Plenty of technology and IT vendors tell you they're the greenest companies on the planet. Apple, though, recently updated its Web site to reveal in great detail exactly where its greenhouse emissions come from --- and to provide information about the the environmental impacts of its products.
The Apple and the Environment site is a model that other IT and technology vendors should emulate. Sure, there's more than a dollop of marketing mixed in, but mainly the site provides in-depth information about the environmental impact of the use of Apple's products as well as Apple itself.
The site reveals, for example, that the company is responsible for 10.2 million metric tons of greenhouse emissions. It doesn't try to downplay that, either. For example, it includes in that number the amount of emissions caused by consumers using its products.
Here's the breakdown, from the Apple site, about where the company's emissions come from:
- Use of Apple products -- 53%
- Manufacturing -- 38%
- Transportation -- 5%
- Facilities -- 3%
- Recycling -- 1%
The site also shows in what areas Apple has been making environmental improvements. It claims, for example, that the 2009 version of the 10-inch iMac uses 55 percent less materials than the 1998 15-inch iMac. One of the best areas of the site is the one that offers individual, detailed environmental reports on Apple products. You get the rundown about greenhouse gas emissions over a products entire lifecycle, power consumption, packaging, materials efficiency, and more. If you're considering buying an Apple product, it's well worth visiting.
Other vendors should follow suit with similar, detailed information. In the ideal world, IT and technology vendors would agree to standardized measurements and methods of presentation, so that you would easily be able to compare the relative greenness of products before you buy.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen; you'll quickly run out of oxygen. Until then, though, take a few minutes to visit the Apple site, even if you're not planning to buy an Apple product. It'll be well worth your time.

Browse
Engage
Research



Climate









I'm pretty sure the 2009
I'm pretty sure the 2009 "10-inch" iMac is non existant....
nor was there a 15-inch iMac
nor was there a 15-inch iMac in 2009. 2000 maybe, but not 2009.
Someone really needs to proof-read their posts before... posting them
Apple's products have
Apple's products have non-replaceable batteries. I need to replace the entire product in most cases or send it in for an expensive service if I don't have AppleCare.
Wouldn't it be more greener to have replaceable products so the entire product doesn't go to waste?
Apple marketing palaver
The Apple site mentioned in the article mostly gushes the erroneous notion that Apple is benefiting the environment more than its competitors. Nothing could be further from the truth.
A good example of this assertion and of how Apple marketing misleads is given in the very first paragraph of the very first category -- "Manufacturing".
In this paragraph titled "Material Use," Apple touts the "Unibody" design of some of their laptops as saving on materials.
Unfortunately, the "unibody" method is an inherently wasteful and environmentally unsound way of manufacturing. Built into the process is a lot of milling energy expended on each unit and a lot of metal that has to be recycled, requiring more energy.
Not only does milling big pieces of metal in large scale production-runs consume a lot of electricity, it also uses a lot of toxic machining lubricant, that has to be disposed.
To recycle all of the metal shavings generated, energy has to be expended to gather them and package/handle them. Then, the shavings have to be shipped to a foundry, using even more energy. At the foundry, a lot of additional energy is required to remelt the shavings and to make new ingots. My guess is that Apple is not counting these shavings when they claim to be "saving on materials."
In addition, please note that this whole process is pre-consumer -- it is additional to and separate from the process of the consumer recycling their end product.
On the other hand, injection molding plastic requires much less energy and almost no material waste, with no pre-consumer recycling necessary. Most of Apple's competitors use injection molding and fasteners -- much more environmentally friendly.
Apple Ranks 133 on Newsweek's Green Rankings!
Interesting article, but why is Apple 133 on the Green Rankings that just came out this week. http://greenrankings.newsweek.com/companies/view/apple.
The top of the list is filled with other computer companies. Where does Apple fall down in comparison?
Water Usage/Revenue
Solid Waste Disposed/Revenue
Toxic Emissions
Toxic Emissions/Revenue
Climate Change Policies And Performance
And nothing spectacular in other areas.
green computers
Is anyone working on a solar chip to power computers? I have this idea it could be possible to design a chip that sits in the window storing solar energy and then plugs into the computer to power it. Is that totally crazy or is someone working on that? Any info would be greatly appreciated. j