kahri

mstump

"Greenpeace's effort is an exercise in
hypocrisy and showmanship no matter how
you look at it."

I agree, I would also state that a large part of the "environmental efforts" are of that same nature.

Why do we have these grandstanding efforts???? To promote socialist/communist policies. (period)

Particularly Al Gore's efforts.

cyberlink74

T-man

They are blinded by their own self-righteousness. Greenpeace? Get a life you hypocrites.

IrisMR

I think you mean "take Apple to task". Just so Gizmodo isn't engaging in rhetoric as well, creating an implication of "taking on" corporations, when you're really just writing about them, however influential that may or may not be to this or that person (while others who sue them or meet them in the marketplace actually "take them on"). Not to make a big deal out of it, but just pointing it out.

Cleverboy

johankh

And now this bullshit, we point out someone special if they are no worse than the industry at large. So retarded.

Fuck Greenpeace, all hail Apple.

johankh

Stop the Greenpeace bashing already, the name calling, and the ridiculous need to just feel as if the report by Greenpeace just justifies your pre-existent prejudices!

I love apple, I read the article by Greenpeace, and sure it made me think, but it didn't make me feel like hating the organization. Rather it made me think about when you love something at times you are less likely to question their motives or decisions. We all know that businesses are not perfect (including Greenpeace), but we as consumers should be aware of the materials used in the items we use.

We could talk for hours about why Greenpeace should not have used apple as a means to gain publicity for a cause, but it still in the end did make us think. Hating Greenpeace is not the answer, I'm sure some of them probably even used an apple to edit the video.

iamnora

That is the equation 'hyped device, media attention".

I do honestly think that Greenpeace objectives are good. But deeply agree with Jesus that they have become a corporation. And, as a corporation, they market their product. Low blows are a must in this situation, and moral is often regarded as a secondary matter. What matters is business.

MACPollo

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.

leicaman

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.

honozooloo

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.

Stimcs

"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..."

montsnmags

"- 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.

Dearhaw

tundraboy

[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.

Falconfire

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

pomophobe

ianken

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.

Jesus Diaz

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!

media_lush

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.

flotson

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.

Monty

Jesus Diaz

No wonder Greenpeace comes out looking like total asses.

monkey_87

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.

honozooloo

BotchedJoke

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.

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:

"Greenpeace welcomes the debate that has been sparked by our report analyzing hazardous chemicals used in the iPhone."

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.

frigg

Thank you.

TC2COOL

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.

freeway8989

mullingitover

- The iPhone is, according to this website, the 4th most popular phone. That puts it squarely and legitimately in the crosshairs of Greenpeace.

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.

Jesus Diaz

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!"

media_lush

newgalactic

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.

Adolf

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.

FredicvsMaximvs

- 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.

weatherman

Totorototoro

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

mlmorg

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.

Adolf

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.

92BuickLeSabre

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.

aseriesoftubes

Spyrojoe

kagharaht