple before, in Macworld) as an instrument to get more publicity, and Greenpeace's video (as well as the targeting of a widely known corporation and über-media-darling like Apple) is clearly designed to take advantage of the iPhone's popularity to Greenpeace's own benefit. Failing to address or ignoring facts as the actual law doesn't make Greenpeace look good either. As Greenpeace rebuttal points out, the law is the law. Apple or anyone else can hardly be considered guilty of anything if the laws don't tell them that what they are doing is harmful for the environment. (If it is, in fact, harmful. We, the media, and we, the public, want to know the straight facts.)
Like Greenpeace says, other manufacturers are at fault. Why do a video about Apple and the iPhone first instead of publishing their findings as a whole report, including the other manufacturers, with references, clear methodology and, hopefully, in a scientific journal or publication so it can be peer reviewed; then make an announcement and crush any company they want? Doesn't Greenpeace think that this will give their allegations more weight rather than making them look like publicists cashing in on the latest fad? While we take the piss here in the Giz quite often, we do believe that serious accusations require serious methodology, not showmanship.
We think that these kinds of moves harm their cause, rather than advancing it—even if we won't look politically correct for saying it. It's easy to dismiss our criticism as "not liking Greenpeace," but that's not the case. If Greenpeace decides to act as a marketing company, the public and the media, including us, will treat them as such—as any other corporation greedy for media attention, market power, mind-share, money and brand awareness.
Greenpeace also deliberately ignored the fact that Apple already presented a road plan to get rid of these components by the end of 2008. We don't know if they did this for dramatic effect or they just don't trust Apple, but certainly, it seems to us that—in all fairness and knowing the market realities of bringing a product like the iPhone to the market—Apple should be held accountable at the end of that roadmap and not now. When that time comes, Gizmodo will be ready to take on Apple if promises are not met.
Until then, we believe Greenpeace should be clearer on their claims unless they want an industry group to easily, and successfully, cast doubts over their reports.
Comments
Gizmodo is right. Greenpeace continues to lose its credibility and respect with the general public. These tactics are easily identified by many other publications so that the general public are aware of Greenpeace tactic of targeting Apple for publicity. It does nothing but destroy their quickly diminishing credibility.
Damn hippies.
I'm all for protecting the environment, but I'm so sick of these Greenpeace blowhards. All they care about is getting press for themselves, good or bad. And we all know there's no such thing as bad press.
All I know is that the tactics they use don't attract anyone but the hardest of the hardcore, who are most likely Greenpeace members already. To everyone else, they're just a nuisance.
Well, this is the closest they have come to actually explaining why I should care about the chemicals inside my iPhone.
But most (all?) of it seems to be about disposal not creation.
Which means the actual target should be the consumer, not Apple. If the problem is in the disposal, why not use this as an opportunity to educate the ultimate disposers of the gadget (and explain how best to dispose of them) rather than blame the creators?
Unless there are no safe ways to dispose of these and other similar electronics - which I somehow doubt.
"The report does not raise an alarm without any basis for doing so."
No, but it's based on incomplete tests and some guessing:
"it is likely that the bromine... to obtain information (...) is extremely difficult and may not even be possible... this information may only be available from the manufacturers themselves..."
Okay, these guys are worried about the environment, nothing wrong with that. But if you're going to claim that something's wrong, make sure you have the data to support your claim effectively, instead of making an ass of yourself by admitting that you're complaining about something because it'll get you more headlines.
duh...
of course greenpeace targets apple to get publicity...since apple is the "coolest" company right now, they want to target "cool" people to help accomplish their agenda, which is not a bad agenda.
if you were walking down broadway and someone said to you "want to make your dell green?" you'd say "who buys dells?"
it's the fact that everyone cares about apple and what they come out with next that greenpeace is able to get in on the action and promote a just cause
Greenpeace just loses more and more credibility with every sensationalistic headline grab they try-I'm sure their justification is "any publicity is good publicity", but all it does is damage their already shaky reputation further (and a far cry from their stellar reputation in the 70s-80s)
- The iPhone is, according to this website, the 4th most popular phone. That puts it squarely and legitimately in the crosshairs of Greenpeace.
- The fact that this site gives far more attention to Apple than any other company suggests that the iPhone is an important target for spreading the word about dangerous chemicals in phones. Picking the electronics industry in general allows everyone to put the blame on someone else.
- Without raising awareness, companies aren't incentivized to find alternatives and consumers aren't aware of the dangers of disposing of their electronics.
- The law may be the law, but that doesn't mean that it's environmentally sound. It's perfectly legal to produce a car that gets 8 mpg, but that doesn't mean that it's okay. There's law and there's right and wrong.
- Apple chose to put those chemicals in the iPhone in the first place. Sure they can't just take 'em out, but a little planning would have prevented this.
- Roadmaps to compliance are nice, but it's perfectly legitimate to point out existing problems. We can't let polluters off the hook just because they have a plan.
Why do a video about Apple and the iPhone first instead of publishing their findings as a whole report, including the other manufacturers, with references, clear methodology and, hopefully, in a scientific journal or publication so it can be peer reviewed; then make an announcement and crush any company they want?
Because in a world where every company or organization out there is competing for our attention, you have to make a pretty big splash to be noticed at all. If Greenpeace had simply come out with some scientific report, would they be featured here on the pages of Gizmodo? Probably not. Instead, I think they went about it pretty smartly. They got our attention with the iPhone thing, and now we're interested in seeing what the report has to say.
Greenpeace also deliberately ignored the fact that Apple already presented a road-plan to get rid of these components by the end of 2008. We don't know if they did this for dramatic effect or they just don't trust Apple...
I certainly don't trust Apple, or any other big company, for that matter. Not when an issue like this could make a difference of millions of dollars to the bottom line.
@weatherman: "The law may be the law, but that doesn't mean that it's environmentally sound."
You're right, but it's not easy to avoid certain procedures/materials without spending a lot of time and money on research. In the real world you need to get your stuff out there to stay in business. You may try to be as eco-friendly as possible, but you won't go out of your original plan.
if law isn't environmentally sound, Greenpeace should focus on promoting changes to those laws instead of just blaming people who, at the end of the day, are working within the legal limits.
"Companies aren't incentivized to find alternatives."
In cases such as this one, there doesn't seem to be an easy alternative, and even Greenpeace admits that. Instead of investing truckloads of money on advertising, campaigns and alarmist-finger-pointing, they should help educate consumers and work with the manufacturers to find more eco-friendly ways of doing things.
While Greenpeace may be right in their claims, making as many claims as they do over the issues they do, tends to cause people to "block them out". My thoughts is that they could be more strategic with their accusations and "pick their battles". Seriously, if they hadn't have been so hard on nuclear power during the 80's, we probably wouldn't be in such fix with rising CO2 levels now. ...but then, hindsight is always 20/20.
next time I see a greenpeace canvasser on the street I'm going to go up to them and say "hey, I always used to respect you guys but since your cheap attack on apple you're nothing but another one of those street charity wankers"
boy, did they get it wrong here..I was probably good for quite a few bucks down the years too!
anybody from greenpeace reading this...here it is again "you behaved like wankers!"
@weatherman:
iPhone's sales numbers amount to a little more than an statistical anomaly in the global cellphone market. Instead of targeting Apple, why don't target the ENTIRE industry, specially if Apple, by Greenpeace's own admission, is well within the limits of the most stringent electronics eco law in the world (that in the EU.)
If Greenpeace wants to change this, why they don't target the institutions?
You talked about ethics before: Is it ethical on Greenpeace's part to target a sole company just to get media attention? Does the end justify the means?
As for your other claims about laws, if the laws are wrong, they should be changed. The problem here is that Greenpeace is claiming that x % of element y is bad for the environment where other scientists, those which the lawmakers use to create the laws, don't seem to agree. If Greenpeace disagrees with the law, it's their duty to pressure the lawmakers. Hardly it's their duty to protest against manufacturers to follow said laws.
And in the case of Apple, which already has declared they will eliminate those elements by 2008, the attack now is even less justifiable. It's beating a dead horse. (like I said before, changing components in the iPhone during development is not an economically-feasible option in terms of manufacturing and time-to-market.)
Greenpeace's effort is an exercise of hypocrisy and showmanship no matter how you look at it. Can they do it? Of course they can. Can we criticize them, can we lambast them for it? I think we can too. Just like you can criticize us for it.
But like others say, this kind of tactics just make them lose any credibility and strength, which ultimately is bad for their corporate agenda.
@FredicvsMaximvs: If Greenpeace came with a solid, peer-reviewed report we would have covered it. Because the thing here is that if they did their homework properly (which they didn't) nobody would have been able to cast any doubts over them and, therefore, they could have been able to target and everyone they wanted without blinking.
Now, it all looks like poor excuses for a job poorly done. Saying that Greenpeace can't do x or y kind of analysis is not an excuse to present poor research.
It's as simple as that.
That's it, I'm switching back to whale blubber.
Greenpeace,
Your mistake was not in targeting a hazardous phone. It was in attacking a company with a legion of rabid fanboys.
Better get your rabies shots ready.
Giz/Jesus-Your response was both thoughtful and well reasoned. I'm proud of you for taking this response seriously. I am impressed at the logic behind your posting. I have a new respect for you.
Thank you.
@jesusdiaz:
No, it's not as simple as that.
Greenpeace knows exactly what it is doing, and is weighing the drawbacks of fudging a report against the publicity benefits it will attract. They've done it before and they're doing it again.
Any organization that purports to act in the public interest should not lie to generate publicity. The ends don't justify the means. In this, Greenpeace is worse than Pear Audio, which lies only to make a buck. Greenpeace's lie is not only to make a buck through donor solicitation, but also to manipulate public opinion in a way that helps themselves - ironically - at the expense of the real issue, the environment.
Caught with its pants down, Greenpeace falls back on that old saw, suggesting that a debate is a healthy outcome to a controversial report:
But the report isn't simply controversial, it's dishonest. And this isn't a debate that Greenpeace should welcome since it isn't about the iPhone or the environment, it is about Greenpeace itself. We are not debating chemicals, we are debating Greenpeace.
At least for me, the debate has persuaded me of the following:
Dear Greenpeace:
You have lost my support, and I will recommend that others withdraw (or never begin) their support as well. If you cannot be trusted, you cannot be trusted with other people's money, and cannot be trusted to protect the environment.
DEMOCRATS and LIBERAL groups like Greenpeace are total failures. These LOSERS can't even LOSE THE WAR! I hope Pelosis colon rots out along with queen hillary. Fucking DEOMOCRATS RUIN economies and RUIN business.
@BotchedJoke: Hrm. Mmmmmkay. Greenpeace's membership is predominantly towards the liberal end of the political spectrum, but they have several politically conservative constituents as well. And how did Greenpeace's decision to ride the "media wave" created by the iPhone suddenly become a partisan issue to you?
It's all been said above (and much more eloquently), but boo on Greenpeace for leaving out critical "details" like the other manufacturers who are also not in compliance. They may have avoided making any false claims by not making any statements at all, but targeting one company to further their own political agenda...meh. That's like blaming the pollution of the entire beef industry on Burger King...as though one company can be blamed for "killing off our earth mother." I care about the environment but socially "responsible" nonprofits should also choose to practice responsible reporting if they expect to be taken seriously.
Looks like my $200 is going to PIRG next year instead of Greenpeace.
Hmmm, targeting tree-hugging hippies in a Mac infested tech blog.
No wonder Greenpeace comes out looking like total asses.
@BotchedJoke: bye
Answer this for me, Giz ..
Would you even have covered this story if they did not go after Apple? I know the answer .. The question is, do you?
And, if you answered honestly then you now realize why Greenpeace made the choices they did. They are getting plenty of ink as a result of a clever marketing ploy.
That said, I can understand why people would be upset with Greenpeace for singling out Apple. After all, it isn't like Apple would ever do something like this. They never took a product and milked it for all of the free advertising they could get out of it, charged their loyal customers a ridiculous amount of money, then slashed the pricing 67 days later. Oh, and if you need more examples, just shoot me an email.
My point isn't that Apple is a bad guy. My point is that Greenpeace is only playing the same game.
1. Gizmodo's source for the original article is EMSNow, an electronics industry blog that reprinted a press release by the BSEF. (From the EMSNow blog-post):
BSEF is the international organisation of the bromine chemical industry, whose remit is to inform stakeholders and commission science on brominated chemicals such as flame retardants.
In other words, the Gizmodo headline is by no means "correct, factual, and neutral".
2. The original Gizmodo article characterizes Greenpeace as "tree-humping nazis". Uh, neutral? Factual? This comment alone has dissuaded me from further reading of Gizmodo.
3. The headline of the current article suggests that the targeting of one company in a grassroots activist campaign is somehow shameful. People, this is how activist campaigns work. Choosing a high-profile target raises the profile of the issue, and leads to industry-wide change. Pressuring a single company to be the first to change is a necessary step towards the wider goal. Obviously Greenpeace is aware of the presence of bromides in consumer electronics generally, and desires industry-wide change in this regard.
" They are getting plenty of ink as a result of a clever marketing ploy."
substitute the word 'clever' for self-imploding dumbass - just look at the replies above - I for one, and it looks like quite a few others, will no longer financially support greenpeace...yeah, that's really clever!
@flotson: You keep highlighting only the information you want. We are a blog, we are not neutral. Brian calling Greenpeace "tree-humping nazis" (a few days ago, and you are still reading Gizmodo). I call them Greenpeace Corporation because that's what they have become. Those are opinions.
The facts are that 1) Greenpeace report is faulty and poorly researched, even if by omission of running the proper tests and following a scientific methodology, 2) they admit this in their own reply, 3) they admit Apple is within the limits of the strictest regulation in the world and 4) they also tacitly state that they targeting Apple is a matter of advancing their media agenda and not the real issue, which are a) changing the laws (which first requires an actual investigation of what is and what is not harmful for the environment) and b) pressuring the whole industry (of which Apple is an extremely small percentage) to change to the new laws.
All this puts Greenpeace's credibility in the trash. If they did their homework, they would have been able to crush everyone under real facts. Instead, the publish a sensationalistic video which is even more slanted than the bromine industry reply and crumbles under the "enemy" analysis.
You can keep following blindly whatever things you believe in. We prefer to question both sides and present the issues for people to decide, as well as giving our own opinions.
What? Greenpeace a media whore? Shocking!
Paul Watson, Rex Wyler, Pat Moore (three of the founding members of greenpeace) all have said that Greenpeace has lost the plot.
Greenpeace should be an initiative set upon bankrupting themselves... when they're no longer needed they fold. However, Greenpeace is a self-sustaining business. Their as much a corporation as Apple, only their product is poorly prefaced public declarations of boycott.
How about focusing on what matters again, the iPhone isn't that high up on the totum pole, and it's pretty obvious what their play is.
Greenpeace should be policing kyoto offenders, illegal fishing practices and major polluters. Not nit-picking about the new fetishized tech toys
@flotson: Answer me this
[en.wikipedia.org]
I would like you to answer at least 1/10th the critisism here before you try to wave your high and mighty flag. Face it when multiple founding members call your organization trash and extremist these days... you probabaly ARE trash.
I like Greenpeace. They have done and continue to do a lot of good. Such as calling attention to the state of whale populations. I don't mind the media stunts, they are needed to get people to focus on the environmental message, as long as the message is grounded on good science. However, they are dead wrong in employing this tabloid style, fact-bending approach with Apple. Their credibility is their only currency. If they lose their credibility that's it for them.
@weatherman:
"- The iPhone is, according to this website, the 4th most popular phone. That puts it squarely and legitimately in the crosshairs of Greenpeace."
It doesn't matter if they're the no. 1 popular phone (and in terms of media coverage these days, iPhone are no. 1). They still only represent less than 1% of all the phones being sold globally. By focusing their attack on Apple, Greenpeace is letting the other giants off the hook. Justify that.
- Without raising awareness, companies aren't incentivized to find alternatives and consumers aren't aware of the dangers of disposing of their electronics.
Oh yeah, great! So let's incentivize Apple into making them get rid of BFR in their products! Oh, wait, Apple already promised to get rid of them by the end of 2008? Hmph.
I mean seriously, what would've made it OK for Greenpeace (and you, Wetherman)? If the deadline was June '08? Jan '08? Did it have to be July '07, a month after SJ released the statement? And who gets to decide that? YOU?
- There's law and there's right and wrong.
Well, that's one of points raised by Gizmodo that apparently neither you nor Greenpeace can answer, isn't it? So, if, as Greenpeace even admits, it's currently impossible to completely get rid of BFR (unless you want spontaneously combusting cellphones), how much CAN you have in your product to make it both legal and right? And again, who gets to decide that, YOU?
- Apple chose to put those chemicals in the iPhone in the first place.
Because they were like "We're gonna put BFR in here and really fuck up the planet, MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA". Or, they could've been more like "OK, what can we put in here to prevent it from bursting up into flames and causing serious damage to our customers?" and chose BFR (and its amounts) based on very strict industry standards. And you're accusing them for what again?
- We can't let polluters off the hook just because they have a plan.
Tell that to Greenpeace, who, if you look on their website, is pretty much letting EVERYBODY off the hook, including those "greenest" manufacturers like Nokia and Dell, based on their future plans.
You say:
"First, we are not defending the industry or attacking Greenpeace, even if we joke about it"
Bollocks to that! That's just an "Oh, we can say whatever we want as long as we frame it as a joke. Then we can say later on that, hey, it was just a joke, chill out, dude". That is Item 1 in the 'Big Book Of Pathetic Excuses For Poorly Chosen Attempts At Humour' and you know it. Trying to back out of it now with the suggestion that you were serious all along looks weak.
Here's what you said in your first article:
- "They're just a high profile target of these treehumping-nazis"
- "And require that no Greenpeace workers and volunteers ever use another cellphone again, or any oil in their boats, or any gasoline in their car as they drive to their treehouses."
- "unless they have a fix, like some hemp circuit boards"
- "tell these hippies to stop bumming us out"
So, if you "believe Greenpeace should be clearer on their claims unless they want an industry group to easily, and successfully, cast doubts over their reports", perhaps you might want to occasionally put your Fanboy status aside, along with the poor attempts at humour (come on, guys - "hippes", "treehumping-nazis", "hemp", "bumming us out" - FFS, did you simply just go to the 'Eric Cartman Moron's Guide to Hippes' and copy some phrases) lest you cast doubts over your *own* reports.
Attempts at seriousness and objectivity now look pretty pathetic and helplessly biased in light of your ranting unfunny, initial addressing of the subject. Maybe later on you can put the Cartman book aside and say "I've learned something today..."
Greenpiece hates it, Just one more valid reason to buy an iphone. (No I did not spell Greenpiece incorrectly.)
Still being Green these days is in vogue. Perhaps Apple should have applied for the Nordic Eco Label on thier product and everyone would have been happy.
I do love the iphone and really dislike Greenpiece methodology.
...come on guys.
You're criticizing a gadget blog for its journalistic integrity? Gizmodo makes an effort to cross-check fact...but its also not the NY Times. They have their facts right most of the time but...this is a site that sometimes posts articles about F-Cup beverages. This is like criticizing Colbert for not asking hard-hitting questions.
Greenpeace has chosen to become a media whore, and to take some opportunistic jabs at Apple. In this case Greenpeace is being a little more than unfair in picking on Apple, singling them out because of the media attention that one of their products is getting. Gizmodo is calling BS on them, and in its typical fashion, has also made a few immature jokes about hippies. If immature jokes, gadget rumors, and sweet YouTube videos aren't what you are looking for when you click onto Gizmodo...well go read the Times instead.
If you posters are really all that indignant about the environmental impact electronics manufacturing has on the world, WTF are you doing using a COMPUTER, and visiting a site that is rarely about anything other than chicks dresssed up as Master Chief, and GADGETS, for god's sake? Just laugh at it, enjoy the sarcasm, and stop thinking so damn much about it.
Or go read the Times.
This only proves Greenpeace is not interested in the truth, when a lie will give them the mileage they want. And attacking a company that is ahead of the others in dealing with toxic materials doesn't stop them from focusing on them in a way to gain headlines - and more importantly donations - regardless of the truth.
They have no shame. They even admit their methodology is not only questionalbe, but their motives as well, and continue on completely without merit, authority or honesty.