Apple Improving

Since I've knocked Apple a bit in the past, it's only fair to report on positive moves they make. The latest Nano appears to be an improvement. The story over at GreenBiz.com says that they've eliminated PVC, mercury and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and are using arsenic-free glass. What it doesn't say is that you probably still can't replace batteries yourself or do any kind of low cost repair, essentially making them disposable products. At least they are more recyclable: "Jobs said the new Nano is also highly recyclable due to its aluminum and glass content."

More on Apple

I previously posted about Apple being listed as a non-environmentally friendly company, in part for being one of the only computer companies to still use toxic materials. CNET now reports on a study by Climate Counts that puts Apple dead last in a list of electronics companies in terms of carbon footprints. They gave Apple a score of 11 out of 100 (which interestingly enough is up 9 from last year). It's amazing that a company that is so forward looking with designs is so backward in regards to the environment.

Your French Fries and iPods Are Contributing to Environmental Degradation

A new list of bad companies is out. Condé Nast Portfolio has compiled a list of companies it feels "could be doing better, given their resources and position in their industries." While the list includes your standard evil oil and power companies, it includes some surprises. Simplot, maker of french fries for McDonald's and others is listed for their misuse and poor storage of chemical fertilizers. While this may not be a surprise to some, others may find themselves in a dilemma if they've been justifying eating McDonald's fries because the used cooking oil can be used to power their vehicle. The bigger surprise may be the inclusion of Apple. While Jobs & co may be consistently ahead of the curve in design, they are behind the curve in eliminating harmful toxins and developing recycling programs. While not mentioned in the article, Apple has been accused of being bad for the environment due to their insistence on designing products that only they can fix, for which they charge an arm and a leg. That tends to make iPods and iPhones disposable products, and the fact that they contain toxins only makes matters worse.

So what's the morale of the story for green businesses? First the Simplot example reminds businesses that they need the full partnership of all supply chain members in order to truly be green. One supplier, logistics firm, reseller or wholesaler can "offset" many of the positive environmental impacts a company makes. Second, design of a product should include a reduction of environmental impact throughout all stages of the product's life cycle. One source of ideas on this topic is McDonough and Braungart's book "Cradle to Cradle" (which I haven't had a chance to read yet). It follows a basic idea that at the end of a product's life, what remains should provide the raw ingredients for creating something else, similar to the way the death of one animal or plant can be the food that gives life to another. (This of course is not a unique idea. Others have written about Bio-Mimicry or sustainable design, but the Cradle to Cradle book has received a lot of rave reviews.)