I dont think Apple or anyone else would be all that worried about that kind of survey. You can prove anything you want with these things.

it's made of plastics, and metals and runs on electric and is connected to a very warm screen, and internal bits stuff spins all the time....tough shit...thats technology for you....

i presume that greenpeace/ngo/enviro-fecking-smugtwat don't use computers (or macs for any of their designed literature)?, they just bang rocks together and make patterns in the sand with sharpened sticks....piss off and face reality....

I'm sure much of this "green" awareness is just PR. Companies saying they are or will be doing things.

PCs are generally less green because their effective lifespan is shorter. I threw all sorts of CPUs, motherboards and CPU fans away when I was building my own computers. None at all since I got a Mac.

I am sure many in star chamber environmental court believe in what they do ("star chamber" because the enviro. court does not follow long established rule of law procedures).

But others are onboard for consulting opportunities. They are calling Apple now offering their services to help Apple change practices to raise their ratings.

Another group might issue a report claiming Apple doesn't employ enough African-Americans in management or Apple stores. "Consultants" would then call on Apple to offer consulting services.

I have two similarly-equipped servers in Colo. The Apple Xserve (quad-core, 3Ghz) consumes under 2A, the IBM p510Q, 4.5A. The Xserve could be a noisy neighbour at my desk. The p510Q sounds like a jet engine.

Focus on the power efficiency of their products and the impact to the environment, not the fact that a company has a dedicated 'green-washing' team of PR wanks.

Wow, applebois are running wild here. Had it been the other way around and Apple was the most environmentally conscious of all the companies the bitching about other companies would be endless: "only Apple really cares about the world!", "YOU MUST RECYCLE!!!". Instead now we hear how Apple is being treated unfairly and in the end really all the companies destroy the environment as much so Apple is doing nothing wrong.

(And btw, I've been a mac user over 10 years and just purchased my first pc because the cultists give me the creeps (and I saved loads of money). I've read enough of their delusions in all the mac forums that I used to frequent. It's quite sad actually, since macs are really quite nice and the rabid fanbois are really vocal, even though of course most mac users are just nice and average people who don't give rat's ass about manufacturer wars. But the fanbois pretending to have found the Holy Grail with Apple products are just so tiresome.)

According to environmentalist groups Apple is not environment-friendly. I believe them much more than the Apple's spinmeisters in Cupertino.

So they can put in invisible tags for "climate change" and up their score?

I'm more inclined to use go to the lower scoring companies. At least they aren't wasting money on this crud.

This is purely about a group of people, "Climate Counts", trying to bootstrap themselves into significance and fame.

I assume none of this alleged climate change crap has got ANY solid scientific evidence yet. Still.

If you extrapolate current polar temperatures (as an Ice age temperature) to current average temperatures at the scientifically stated rate of temp rise since 1900 then you get around 10,000 years between the two temperatures. The end of the last ice age. And a fair fit to a straight line.

Not that I'm saying man doesn't impact the environment SOME way, that'd be as dumb as saying it's impossible there's alien lifeforms anywhere in the universe. It's also dumb to believe self-interested parties who have no solid scientific evidence. Especially to the extent we're told we should as if they're some new fkn religion.

Still the green ecotards have all known the shortest route between two points is a quango and a lobbying expenses account.

I hope they all get bamboo poisoning.

What computers do these people use? What is their "score". Please compute it for us.

Pardon me, you mistake me for someone who actually "gives a damn!".

So, I'm leaving now!

Isn't a green apple a sour apple?

Paris is always green aware!

"""It’s not the first time Apple’s been rapped over the knuckles..."""

Man the first time I skimmed that sentance, I read 'rapped' as 'raped.' Needless to say I was dissapointed upon re-reading.

The frieken earth cooled last year... all these climate change morons need to shutup. Man has nothing to do with it. Besides, the "green" movement is nothing more than a smoke screen for the communist movement... aka, anti-capitalist.

If one is to ignore the frothing babble of the neanderthals above, the most surprising thing about this survery is that Nokia are placed near the bottom of the pile. They are widely recognised as doing more than any other large electronics company to reduce their ecological impact, and continue to pour large sums into research and development in this field. The fact that they're quieter than other companies means that they're poorly thought of in this benchmark, whereas those who shout loudest and green-wash are ranked most highly.

iTunes is Apple's contribution to the environment. Just imagine all the plastic waste which will be saved when CDs are dead.

This probably isn't the right thread for sorting out the whole Global Warming/Cooling issue. But that said, this survey IS a load of crap, as comment #1 correctly observed. It is totally subjective and seems to be based on little more than the number of nice, pretty eco-feel-good pages each company has on its website.

While we hope that Apple (and similar companies) are good stewards of the planet, at the end of the day Apple's only responsibility is to return a profit to its shareholders; nothing more, nothing less.

see http://www.poandpo.com/business-as-usual/how-climate-counts-got-it-all-wrong/ and http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/05/10/climate-counts-fake-attack-on-apple/

I remember reading an interview with Steve Jobs back when he was running NeXT. Late 1980s, I believe. He was discussing product design, the NeXT approach, and used a personal example to describe 'good design'. For some reason (I can no longer remember), he was buying appliances for his home. He had found Miele, and bought their washer/dryer machines. He went on to describe that the Miele washer uses LESS water, and LESS detergent to achieve the same result (clean clothes). He said that THAT was GOOD design.

[Being Steve Jobs, he also berated the US manufacturers for NOT having 'Good Design'.]

The point is, that in the late 1980s a VERY RICH guy was buying products for personal use that were more efficient and less polluting.

So somehow he has changed his whole outlook NOW ???????

[B. S. !!]

Ahhh it was only in this articles http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/29/microsoft_research_grants_hypervisor/comments/ where the apple guys were running around slagging off MS for being ungreen even though they were giving away millions to help....

You stupid dicks

>I threw all sorts of CPUs, motherboards and CPU fans away when I >was building my own computers. None at all since I got a Mac.

Lame argument Im afraid, the Mac you bought is responsible for a lot of PC parts being made redundant (the PC you replaced) and eventually will be made redundant itself and be replaced by another computer.

Or are Macs magical and never wear out or require upgrades?

Paris, coz I cant be arsed with any other icon