While electronics companies around the world have been working hard to assure buyers that they’ve gone green, Apple has had an especially difficult time convincing consumers of their eco-friendly actions. They’ve been called out by Greenpeace, ranked low on a few green company lists, and been critiqued by Dell for their campaign touting that they had the “greenest family of notebooks”. But the new portion of their site addressing environmental concerns could finally prove that there’s more green to Apple than just that familiar fruit logo.

Called Apple and the Environment, the site could well be one of the most open and consumer-friendly eco-focused sites in the electronics industry, and it may do more than just earn Apple consumer approval; it could set a standard for other companies, too.

On the site, Apple analyzes their environmental impact from a new approach, fully recognizing the lifecycle impacts of their products instead of just the effects of manufacturing, transportation and disposal (as many electronics companies have done). Ultimately, it states that its greenhouse gas emissions break down likes this: 38% from manufacturing, 5% from transportation, 53% from product use, 1% from recycling, and 3% from facilities. Factoring in the product use greenhouse gas emissions brings their overall emissions higher, but gives a much more accurate understanding of the effects of each product. Click here to read more

Powered by Bookmarkify™

If you want a green iPhone, you’re best bet is to get a cover or a custom paint job because the real green factor seems far off for now. The latest iPhone, the 3GS, has, like its predecessors, met with disappointment from environmentalists, who were hoping that Apple (a company promoting a message of eco-friendliness more and more these days) would use the opportunity of a new model to change some of the environmentally damaging properties of the phone.

Unlike some of Apple’s computers—which it’s been working on greening—the iPhone features the kind of toxic materials that land electronics low on green ranking lists, like polyvinyl chloride plastics and brominated flame retardants. These harmful chemicals linger long after consumers have given up their cell phones for new models and can make it difficult to recycle other components. After the first iPhone release, Greenpeace published a report called “Missed Call: the iPhone’s Hazardous Chemicals” highlighting some of the issues caused by the elements used in the phone, including reproductive problems, and they repeated their concerns when the second generation of the iPhone showed up no different environmentally than its predecessor. With other cell phone companies hard at work on phones that charge wirelessly or via solar and eliminating toxic chemicals and virgin plastics from their handsets, Apple may well be falling short of environmental cell phone standards in its quest to offer the most technologically advanced phone on the market. Click here to read more

Powered by Bookmarkify™

The latest Guide to Greener Electronics from Greenpeace is out and the results are rather surprising. Although the Guide ranks the top 17 manufacturers of personal computers, mobile phones, TVs and game consoles, four out of the top five highest ranking companies are cell phone manufacturers. The results aren’t hugely different from the March release of the Guide, which is updated every three months, but some of the changes, like the domination of cell phone manufacturers in top spots, seem to be indicative of the current electronics market.

Holding at number one and number two are Nokia and Samsung, respectively; both companies have been featured in the Greenzer blog over the last few months for environmentally-advanced cellphones (a solar mobile from Samsung and a still-in-development wirelessly charged cell phone from Nokia). Major television maker Philips fell three spots from 4th to 7th and equally TV-popular Sony dropped seven spots to 12th place. Click here to read more

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Americans buy, and eventually toss, about 3 billion batteries per year, and the majority of them are Alkaline batteries. With the average price of a four pack of AA batteries running between $12 - $14, that’s a lot of cash. And we hate feeling like we’re always replacing them.

Just as CFLs are a cost-efficient, more convenient, eco-preferable alternative to incandescent lightbulbs, rechargeable batteries definitely trump disposables in several ways.

First, after the initial cost of purchasing a charger, rechargeables save you from having to reach into your pocket over and over again for a product with a very short life expectancy. Rechargeable NiMH batteries can be recharged 500 or more times, saving hundreds of dollars in battery purchases over time. We’re fans of Greenfeet’s NiMH/CAD Battery Charger, $29.95.

Plus, rechargeables often last longer than disposables between charges, meaning less time spent purchasing and replacing batteries. Click here to read more

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Daily Greenz #89

Cell phones have long been a thorn in the flesh of environmentalists, who decry the 130 million cell phones that Americans throw out every year, creating 65,000 tons of trash, including toxic metals and other health hazards. Nokia has finally heard their cry and taken the lead to create eco-mobile products that are made of plant-based plastics and recycled steel, and use much less energy than their hazardous counterparts. They unveiled the 3110 Evolve at their world conference last year, which was a big hit with Greenpeace because it’s made of 50% recycled materials and totes an energy-efficient charger, which uses 94% less energy than Energy Star requirements and
automatically shuts off once the phone is fully charged. Click here to read more

Powered by Bookmarkify™