The ranking methodology utilized by Greenpeace and Newsweek are radically different; the Newsweek rankings are based on a holistic view of the companies including greenhouse emissions, water consumption and supply chain management. Greenpeace study analyzes more focused benchmarks like the use of toxic chemicals.

Greenpeace's biggest knock on HP is it's continued polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardant (BFR) usage despite a commitment to discontinue their utilization, while Newsweek recognizes their continued use— they give HP credit due to progressively diminished usage.

HP got especially high marks for it's Green Policy and Performance from Newsweek, issues Greenpeace did not consider. While Newsweek's ranking system is more comprehensive, there is good reason Greenpeace looks specifically at PVC and BFRs. Dioxin, an organic compound, produced as a byproduct of PVC production has been implicated in a broad range of health problems from acne to sarcoma.

Both rankings have valid rationales to justify their methodologies, HP most likely belongs somewhere in between #1 and #14. [Newsweek and Greenpeace]

Thanks Prof. Singaram for helping me work through organic chemistry.

A Greenpeace action today exposed electronics giant Hewlett-Packard for backtracking on its public commitment to eliminate key toxic chemicals in its products by the end of this year (1). In Palo Alto, Greenpeace activists climbed to the top of HP's global headquarters and painted the message "Hazardous Products" in big, bold letters on the roof. The message, applied using non toxic children's finger-paint, covered over 11,500 square ft., or the size of two and half basketball courts.

This protest follows similar demonstrations against HP at its offices in China and Holland. HP employees were also greeted today by an automated phone calls from actor William Shatner, calling upon the company to phase out the toxic chemicals.

Finger paints? Shatner? That sounds like a nursery school art class being taught by Captain Kirk.

Greenpeace: Hewlett-Packard = Hazardous Products

Action at global headquarters highlights company's broken promises on hazardous chemical elimination

SAN FRANCISCO – A Greenpeace action today exposed electronics giant Hewlett-Packard for backtracking on its public commitment to eliminate key toxic chemicals in its products by the end of this year (1). In Palo Alto, Greenpeace activists climbed to the top of HP's global headquarters and painted the message "Hazardous Products" in big, bold letters on the roof. The message, applied using non toxic children's finger-paint, covered over 11,500 square ft., or the size of two and half basketball courts.

This protest follows similar demonstrations against HP at its offices in China and Holland. HP employees were also greeted today by an automated phone calls from actor William Shatner, calling upon the company to phase out the toxic chemicals.

"HP continues to put hazardous products on the market despite promises made years ago to phase out these toxic compounds," said Greenpeace International Toxics Campaigner Casey Harrell. "Apple has led the sector in phasing out of these toxic chemicals. HP should be following Apple's lead, instead of breaking its commitment and delaying action."

Earlier this year, HP postponed its 2007 commitment to phase out of dangerous substances such as brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics (2) from its computing products. Its delay shifts compliance up to two years from 2009 to 2011.

Apple's new computer lines, virtually free of PVC and completely BFR free (3) demonstrate the technical feasibility and supply chain readiness of producing alternatives to these hazardous substances. Competitors Dell, Lenovo and Acer have stayed ahead of HP by putting models on the market that are free of or at least significantly reduced in the use of PVC and BFRs. HP currently stands in 14th place in the quarterly Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics (4) having been penalized in the previous ranking for its backtracking on PVC/BFR phase out.

"Greenpeace will not stand idly by while companies that commit to environmentally responsible action backtrack on commitments," Harrell said. "As the number one seller of PCs worldwide (5), HP has both the responsibility and the ability to make sure the company no longer deserves the moniker ‘Hazardous Products'."

PVC and BFRs are highly toxic, and can release dioxin, a known carcinogen, when burned. With the growing tsunami of electronic waste being shipped to developing countries for open burning, workers who deal with e-waste are at the most significant risk for health impacts. Eliminating these substances will decrease exposure to workers and consumers and will increase the recyclability and reusability of electronic products.

[Image via Flickr]

Essentially, the app gives iPhone users a quick and handy guide to finding the greenest toilet paper, tissues, paper towels, and paper napkins sold at the supermarket. Ideally, the best products contain 100 percent recycled content (at least 50 percent of which is from post-consumer materials) and avoid the use of chlorine or chlorine compounds in the whitening process. Products that meet this criteria include Green Forest, Natural Value and Seventh Generation while products from companies like Kleenex, Charmin, Angel Soft, Cottonelle, Brawny, and Scott fall short.

Oh yes...there's an app for that. Thankfully, it's also free. And don't forget that Mother Earth cries when you use too much TP. Conserve paper by wiping with one square—both sides. [iTunes]

What would have really had Greenpeace all hot and bothered last Tuesday was if Apple had become the first vendor to announce a laptop without polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or brominated flame retardant (BFR) materials. These two chemicals have a nasty habit of releasing their toxic badness when they're burned during disposal overseas.

"They fell slightly short of that goal," Harrell said. "They didn't quite get the PVCs out of the external power cord. If Apple can achieve that, then we could unequivocally say that they've put the rest of the computer industry on notice that these materials can be completely eliminated."

Apple, for its part, responded to the criticisms this week with a quiet press release, which was no doubt drowned, beaten and forgotten thanks to the circus in Cupertino Tuesday morning. Regardless, the release pledged that Apple will completely eliminate all PVC and BFR components by the end of this year.

If Apple can manage that, Harrell said, then it would give Greenpeace greater leverage against other computer manufacturers (e.g. Dell, Lenovo and HP).

In other news, Greenpeace also hates the iPhone, the MacBook Air, and puppies that poop too much. But, it loves Apple for the headlines that its products garner for Greenpeace, so go figure. [Yahoo News]

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

"Apple is getting greener, but not green enough," said Rick Hind, the legislative director of Greenpeace's toxics campaign. "The Macbook Air has less toxic PVC plastic and less toxic BFRs, but it could have zero and that would make Apple an eco-leader," he added.

and

"Apple sometimes gets really defensive," Hind admits. "They say: Why are you picking on us—especially when we have such a small market share compared to the rest of the industry?"

The reason, according to Hind, is simple. Apple is seen as a tech leader, especially when it comes to innovation. Even though companies like Dell and HP are much larger and ship many more computers, Greenpeace singles out Apple in order to draw attention to the whole tech industry's eco policies, Hind says.

Read the rest of the back and forth over at Wired. [Wired]

The PS3's got green cred for a recycling program and Sony's toxic policy, while it and the "X-Box" (360?) take knocks for requiring their own power plants. The "X-Box" gets more red thrown on it for Microsoft's sluggish 2011 deadline for eliminating certain chemicals (PVCs and BFRs) from its wares. The Wii gets zeroes across the board again (for the same reasons as last time, nondisclosure) but nets a green point for a small energy footprint.

Sorry Greenpeace, but you aren't going to get kids' attention by using hackneyed versions of familiar game characters loaded up with a narrative that sounds like it was written by scabs for the writers strike hired for $1.50 in the bathroom of a truckstop and colored charts that don't really say anything about anything. And everyone knows form letters are worse than useless—if they were on paper, I'd have to give you an F for pointlessly wasting the life of a tree that would've been better used as firewood. [Clash of the Consoles]

The runner-up is HP, with 13 percent putting up more green for green goods. Overall, the survey makes sense—Mac ownership skews toward segments with more disposable income and that'd be more likely to have environmental concerns. A full 47 percent of US adults, on the other hand, just don't care about the environment. Does that mean they're Nintendo customers? [Forrester Research via Digital Trends via The Raw Feed]

The key to a good rating in this year's survey appears to going PVC plastic and BFR free and offering a solid takeback recycling program. Sony Ericsson and Samsung are both PVC-free and only use BFR in a few products, as well as maintain pretty good takeback programs. They both got a 7.7, though SE would've pulled further ahead with better publicity of its recycling program, and both got knocked for not doing the takeback deal in every country they sell products in.

To contrast, Microsoft's not going PVC-free until 2011, and they're not overly big on recycling e-waste. They got a 2.7, but aren't the bottom of the barrel. That would be Nintendo, the first "global brand" to net zeros across the board. But it's not because they're tossing old DSes into the mouths of baby seals or clubbing them with old Super Scopes. Basically they either won't give out any information about what's in its products or what they're planning greenwise, or simply have no set policy in place.

Given what happens to a lot of electronics taken back in third party drives, it seems reasonable to ask companies to take back their products to make sure they're properly recycled and disposed of, so they're not poisoning exploited workers or leeching nastiness into a dump somewhere. At least until there are better setups in place, since every new HDTV or Zune bought on Black Friday probably means an old one chunked in the trash. [Greenpeace via Kotaku]

Analysis revealed that the phone contains toxic brominated compounds (indicating the presence of brominated flame retardants (BFRs)) and hazardous PVC. Of the 18 internal and external components tested, half the samples returned positive for brominated compounds—including the antenna, which amounts to 10 percent of the total weight of the flexible circuit board.

This isn't the first time Greenpeace has been all up in Apple's face about their supposed lack of commitment to becoming a green company. If you recall, Steve Jobs talked of a greener Apple in the past, but Greenpeace wasn't buying it. So is Greenpeace being unrealistic in their desire to make Apple "green to the core," or should Apple do a better job of eliminating these hazardous chemicals in their products? Or should we just forget about the environment, enjoy our gadgets and tell these hippies to stop bumming us out? [Greenpeace - thanks Mike!]

Apple, which is not just green skin-deep, but green to the core.

GREENPEACE RESPONDS TO "A GREENER APPLE"

Apple Computers, Inc. has publicly declared its new environmental commitment, "A Greener Apple," on its website, at http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/. The announcement would elevate Apple's score on Greenpeace's 'Guide to Greener Electronics,' which will be updated in June, to approximately a 5 (from a previous score of 2.7) out of 10 points. Below is Greenpeace's response to this announcement.

Apple has decided to bring us closer to the greener apple that Mac users all over the world have been asking for.

Apple's new commitment to environmental transparency and the phase out of the worst chemicals in its product range are genuine steps forward. We look forward to Apple going further to green their existing products, to get non-toxic products on the market, and to announce a worldwide take-back and responsible reuse/recycling policies. We will continue to work with Apple users to ask Apple to do just that.

We have seen the enthusiasm with which Apple fans have greeted this campaign, and they have made clear what they want— an Apple which is not just green skin-deep, but green to the core. Greenpeace is asking that Apple re-use or recycle its products at the end of their lifecycles and not allow them to end up in scrap yards or add to the mountains of e-waste that the electronics industry has created. Apple must begin to address these growing problems to ensure that the workers and children of Asia and many developing nations no longer face the unnecessary environmental and health dangers posed by the high-tech industry's waste.

Our work is not over until Apple users get that. We look forward to working with the new, greener Apple in future - toward the greening of the entire electronics industry.

CONTACT: Steve Smith, Greenpeace, (202) 319-2432, or steve.smith@wdc.greenpeace.org

Lighten up, guys. We can find another planet earth once this one is covered in dead year-old iPod carcasses. – Brian Lam

Green My Apple [Greenpeace]