The not so peaceful world of Greenpeace (excerpt from: http://www.highnorth.no/Library/...e/ge-ar-gr.htm)
A band of scrappy protesters in rubber rafts, saving whales. That's the Greenpeace image. The reality: a multinational organization accountable only to itself, with large revenues and a brilliant ability to manipulate the press and the public.
"The secret to David McTaggart's success is the secret to Greenpeace's success: It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.... You are what the media define you to be. [Greenpeace] became a myth, and a myth-generating machine."
The cynical description of the organization Greenpeace comes not from some right-winger annoyed at the excess of the environmentalist movement but from Paul Watson, cofounder of Greenpeace and now the director of a rival ecology group, the Sea Shepherd Society.
Watson, who left Greenpeace in 1977, was talking about how the organization grew from a ragtag band of hippies to the largest environmental organization in the world, with a membership of 5 million and offices in 24 countries. Not the least ingredient in this success was the clever myth-creation referred to by Watson.
Under its recently departed guru, David McTaggart, 59, the $157 million (1990 revenues) Greenpeace became a skillfully managed business, mastering the tools of direct mail and image manipulation - and indulging in forms of lobbying that would bring instant condemnation if practiced by a for-profit corporation. Ironical, this, considering that McTaggart marketed Greenpeace as very much the nemesis of the powerful multinational corporation.
The mythic image is of a band of young daredevils hanging off a refinary smokestack or thrusting themselves in the path of the whaler's harpoon. This image has made a mighty impression. Greenpeace Germany, for instance, second-largest branch operation after Greenpeace U.S.A., had revenues last year of $36 million and 700,000 members, of whom 320,000 permit Greenpeace to automatically debit their bank accounts annually for the dues of 50 deutsche marks ($30).
But all is not peaceful in the inner workings of Greenpeace these days. The myth is fraying a little around the edges. Beginning this spring, German publications have carried revelations of millions of marks of donations being funneled into Greenpeace savings accounts rather than used to fight pollution.
Greenpeace underwent a major shakeup on Sept. 2 with the announcement by its international headquarters in Amsterdam that Davod McTaggart had resigned as chairman after 12 years in the post. Replacing him was Helsinki civil rights lawer Matti Wuori, 46; McTaggart became honorary chairman and says he will spend his time, among other things, on helping the Soviet Union clean up its environment. The timing was interesting, to say the least. There is some reason to believe that Wuori was brought in as a Mr. Clean to scrub Greenpeace's now somew
Greenpeace is not unique in using false rhetoric to acceive "environmental" goals. Here is a link on the DDT ban:
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm
Here are a few quotes from that page:
It is believed that [malaria] afflicts between 300 and 500 million every year, causing up to 2.7 million deaths, mainly among children under five years.
...
Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.
...
Years of carefully controlled feeding experiments involving levels of DDT as high as present in most wild birds resulted in no tremors, mortality, thinning of egg shells nor reproductive interference.
---
The environmental claims need much better substaniation than is provided.
I think you have totally missed the point of Greenpeace's report with your point about TBBA not being bio-accumulative etc etc (and what about the other chemicals discussed?). I am not a chemist, and I'm not sure it's even worth mentioning since you seem so biased against Greenpeace that you are not objectively looking at the facts.
Firstly, as a long time Apple user I was disappointed to hear about the report, not for concern about myself or Professor Boobis, but because of this:
"In many countries entire communities, including children, earn their livelihoods by scavenging metals, glass and plastic from old computers. To extract the small quantity of gold, capacitors are melted down over a charcoal fire. The plastic on the electrical cords is burnt in barrels to expose the copper wires. All in all each computer yields about US $6 worth of material (Basel Action Network). Not very much when you consider that burning the plastic sends dioxin and other toxic gases into the air. And the large volume of worthless parts are dumped nearby, allowing the remaining heavy metals to contaminate the area."
http://www.vitalgraphics.net/was...-
37_ewaste.html
This e-waste problem is not just recognised by Greenpeace, but also UNEP and various other NGOs. I bet that Prof. Alan Boobis wouldn't like to be sitting in a scrapyard burning TBBA-coated plastics and breathing in all those lovely dioxins, no matter how "harmless" it is when it's in your TV.
Secondly you point out that Apple is recognized as a "leader in environmental policy by the Sierra Club" however you fail to tell us what the criteria for this was, or to consider whether the criteria applied by the Sierra Club applied globally. Note that Apple's *own* press-release on this stated: "Equipment received by the program in the US is recycled domestically and no hazardous material is shipped overseas." But what about outside the US?
C Harris-
The facts about TBBA are only an issue because Greenpeace lied. Read their press release, then compare the facts Greenpeace found in their own report: they don't match. Greenpeace lied to create a malicious, misleading snowstorm of fraud.
Poverty and ewaste dumping are real issues, but Greenpeace is doing nothing to solve these issues.
Read the article and note how Greenpeace is giving a green light to corporations that churn out millions of toxic, disposable PCs - the vast majority of 97% of the worldwide PC market - to create a PR stink about Apple, which generates not only many fewer PCs worldwide, but meets much more stringent regulations and leads the industry in removing CRTs from the marketplace.
Children in China and India are not playing in burning piles of Mac minis and 17" Powerbooks. They are suffering from cheap and disposable PCs, many of which are dumped out in those same countries.
Greenpeace filters out the gnat and slurps down the camel. They don't do anything to solve issues, they're only concerned about creating a disfunctional panic about non-issues so they can take money from gullible supporters.
TBBA prevents plastics from burning. Plastics generate toxic fumes when they do burn, which is why TBBA is used: to save lives in fires.
You are short on facts and long on inneffectual bluster. I suggest you familiarize yourself on the issues before you launch into weepy diatribes.
Daniel,
I wonder what kind of response you might get if you wrote Apple Legal a letter inquiring why they don’t sue Greenpeace for libel?
First of all, Daniel, as an aspiring journalism student, I'm rather appauled at your comments directed at C. Harris. You were the one who asked for comments, and to reply to them as "diatribes" with such malicious language simply seems unprofessional. As an outside spectator looking to write a column on the issue, I thought Harris brought up valid points of argument that you completely ignored. Yes, Greenpeace sensationalized information and reported it in a misleading manner that could well hurt Apple's reputation. But as Rainy Day suggested, where's the libel case if there's actual malice involved? I expect Apple to sue within the week if the report is indeed completely false. More importantly, what the report establishes more than anything, is not a condemnation of Apple alone, but of computer companies in general. Obviously, Greenpeace has an agenda, and a biased one at that. In this instance, they unfairly targeted Apple through media spin. Still, their main intent seems to want computer companies to think "greener," and though Apple's "toxicity" is extremely limited, it still exists, as it does in all computer companies' products. What Greenpeace probably wants more than anything, though, is for younger generations, a mac-targeted audience, to care about green issues. And Apple should note that the younger generation is more educated on these issues and willing to support companies that will make further efforts to remain green. If poverty and ewaste are something Greenpeace doesn't do anything about, as you suggest, then why has their, although questionable report and subsequent press release, brought it the forefront of media attention? I understand TBBA saves lives, but it can possibly also endanger them, even if it's only in extreme cases. So wouldn't a better solution be to actively pursue an alternative to TBBA that is both a flame retardant and chemically safe? I guess I just don't understand why you reacted as if you were being attacked. To me, that type of response discourages discussion.
What a sad way to start off a morning; this is the most shameful eco campaign I have seen in a long while. I don't know how to respond to this campaign any better than this - employees of Greenpeace, you are bullies, and you are cowards. The half-truths on your webpage could apply, almost universally, to any vendor. I turn my back on you and your organization.
Hey "journalism student"... it's appalled not appauled. Maybe you should be a "dictionary student" for a while first.
Tyler
You agree that:
1) "Greenpeace sensationalized information and reported it in a misleading manner that could well hurt Apple's reputation";
2) "Greenpeace has an agenda, and a biased one at that.";
3) and that "they unfairly targeted Apple through media spin."
But you imply that it's all OK because Apple can "sue within the week if the report is indeed completely false".
This is just naive. My opinion is that a lawsuit against Greenpeace would be a PR "tar baby". Apple would get covered with the "tar" of these unfair accusations and give them a much wider audience by doing just what you are suggesting - defending themselves in court.
I do believe that you may be correct that Greenpeace wants to influence "the younger generation", but do not agree at all that the younger generation is more educated on these issues.
You end your posting by noting that it would be better to actively pursue an alternative to TBBA use that is effective and chemically safe - just what the quote from Apple says they are doing. It is also clear that this is NOT what Greenpeace is doing unless you agree that smearing a company through the press and on the web is an effective way to get their cooperation.
I agree with Daniel that Greenpeace's activities seem to be much more focused on using the cachet of Apple to create publicity (and perhaps thereby contributions) for Greenpeace than in any real efforts to work on the underlying problems.
I won't contribute to Greenpeace in any way in the future. Environmentalism through exaggerations, lies and bullying is no way to win members or contributors.
An alternative organization that I admire and recommend to you and others is the Nature Conservancy ( http://www.nature.org ). They are an organization that to my mind uses cooperation, negotiation, respect for individuals and communities, and a facts-based, scientific approach to reach solutions to improve and preserve and conserve important natural resources.
Regards,
Kevin
Kevin,
First, I don't think what Greepeace did is OK. I do think it was a smart PR move, especially since it's now national headlines. And yes, a libel suit may just cause more PR problems for Apple, just like Daniel's articles have done by highlighting an issue that really shouldn't garner so much media attention by making it a dispute.
I also agree with the Nature Conservancy as a better alternative to Greenpeace. I'm familiar with the group and much prefer their tactics.
I wonder, though, if Greepeace's "lies, exaggerations and bullying" is no way to get money or members, why does it work? It's wrong, but so is most political campaining and advertising. Have you seen Apple's commercials? It's not like they promote their product without trying to "bully" the PC by portraying it as an old, ready-to-fail competitor.
I still beleive younger generations are much more educated on environmental issues and have to disagree with you there. We have grown up with enviromental consciousness more so than older generations, and in general, take more interest in environmentally friendly causes. We just aren't as politically active about it, yet.
And anonymous, that's what's an editor's for. 
I didn't say I was an English major and this is just a quick comment so I'm not going to run a spell check or check the dictionary on such a small quibble.
"If Greenpeace had Al Gore buy an Apple laptop..."
Al Gore can probably get an Apple laptop for free. He's on Apple's Board of Directors, after all.
Tyler,
You strike fear in my heart for any hope of a return to responsible journalism.
One side of your arguement is "who cares if Greenpeace is spewing lies and sensationalism, it's getting them money and headlines!" and the other side is that my critisism of Greenpeace is bad for Apple because it is "highlighting an issue that really shouldn't garner so much media attention by making it a dispute."
What exactly is it that interests you in journalism as a student!? You present yourself like a total sell out interested only in getting paid to print press releases and discourage intelligent discussion on issues, for fear it might bring too much attention to issues.
Holy crap, I sure hope you are not really representative of the ideals of a "younger generation." That would be very sad.
Hello,
using Apple as a jumppod to get alot of media attention seems to be the name of the game. Just remember some weeks ago, when thet two security experts used a Mac Book pro to show how easy it is to break in to a system using WLAN. Only afterwards did they admit that they used the MacBookPro only to get attention, and that they used 3rd party hardware and software.
This whole greenpeace hoax seems to be the same stuff. We rig the facts so that Apple looks bad and then we can use our great campaign idea.
The bottom line:
It hurts Apple. The WLAN buzz did hurt Apples rep alot as media reported on the "Apple is Broken" but never on the real facts.
Same thing here. Media reports "Apple stinks with iWaste".
Todays fastpaced internet journalism don't leave any time for second sources and source critisics. It someone wrote it, it's a fact. If it can sell, it's news.
quote from this article:
"I didn't present them as reasons Greenpeace had no credibility, but rather examples of Greenpeace being sloppy with planning and facts"
Quote from your original article:
"Not only did Greenpeace ineffectually and pointlessly cause a huge amount of damage, but it also destroyed its own credibility"
people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones! You have raised some good points (and your readers have), but you are as guilty as Greenpeace of hyperbole and selective reading. You also make some pretty sweeping statements without any more evidence than Greenpeace produced e.g. "Apple makes PCs that are sold at a minimum price point that allows them to make sustainable machines that last longer", where are your sources?!
Overall I agree that Greenpeace should be more intelligent in their analysis of company performance, and not simply produce a report based on publically described policy without making that very clear (which apparently it was not when initially released). However, if you push companies into publically declaring a policy, you can then hold them to account for it. And given that Greenpeace are going to be updating regularly, it won't take long for Apple to be able to describe their policies, and eclipse all the other companies. I am sure that will merit a headline or two as well.
Mike,
You took my comments out of context. For what point? To show I was hurting and misleading people, or to sling mud in the hopes something would stick?
I'm not criticizing Greenpeace --and its grossly incompetent, intentionally misleading, and inaccurate reports--and its distraction from real environmental issues to attack Apple in its fundraising drive--simply to attack Greenpeace.
I'm criticizing them because they are wrong and they are huring people and reputations just to get money. And they know it.
So I have to ask, why did you spend time looking for a quote you could make to smear my research?
Have I wrongly accused anyone of things they haven't done? Am I profiting from badmouthing a big corporate fundraising organization that ignores environmental issues over money?
---
The snippets of text you pulled out of context were in the first case in response to GP's statement, arguing that I brought up unrelated events to attacking their credibility.
In reality, they destroyed their own credibilty. I presented them as examples of how incompetent and ineffectual it was for GP to be spending donations to self-agrandize the organization while damaging the environment.
i think its truely lame that you spend your time looking for ways you can attack me for volunteering to be the basically the only one criticizing the giant fraud that GP is-- and for what?
GP isn't guilty of "hyperbole," they are complete liars pushing fraud data and covering up the truth.
If you are not aware that Macs have a longer lifespan, then go buy a $299 PC and figure that puzzle out for yourself.
Apple is not really making "premium computers", it's making "expensive computers". I bought a Mac mini... two in fact... because it was the cheapest way to get an up to date machine running OS X, not because the hardware itself was worth it.
The Mac mini has a shorter lifespan than a comparable Wintel system, because it can't be upgraded. The video processor in the original Mac Mini was barely adequate when it was introduced, and became inadequate within 6 months when Apple released Core Image... and didn't support it on the Mini's Radeon 9200 GPU. The new Intel mini has a GPU - the Intel GMA950 - that is even less capable for 3d, and only manages to meet the performance of the old (inadequate) Radeon by dedicating one of the two cores in the CPU to supporting it.
It would cost Apple no more than a few dollars a unit, out of the couple of hundred dollars of gross profit they make on each mini, to put a PCI-E video slot in so that when Leopard or its successor needs capabilities that the GMA950 doesn't provide people can upgrade their minis instead of buying new computers.
But that would make the expensive Mini maybe an inch or so taller, and so it's out of the question... even though the Mini's size does nothing but make it *look* cooler.
Even without the intel upgrade, I'd already be looking at replacements for the Mini I bought less than a month after they were announced, that became obsolete a few months later...
Meanwhile my 3 year old $300 PC, a year and a half older than my Mini, has just been upgraded with a new video card and is going strong...
So while many Macs have a longer lifespan, their hot-selling Mini is designed to be disposable.
"The Mac mini has a shorter lifespan than a comparable Wintel system, because it can't be upgraded. The video processor in the original Mac Mini was barely adequate when it was introduced, and became inadequate within 6 months when Apple released Core Image... and didn't support it on the Mini's Radeon 9200 GPU. The new Intel mini has a GPU - the Intel GMA950 - that is even less capable for 3d, and only manages to meet the performance of the old (inadequate) Radeon by dedicating one of the two cores in the CPU to supporting it."
Inadequate for what? Games?
I still see original Mac cubes being used with Photoshop/Illustrator and Flash production with no probs.
You obviously don't know how to handle your Macs, because if to you a $300 PC is better - there are intangibles that either you're not communicating, or are plain blind to due to blindness.
On average, the Macs I've used for the past 20 some odd years have been quite adequate for web and print production for about 5 and half years. Each one was able to handle the upgrades to the OS and 99% of the time, ran faster than they did on the older system.
I've used Macs since system 6.x so I'm not talking out of my ass. I've yet to see PCs the same age as a Mac capable of handling as many OS upgrades withOUT having to change out hardware, software, and drivers blah blah blah.
Aside from all of that - you discuss a Mac mini. All other Macs are upgradable. Have you checked the specs on the towers since... oh I don't know... 1998?
Wake up. Catch up. Compare something that comparable - and if you need help with that - go to http://systemshootouts.org/
Mac fanboys are so funny. Anytime Apple is attacked, the uprising to defend the company is so predictable.
billyo, you didn't get the gist of Peter's "the Mac mini has a shorter lifespan" comment. Lets do some comparable comparisons based on price then.
First of all, upgradeability in the Mac universe tends to come at a premium. Even a cheap $300 clone at least has expansion slots. With a Mac, you need to lay out at least $2000 for a Mac Pro and before some wiseass says the Mac Pro's are cheaper than a Dell Precision 690, you are missing the point; I don't have to buy a Dell workstation to get PCI-e slots for expandability purposes. I can get a much cheaper box from them with a C2D E6600 for example which would suit the same purpose. Likewise, if you spend $599 for a mini versus the same amount for something from Gateway or Dell, the latter will actually have a longer lifespan because there would be options for upgrading the GPU and adding other technology as needed. With the mini, you pretty much are locked in (with the exception of the socketed CPU) and have to buy a whole new system once software technology exceeds the limits of the builtin GPU.
The iMac's are no better. You're stuck in the same way plus with a screen. In what way besides the MXM slot in the 24" are the iMac's really upgradeable? (without tearing apart the machine to get to either the hard drive or the socketed CPU). That MXM graphics slot by the way is meant to be OEM serviceable only, not a customer serviceable one. Big difference there since it means you won't likely see any market for such parts. What if I wanted to add e-SATA ports to a mini or iMac? Oh, dang, no PCI-e slots in them. I can easily do that on a $300 pile of junk from Gateway but I have to go and drop at least $2000 for the priviledge in the Apple universe or wait until they decide to offer it on their lower cost consumer systems.
Yeah, Mac's have tended to last longer but part of their longetivity was also based in part of the PPC architecture which had a different lifecycle than what exists in the Intel world. The Intel Mac's are now going to be on even more equal footing with other Intel based PC's since at some point in time, Mac's have to be competitive from a performance point of view. Style will only get you so far. This means the churn rate will be higher going forward and given the fact that Apple stratifies their products by pushing upgradeability towards their more pricier product (the Mac Pro) means that the consumer products are going to be feature/expandability limited compared to what PC vendors offer at the same or lower prices. In that scenario, a PC with the same price points as a mini or iMac can be upgraded to last longer reducing e-waste as time goes on.
I don't want to spend much time feeding the troll, but it does seem useful to point out that there is no ecological benefit to throwing away your El Cheapo PC's video card (20% of your PC ewaste is now in the trash, remember?) and putting in a new one.
If you are arguing about longevity and green, you're way upriver without a paddle.
It makes more sense to buy what you need from the start. People buying a Mac mini realize the video card is designed for specific purposes.
Since consumer PC's are often targeted to gamers, there's a lot of throwing parts away to upgrade, meaning that PC's not only have a shorter useful lifespan, but they also get throw away multiple times within that lifetime.
The most difficult parts to recycle are circuit boards, so if you throw them all out and put in new ones, all you're "saving" is the metal box. In other words, PC's generate far more ewaste in their lifespan for many reasons.
All the old Macs I see in service are chugging away largely with all of their original equipment. That's what consumers want in large measure, and why Apple offers the Mac mini and iMac as no-fuss boxes that just work, without needing a parts exchange to play the latest game.
I've never seen anyone take steps to recycle an old video card, and most people wouldn't even know how they could.
There is nothing "green" about low end PC trash. Instead, it represents the real problem that Greenpeace is so carefully ignoring. Why? Because cheap PC owners don't contribute to social causes anyway, and Greenpeace is all about getting money, not accomplishing anything.
Hey, I'm a Mac!
I totaly agree with you that one should compare comparable systems, and the mini has very limited expandability.
But it seems to me tht you're also forgeting one thing. Apple do not compete in the cheap tower segment. They compete in roughly three desktop segments: mini PC, all-in-one and high end towers.
I did a very slopy google search for Mini PC, and clicked on the first link. The price point/expandability that I found amazed me:
Little PC price list for Celeron computers
Cheers
Lets not degrade into a Mac vs PC war, lets get back to the topic at hand. Greenpeace.
Greenpeace: "Hey I hear you, it's funny to me to, hey it's strange to me too but we're talking about facts man, we're not even talking about the raising money, when it actually matters, we're talking about facts."
Remember, Greenpeace are the ones who put the "FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE" back in the debate.
see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...6060101884.html
among others.
Daniel Eran,
I never comment on blogs, but you get so many diggs... Can't let this one slip.
You really need to step back, and take several while you're at it. You're missing the big picture (and the point along with it).
Greenpeace is a political organisation (BTW this is how we spell "organisation" in Canada and the U.K.) , a lobbying group. You show surprise at their P.R. tactics, but they are the weapons for the kind of political warfare they engage in. They are weapons their adversaries make use of daily.
You may disagree with their reports, press releases, etc. Personally, I don't really give a shit: we get so much FUD from government (especially the current U.S. administration) and lobby-controlled media, it's really hard to cut through all of it with simple facts. Average people crave sensational news. Average people don't read factual accounts (unless they are sensational).
Thanks to Greenpeace's report, more people than ever are thinking and asking themselves questions about the disposing of electronic waste. For that reason alone, the campaign is a success. I don't care how many "lies" it contains or if it was done on Apple's back (tough - they can take it). All that matters is that this is now an issue the average joe was not aware of, and is now aware of. Raising awareness is tough.
I'm curious about two things:
1) Why are you convinced Greenpeace is after money first and foremost? Who stands to benefit from this money? Are Greenpeace employees making huge salaries? As far as I know, there are no shareholders that stand to gain from greater membership or income, are there?
2) Your writings on this issue are very emotional (haven't read any other blogs of yours). Are you being paid by Apple?
Sleepless
Just for the record of unusable Macs. This is written on an old G4 Cube which is my development system
So, basically it comes down to whether you agree with whether the ends justify the means or not. Is it ok for Greenpeace to lie and make a huge libelous fuss (and a slanderous fuss when they are shouting out in public and not just passing around written reports), or would it be better for them to act in other ways? Does the negative, hyperbolic attention actually work, or do quieter, more studied actions do as much or more to combat the issue at hand?
I think it's clear we don't have enough data to prove either way. We just don't know if the Greenpeace way is really working or not. They might be getting some press, but is it the right press in order to effect change? we won't know for a while. And we may or may not have alternatives to compare the method to.
However, for my part, I prefer not lying and creating a fuss using misrepresentation. I don't believe the ends justify the means. I don't believe that Greenpeace needs to stop to the tactics of its opponents in order to win their battles. Obviously Greenpeace and some here disagree, and that's fine. Each to his or her own.
[Hi Dean - if Greenpeace were accomplishing some heroics in environmental action, one could make the argument that their questionable tactics should be overlooked. However, Greenpeace isn't accomplishing anything but raising money for more high-noise, low-action demonstrations and more fund raising drives. I tried to point out that Greenpeace is lost in the issues, yelping about issues that are not important while ignoring real and actionable environmental problems in the tech sector that deserve mention and attention. Greenpeace doesn't intend to create change, they intend to sign up auto renewing donations. That's why they are directly targeting affluent Mac users with nonsensical hysteria and following it up with a "donate now" demand. If there's any doubt, check the GP website. - Dan]
"All that matters is that this is now an issue the average joe was not aware of, and is now aware of. Raising awareness is tough." So just lie and exaggerate about it? Ah the end justifies the means. Nice.
Thanks for taking a very aggressive and well executed lead on this. It is about time that people realized the degree to which the environmentalist community is willing to sacrifice truth whenever it is expedient to do so. It would seem however, that Greenpeace's greatest enemy may be itself. Are its employees really so marginally educated that their "editors" cannot write a literate response letter?
Commenting by HaloScan
