Greenpeace Ranking: Lenovo worst

[lophiomys]

I was surprised that Lenovo only ended up at the last position in the Greenpeace ranking.
Lenovo pretends to be innovative, but obviously doesn't care
about environmental issues. Moreover stupefying is to me,
that the traditional Chinese "systems thinking"
would actually contradict such practices!

As a realist I can only hope that the more costly Thinkpad product
line is produced under better environmental conditions
in these Chinese factories, compared to cheaper product lines.

See yourself...
http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... es-line-up
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/i ... vo-ran.pdf

[mfratt]

Hi. We're GreenPeace. We're gonna set fire to Hummer dealerships because everyone must live life our way and drive hybrids.

Greenpeace is a bunch of morons. I dont care what they say.

[Thinkpaddict]

Hi. We're GreenPeace. We're gonna set fire to Hummer dealerships because everyone must live life our way and drive hybrids.

Greenpeace is a bunch of morons. I dont care what they say.

Easy there mate

I agree with you that GreenPeace and PETA can get a little bit extreme. I don't think they are complete morons though. I just view them as an opposing force in society to other forces that would largely go unquestioned otherwise. As such, they serve an useful function.

Environmental policies are real. Throw your garbage out of the window and see how happy that makes your neighbors.

Let's say that I was extremely surprised to see Dell make the top of the list.

[snife]

yeah, i found that disappointing when I read it but i'm not sure what stock i'd put in greenpeaces statistics, most of those companies have their products made by the same people in China etc so i'm not sure how there could be such a difference between them

[mattbiernat]

yeah, i found that disappointing when I read it but i'm not sure what stock i'd put in greenpeaces statistics, most of those companies have their products made by the same people in China etc so i'm not sure how there could be such a difference between them

greenpeace has a lot of people with so called teddy bear syndrome. Meaning that they care whatever is pretty but not practical. For example everybody makes so much crying out about rainforests. The truth is that rainforests make only 30% or so of our oxygen. Most of the oxygen is made by green algea but i haven't seen people care half as much about green algea as they care about rainforests.

[christopher_wolf]

Oh, Greenpeace! Aren't they the ones that spraypaint "NO FUR" on furcoats? Even on, err, animals with fur? Or was it the time I actually *saw* "OMG ANIMALS SHOULD NOT WEAR FUR IT IS MURDER!!!11@" ? No, No....maybe I am thinking of a similar group here. In any case, a "Nuke the Whales" button-pin usually takes care of such matters instantly whilst producing large amounts of humor with little to no effort on the wearer's part, but I digress...

I would like to see some real facts and the data normalized to each country that Lenovo has operational business units in. If you have gone to China within the past decade, you will begin to realize that the amounts of smog and pollution that have built up are very high, even when compared to some of smoggiest cities on earth. Yet that is a by-product of a very rapidly growing industrial economy. I haven't heard of very many industrial companies getting such an award, especially those of which operate primarily overseas. Somebody has to produce the products we consume, at an alarming rate at that; anybody ever think of checking how much waste we, as a consumer society, generate in comparision to a given product from a particular company? I can bet you that number, even as a ratio, is far greater than you would think; it would probably still beat out Exxon even if Exxon used supertankers with oil silos made out of cheesecloth.

I also wonder how many people that wrote that also participate in an uber-consumerist lifestyle.....but never mind me, I just have to throw away the 3rd cup of fairtrade coffee (which results in a 0.01 cent increase in money to the poor farmer who made it for every dollar extra paid; global economy savings!) I had with non-biodegradable materials into that overflowing trash can and then fire up my SUV, which gets 5MPG on a good day but, hey, I can drive off-trail and help the logging companies clear brush! Yet I do have a bumper sticker set/encyclopedia/library on it about saving nature. This, obviously, means the driver cares greatly about nature and not indicative of the fact they merely stuck something on their to look good (that would be shallow). Because that is what is really important; no, not seeing rare creatures on television documentaries, but driving smack dab into their home with a 4X4 and gawking; then using "environmental issues" as a way to get money/funds/attention for nefarious purposes. Afterwards, I shall have a delcious dinner of Armadillo which is very easily and traditionally respectfully hunted...It is like a delicacy, except you can run over it in the aforementioned SUV and eat it.


This stuff doesn't even need work to make comedy out of it.

Oh lordy lord.....

[lucas]

:o

[mattbiernat]

The ranking criteria reflect the demands of the Toxic Tech campaign to the electronics companies. Our two demands are that companies should:

clean up their products by eliminating hazardous substances;
takeback and recycle their products responsibly once they become obsolete.

lets accept for the sake of my argument
1. lenovo makes more hazardous computers
2. dell makes less hazardous computers

But dell makes more less hazardous computers because they have shorter life cycle. Thus greens forgot to calculate the turn over rate of each computer.

For example:
1. an engine in my honda will last for 250,000 miles
2. an engine in my cheap car will last for 80,000 miles
Thus even thou honda might be making more hazardous engines they last longer and they don't have to be recycled every 2.6 years but every 8.6 years.

Same goes for a dell. If a dell computer is thrown away every 3 years as compared to thinkpad that is thrown away every 6 yeras. The actual numbers im using are just an assumption but we both know the honda will just like thinkpad last longer than some cheap car or dell.

honda was just an imaginary example for the sake of my argument.

[jsteele]

If Greenpeace doesn't like them that moves Lenovo up a whole lot of notches in my estimation.

[440roadrunner]

lets accept for the sake of my argument
1. lenovo makes more hazardous computers
2. dell makes less hazardous computers

Let's also not forget about the Dell Burning Battery syndrome. How is that green?

[GomJabbar]

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Who remembers the Golden State in the 60's? My grandmother had to move out of Hollywood into the north central part of the state during that time because of the smog and her emphysema. Even with the increased traffic, I believe the air is more breathable now than it was then.

How about London in the 1800 and 1900's. Talk about smog!

University of Idaho wrote in an article on catalysts: "In the 1970's a number of studies demonstrated what everyone already knew, that the air quality in most major cities was deteriorating. Cities such as Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, and Baltimore had become notorious for horrible air pollution. London's air and water pollution problems have been recognized since the early 1800's and cleaning up the Thames river was one of the early problems posed to Faraday. In the late 1940's London had experienced a "killer smog" that was so bad that thousands of elderly people and people with various respiratory problems died. In an effort to reduce the problem and clean up the air, Congress passed a series of clean air and water laws requiring that action be taken to improve the situation. One of the results of this law was the introduction of automobile catalytic converters in the exaust systems of cars."

http://neon.chem.uidaho.edu/~honors/rate4.html

If we let greedy businesses and others do just whatever they want just to increase the price of their stockholders holdings or create the cheapest product, we are just as bad as they are. Left to their own devices, they will almost always try to get the biggest bang for the buck regardless of consequences - "[censored] the torpedoes, full speed ahead". Many manufacturing businesses go to third world countries, not only because of lower wages, but also because they can get away with environmental shortcuts.

Of course their are many other forms of polution besides air pollution. I only gave air pollution as an example.

Greenpeace may go overboard in some areas, but they and other similar groups serve a useful purpose.

And if the war bugle gives an uncertain (indistinct) call, who will prepare for battle?

[mattbiernat]

If we let greedy businesses and others do just whatever they want just to increase the price of their stockholders holdings or create the cheapest product, we are just as bad as they are. Left to their own devices, they will almost always try to get the biggest bang for the buck regardless of consequences - "[censored] the torpedoes, full speed ahead". Many manufacturing businesses go to third world countries, not only because of lower wages, but also because they can get away with environmental shortcuts.

i have nothing against a reasonable green peace. instead their actions went to such extremes that people often think of them as a joke.
- vandalizing cars
- destroying furs
- the teddy bear syndrom
besides categorizing companies from good to worst based only on two factors is simply biased and smells to me like they are simply paid off.

[MobileGuru]

It seems to me this kind of Greenpeace data comes at a great time for Dell, who has batteries blowing up all over the place. Lenovo may not be perfect, but they adhere to the RoHS standards set forth by Europe just like everyone else. I think we'd have to wait for the complete separation from IBM before judging their programs effectively.

MG.

[Turbo Audi]

Hi. We're GreenPeace. We're gonna set fire to Hummer dealerships because everyone must live life our way and drive hybrids.

Greenpeace is a bunch of morons. I dont care what they say.

Well said.

[pphilipko]

I was surprised that Lenovo only ended up at the last position in the Greenpeace ranking.
Lenovo pretends to be innovative, but obviously doesn't care
about environmental issues. Moreover stupefying is to me,
that the traditional Chinese "systems thinking"
would actually contradict such practices!

As a realist I can only hope that the more costly Thinkpad product
line is produced under better environmental conditions
in these Chinese factories, compared to cheaper product lines.

See yourself...
http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... es-line-up
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/i ... vo-ran.pdf

I smell bias and...*shock*...bribery.

[lophiomys]

I smell bias and...*shock*...bribery.

Please explain?

[K. Eng]

Yes, I too would like to know why people are attacking the report because Greenpeace wrote it, rather than on the merits of the report itself.

I suspect that it may have to do with people thinking that Lenovo can do no wrong because it is the manufacturer of ThinkPads.

I smell bias and...*shock*...bribery.

Please explain?

[K. Eng]

The new Chinese thinking is "make profit!!!" Like 19th Century Great Britain and the 20th Century USA, China is the industrial giant of its era, and is generating the polution to match.

Moreover stupefying is to me,
that the traditional Chinese "systems thinking"
would actually contradict such practices!

[jdhurst]

<snip>
lets accept for the sake of my argument
1. lenovo makes more hazardous computers
2. dell makes less hazardous computers

But dell makes more less hazardous computers because they have shorter life cycle. Thus greens forgot to calculate the turn over rate of each computer.

For example:
1. an engine in my honda will last for 250,000 miles
2. an engine in my cheap car will last for 80,000 miles
Thus even thou honda might be making more hazardous engines they last longer and they don't have to be recycled every 2.6 years but every 8.6 years.

Same goes for a dell. If a dell computer is thrown away every 3 years as compared to thinkpad that is thrown away every 6 yeras. <snip>

I am not a Greenpeace supporter (although not a Greenpeace hater and I do understand society needs opposing forces). I thought this argument was interesting.

I still have my PC300PL in the basement and it continues to work well six years later.

Cars I sold my Volvo 240's last year. One had over 250,000 miles on it and the other had just under 250,000 miles. Both are still in service. I bought 10 year old Volvo 850's to replace them and think they are "new".

I very much think longevity is a quality to shoot for and too bad Greenpeace doesn't seem to think the same way.
... JD Hurst

[pphilipko]

Yes, I too would like to know why people are attacking the report because Greenpeace wrote it, rather than on the merits of the report itself.

I suspect that it may have to do with people thinking that Lenovo can do no wrong because it is the manufacturer of ThinkPads.

Please explain?

Well, IMHO, any report with "Greenpeace" in it invokes feelings of suspicion in me.

If you look closely at WHY Greenpeace gave Lenovo the lowest score, it's because they DON'T know what Lenovo is doing. If they can't find the information on the company website, they merely assume the worst and give the lowest score possible. And, interestingly, they argue that because Lenovo's recycling program is geared towards businesses, it doesn't count as being 'green'. Obviously, Lenovo mostly sells its products to governments and businesses, not the general population (unlike other companies).

Those greenpeace advocates must have bumped their heads when they were young.

[Dead1nside]

Greenpeace is a bunch of morons. I dont care what they say.

This is not necessarily true. Their means are moronic, but this does not necessarily mean that they are _all_ moronic.

Reducing hazardous chemicals is a problem for all of us, with innitiatives like RoHS this can be achieved, gradually.

Lenovo should clean up their act a bit. People tend to buy from companies they think do good... like Apple. e.g. almost slave labour working iPod assemblers 100 hours a week plus.

For a company that likes to look stylish and friendly, they're most unfriendly.

Perhaps this has to do with Lenovo being Chinese, do they have to conform to RoHS etc. ?

[mattbiernat]

Greenpeace is a bunch of morons. I dont care what they say.

This is not necessarily true. Their means are moronic, but this does not necessarily mean that they are _all_ moronic.

Reducing hazardous chemicals is a problem for all of us, with innitiatives like RoHS this can be achieved, gradually.

Lenovo should clean up their act a bit. People tend to buy from companies they think do good... like Apple. e.g. almost slave labour working iPod assemblers 100 hours a week plus.

For a company that likes to look stylish and friendly, they're most unfriendly.

Perhaps this has to do with Lenovo being Chinese, do they have to conform to RoHS etc. ?

most of our products are made by "almost slave labour." why should lenovo or apple be the only one that does not use "almost slave labour?" have you thought how much an ipod would cost if it was made in United States? besides the amount of hours you work does not constitute to a slave labour.

[Dead1nside]

I don't live in the United States. No, but we all know where to go for cheap labour, the far east, right?

No slave labour means not by their will of course, but in a climate where these people are all illiterate, they must take whatever is given to them.

Apple's case is a case on it's own. It is irrelevant to it's use of hazardous materials.

I don't want an iPod, and yes I have thought about how much an iPod would cost or anything for that matter if it was assembled properly. And I think of AMD and their German factories producing reasonably priced chips.

You don't have to sell out your humanity to make a profit, good will sells more products than newsflashes of hazardous chemical levels or bad factory working conditions etc.

[mattbiernat]

Apple's case is a case on it's own. It is irrelevant to it's use of hazardous materials.

how is apple's case unique from any other case? all computers have parts that came from china and all of them were made by the same "almost slave labour (this is how you defined illiterate people working in poor conditions so lets just use this phrase from now on)."

I don't want an iPod, and yes I have thought about how much an iPod would cost or anything for that matter if it was assembled properly. And I think of AMD and their German factories producing reasonably priced chips.

let me ask you? do german factories produce all of their raw materials to assemble their processors? i mean sure you can make parts in china and assemble them in germany or you can make parts in china and assemble them in china? what is the difference? you still use slave labour.

You don't have to sell out your humanity to make a profit, good will sells more products than newsflashes of hazardous chemical levels or bad factory working conditions etc.

actually its the profit that sells humanity. as much as i would like to have working conditions improved in china or mexico or everywhere else it is not going to happen. simply because of money and profit. but once i graduate and i can afford more, if a company in germany or anywhere else in the world shows up that produces all of their raw materials and assembles all of their computers without the use of "slave labour" I will buy that computer even if i have to pay twice as much. but don't forget that this company will have to compete with other companies that sell their computers for half that price.

[Dead1nside]

how is apple's case unique from any other case? all computers have parts that came from china and all of them were made by the same "almost slave labour (this is how you defined illiterate people working in poor conditions so lets just use this phrase from now on)."

I can see you're trying to make a show of this "almost slave labour" phrase. But "illiterate people working in poor conditions" to me does constitute "almost slave labour". Unfortunatley many people don't have much choice what job they go into. Unlike yourself, an undergraduate. I've never been to China, although being from Malaysian decent. But I can imagine that their educational system isn't as well formed as say the UK. Nor do they seem to have the welfare state.

let me ask you? do german factories produce all of their raw materials to assemble their processors? i mean sure you can make parts in china and assemble them in germany or you can make parts in china and assemble them in china? what is the difference? you still use slave labour.

Well in this particular case, apart from the bare elements of silicon and germanium and such. The parts are produced 100% in Germany. One must note that Chartered also do some work for AMD. But the large bulk of their 90nm chips are sourced from Fab36 in Dresden.

actually its the profit that sells humanity. as much as i would like to have working conditions improved in china or mexico or everywhere else it is not going to happen. simply because of money and profit. but once i graduate and i can afford more, if a company in germany or anywhere else in the world shows up that produces all of their raw materials and assembles all of their computers without the use of "slave labour" I will buy that computer even if i have to pay twice as much. but don't forget that this company will have to compete with other companies that sell their computers for half that price.

You have a good point here, and you are essentially proving what I've said. I think this is illustrated at least in the fair trade movement etc. and in say for instance Innocent Smoothies' success in the UK after about 5 years. If you product doesn't squash the people who help make that profit, and you market it on this. People seem to be willing to pay more for that peace-of-mind and usually, extra quality.


-------------------------------------


That's a lot of effort to show context.

Whilst all this knowing that this is completely off topic and my point was that "Lenovo should clean up their act a bit." was in reference to RoHS compliance or similar.

[mattbiernat]

I can see you're trying to make a show of this "almost slave labour" phrase. But "illiterate people working in poor conditions" to me does constitute "almost slave labour".

1. ehh sorry didn't mean to overuse that phrase. the first time i saw it i didn't like it but in the second message i was using it mostly to define "illiterate people working in poor conditions." i just wanted to be precise.
2. i agree with you about the unethical way that corporations make profit. the only thing that i don't like is when green peace finds something pretty that gets destroyed in the world and makes a huge deal out of that. take for example rainforests. how many times have you heard them complaining that we won't have any air to breath because we are cutting down the trees. the reality is that trees make only 30% of oxygen while algae makes 70%. how come I’ve never heard them complaining about the algae as much as rainforest? this is the teddy bear syndrome - that is making emotional and irrational appeal to the public to protect something that is pretty rather than essential for our survival. the same argument goes for research they did on lenovo as being the worst company. they provided no real data and they grade lenovo based on two factors which is a highly biased grading scale. it seems to me that green peace became another political party trying to get money and support of big corporations.

[Dead1nside]

Well also, I don't like the fact that an organisation like Greenpeace is so one sided, I haven't heard of them praising anyone for their efforts.

Actually I don't think I've ever heard some activist orgnaisation praise any company for whatever, be it animal welfare or hazardous chemicals.

In the grand scale of things, you're right. Most multi-national corporations have about the same human rights records, and almost everything is produced in China (although it's moving to Thailand and other placed right now).

The thing about computers over decreasing rainforests is probably that the rainforests are a bigger issue. However am I the only one who gets a bit creeped out by the amount of lead and other unsavoury things in our motherboards? Makes me not really want to play about with that stuff.

[lophiomys]

Well also, I don't like the fact that an organisation like Greenpeace is so one sided, I haven't heard of them praising anyone for their efforts.
... SNIP

A good point, but as a pessimist I see it from the other side,
as a bold analogy:

Do you praise me for not dumping some leaking oil-barrels in your backyard?

SNCR

[Dead1nside]

Do you praise me for not dumping some leaking oil-barrels in your backyard?

SNCR

No but, if you're making a list of the worst offenders you might as well make a case study of a company that you think had done well, so others can learn from them.

[lophiomys]

Well also, I don't like the fact that an organisation like Greenpeace is so one sided, I haven't heard of them praising anyone for their efforts.
... SNIP

Yet another inverse-analogy:
Why isn't President Bush praising Austria, EU for beeing a nuclear-free country
instead of bashing Iran directly.
(Not to speak of the Irak story with it's justifications related to actions taken).
Would that be one-sideded too?

SCNR