photo by StephSupr (Flickr CC)

American monologist Mike Daisey visited a factory in Shenzhen, China where Apple products are manufactured and then wrote a monologue about his experiences there, combined with details on the life of Apple’s late founder, Steve Jobs.

Now, many Apple fans – and there are many, many Apple fans – speak of Steve Jobs as if he is a great philosopher, superman or even god, rather than a creative businessman who made a hell of a lot of money in the usual ways people make a hell of a lot of money. I mean he made products that people like, but he also withheld technology, manufactured overseas at very low cost, and charged a lot for his designer gadgets.

When Jobs died there was a huge public outpouring, with zillions of Facebook posts and Tweets eulogizing this silicon messiah.

But was he such a great guy? Was he even a good one? And can’t we like products without thinking the CEO of the company that makes the products we like is a wonderful person and role model, especially if those products are made with what is tantamount to slave labor?

Well, I’m not going to harp on about this much more, but I would encourage you all to watch these video interviews of Mike Daisey’s visit to China. I also encourage you to visit Daisey’s website and check out this article in the Guardian about his open source approach to his script, ‘The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs’.

Here is Mike Daisey being interviewd on MSNBC’s The EdShow:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And on Real Time with Bill Maher:

image by Blake Burris (blakeburris on Flickr CC)

Things have not been looking good for the world’s favorite technology company.

They seem green and ethical and liberal and just plain cuddly-cute, but Apple has fallen from the tree and landed in last place on Greenpeace’s “How Dirty is Your Data” table of tech firms. Cloud computing and our increasing reliance on energy intensive data centers are fueling this change in the way we use energy (for information) and the trend is set to rise 4 fold in 10 years time.

From the Guardian:

The report estimated dependence on coal for Apple’s data centres at 54.5%, followed by Facebook at 53.2%, IBM at 51.6%, HP at 49.4%, and Twitter at 42.5%. Top marks in Greenpeace’s clean energy index went to Yahoo, followed by Google and Amazon. Greenpeace is also campaigning for Facebook to “unfriend coal” and use cleaner energy to power its servers.

This is not necessarily an exclusively negative trend. Purchasing products by downloading information is less energy intensive than buying physical products like CDs, which need to be manufactured and shipped as well as sometimes picked up at a shop and taken home. It would be interesting to know how much Apple’s iTunes has saved in energy and emissions vs. how poorly the company it is doing vis-à-vis it’s coal consumption.

image by Brian Fitzgerald (Brianfit on Flickr CC)

Many of us who use Apple computers have a hard time imagining using any another machine. Likewise, most iPhone users probably loathe the thought of switching to a “normal” mobile phone. My own MacBook is 4 ½ years old and held together by Duck Tape, but still works a charm. And I’ve no intention of bloody going back to a clunky PC either.

But there are some ethical points about Apple that bother me, despite their clean, forward-thinking image.

For one, the company’s constant upgrading of its products promotes excessive consumption and has elicited accusations of purposefully withholding technology.

Apple has an incredibly fast refresh rate of new products, gadgets that are very resource-intensive to make and use. The products people buy are out of date within 12 months. It’s the business model for the entire consumer electronics industry and it’s unsustainable. Apple’s biggest challenge is to address that consumption trend. There’s a limit to the sustainability claims any company can make when its business model is predicated on ever-increasing consumption.

–Tom Dowdall, Greenpeace International

This is especially worrying when the bloodiest war since WWII is still taking place in the Congo and is largely fueled by minerals used in laptops and cell phones.

As Johann Hari explains in the Independent:

The major UN investigation into the war explained how it happened. They said bluntly and factually that “armies of business” had invaded Congo to pillage its resources and sell them to the knowing West. The most valuable loot is coltan, which is used to make the metal in our mobile phones and games consoles and laptops. The “armies of business” fought and killed to control the mines and send it to us. The UN listed some of the major Western corporations fuelling this trade, and said if they were stopped, it would largely end the war.

Then there are the stories of working conditions in China. Workers at Apple’s supplier companies in China have in one case been poisoned by toxic glue and in another driven to suicide due to abuse in the workplace. Subcontractors have also been found to employ children in their factories.

Apple does seem to be making an effort to clean up its act and become greener thanks to efforts such as Greenpeace’s Green my Apple campaign. Hopefully they are dealing more aggressively with human rights issues regarding their subcontractors as well. Despite some governmental efforts, these are largely self-policing issues. So we, as consumers, should encourage the firms we patronize to behave more morally. We should also be willing to pay a bit more for non blood-soaked electronics or even (gasp!) use our products until they break before buying the newest, most up-to-date version. Duck Tape can be cool too.

Read more on the story in The Ecologist

Also, see Apple’s environmental footprint report.

It took two years for scientists to unravel the code – the largest plant genome uncovered to date. Professor Riccardo Velasco, at the Edmund Mach Foundation in Italy, who led the research team, said on BBC News:

The sequencing of the genome would have huge implications for applied breeding. This breakthrough will help us to develop high quality traits and bring new things to the apple market.

Kate Evans from Washington State University’s Tree Fruit Research and Extension Centre said the discovery ‘would help sustainable production of apples’.

Scientists hope improvements to the popular Golden Delicious variety will enhance the taste, look, and crunchiness of the fruit.

The researchers were also able to trace the apple’s ancestry, and found out that the domestic fruit’s wild ancestor Malus sieversii was originally grown in Kazakhstan.

There are more than 7,500 varieties of apple known today.

A large number of genes can give plants a competitive advantage, providing more in-built defences against disease. Genetically-modified foods have the potential to solve many of the world’s hunger and malnutrition problems, and to help protect and preserve the environment by increasing yield and reducing reliance upon chemical pesticides and herbicides. Yet, there are many challenges ahead for governments, especially in the areas of safety testing, regulation and food labeling.

We must proceed with caution to avoid causing unintended harm to human health and the environment as a result of our enthusiasm for this powerful technology.

See more on Nature Genetics.

Similar to the blood diamond scenario, which gained some attention from the 2006 Hollywood film of the same name, and more lately by Naomi Campbell’s well-publicized appearance in International Criminal Court in The Hague, conflict minerals fuel wars and atrocities in undemocratic countries. Rebel and militia groups are funded by the huge profits from gold, tungsten, tantalum and tin mining in the DCR, though miners receive only around $1-5 US per day.

These militias make millions and millions of dollars. We estimated that they made about $180 million from trading in these minerals last year and they’re able to continue their existence and their armed struggle on the basis of this trade.

–Sasha Lezhnev, Enough

US President Barack Obama recently signed a new provision requiring US companies to submit annual reports to divulging whether their products contain minerals from the Democratic Republic of Congo or neighboring states. Several electronics companies like Intel, Motorola and HP have initiated stronger policies of their own accord.

This is a difficult and complex problem, partly because what funds militias who commit atrocities, also pays the meager wages of poor miners.

For more details on the story see the following report from the Voice of America:

Tracing DRC’s Conflict Minerals a Daunting Task

Also check out this video report from Time Magazine:

Conflict Minerals: Is There Blood on Your Laptop?

Additional resources:

Enough project – Eastern Congo

photo by Decumanus (source: Wikimedia Commons)

So-called ‘cloud computing’ – or basically ‘using the Internet’ to people like you and me – is largely dependent on coal-fired power stations.

To be more precise, all Internet use isn’t cloud computing, but web-based computing is huge and increasing all the time. It allows access to all sorts of data and entertainment housed in massive servers or data centers, many of which rely on highly polluting coal.

“Make IT Green: Cloud Computing and its Contribution to Climate Change”, shows how the launch of quintessential cloud computing devices like the Apple iPad, which offer users access to the “cloud” of online services like social networks and video streaming, can contribute to a much larger carbon footprint of the Information Technology (IT) sector than previously estimated.

–Greenpeace

According to a Greenpeace report, large concentrations of what is commonly accessed on the web comes from companies that have data warehouses or energy-intensive facilities in coal powered regions of the United States. Greenpeace names Apple and Facebook as particularly guilty of this, especially in light of Apple’s other commendable efforts and innovations regarding environmental practices. Facebook is currently the focus of an online campaign against the popular social network’s choice of coal power.

Google and Yahoo have made better choices for their power sources, argues a Greenpeace press release based on the report. Yahoo built a data center powered by a hydroelectric plant, while Google recently became licensed by the U.S. Government to market energy, which gives the IT giant more control over how and where it gets its power, for example from renewable sources.

From an article in the Independent:

The organisation [Greenpeace] says that, at current rates of growth, data centres and telecoms infrastructure will consume about 1,963 billion kilowatts hours of electricity in 2020, more than triple their current consumption and more than France, Germany, Canada and Brazil combined.

Greenpeace’s report seems to have a few central goals: it provides information to consumers about how and where large Internet companies get their power – from coal or elsewhere – as well as the various options these companies have. The report also attempts to encourage – or shame – companies like Apple to get in line with the green environmental brand image they are trying to project. Finally, the report shows how something that seems so clean and immaterial like the Internet actually depends on physical machines that need a massive amount of power. If that power comes from coal, the Internet can be a significant driver of pollution.

by Graham Land

—

Lead image by The Library of Congress (source: Flickr)

Image source: apple.com

Corporate giant, Apple, withdrew its membership from the US Chamber of Commerce recently because they are in disagreement with the group’s stance on environment-related issues. In question is the chamber’s use of funds to oppose climate change legislation particularly on regulating greenhouse gases.

Most progressive businesses know emissions cuts are inevitable and are gearing up to help lead the global economy to a prosperous, low-carbon future. Although many member companies within the Chamber of Commerce already expressed their support for legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the significant amount of money they contribute annually is being used to lobby for the exact opposite.

It’s high time to change the chamber’s policies on the environment, and who else is in better position to initiate these changes but the members themselves. Read the full article here

By Maria Belgado

OLPCorp’s XO (Image source: Wikimedia Commons)

Dell has recently banned the export of e-waste to developing countries. Apple successfully markets itself as an eco conscious computer company and its new MacBook seems to be living up to that image. Processor kingpin Sun Microsystems also joined the foray into Green computing and was receiving praise for its efforts way back in 2007. Surely, all this competition to be the Greenest is a good thing, but aside from self-praise and environmental image makeovers, which companies are actually delivering the goods on eco pledges? And moreover, which gadgets are Greenest?

According to a poll by Green Factor, which ran in the ecological daily trade publication Environmental Leader on November 30^th, 2008, consumers think that it’s Dell, with Apple running a close second. But this only shows perceived environmental consciousness, a “Green brand identity” so to speak. But what does the real hard data on eco friendly business practices in the electronics industry say? July 2009’s Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics puts Finish telecom giant Nokia on top, with Samsung and Sony Ericsson in 2^nd and 3^rd place, respectively. Greenpeace judges the companies on the basis of three main criteria: the elimination of hazardous substances from their products, responsible take-back and recycling programs, and the climate impact reduction on their products and operations. Apple, by comparison, trails Nokia at number 11, with Dell at 13 with Microsoft coming in at 15^th place. Greenpeace updates their guide every three months.

The world’s Greenest laptop?

Energy Seal (Image source: poweredgreen.com)

According to Apple it’s their new MacBook. Not so according to EPEAT (the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool) and the Green design website inhabitat. While the MacBook is very good environmentally speaking and represents a positive direction for Apple, together with Environmental Performance reports for their products, it simply is not the “Greenest” laptop out there. EPEAT gives that distinction to the Toshiba Portégé R500, which has a solar charger. Greenpeace’s survey of 2008 notebooks similarly put the Toshiba Portégé R600 at the top. Also high on the 2008 list are Hewlett Packard’s Elitebook 2530p, Lenovo’s X300 and the Dell Latitude E-4200. Green desktops are headed up by the Lenovo ThinkCentre 58/M58p, Fujitsu Siemens’ Esprimo E7935 E-Star 4 and Dell’s Studio Hybrid. Apple products are nowhere on either list.

It may be poor kids in the developing world who actually have access to the most environmentally friendly laptop. The XO by OLPCorps “contains no hazardous materials,” has an optional hand crank to charge the battery, and an “estimated product lifetime of at least 5 years.” The XO is unfortunately not available to consumers. Some kids get all the breaks.

One way to “make” your laptop Greener is by buying a Powered Green Energy Seal. It’s not really a magic seal that zaps your computer’s carbon imprint ­– that would be ridiculous. What it does, rather, is sell you a sticker for $16 and use that money to fund renewable energy sources. You can then prance around Starbucks with a nifty “Powered Green” labeled laptop and a self-satisfied expression on your already fierce eco warrior face. Smug? Maybe, but a good idea for offsetting your oversized carbon footprint nonetheless.

By Graham Land

Additional resources:
Inhabitat article IS IT GREEN: The New MacBook
One Laptop per Child project