I’m pleased that Apple’s Steve Jobs has taken the Greenpeace campaign on waste and the use of toxic materials seriously, and has responded in a positive manner – however, I think the environmental sustainability of consumer products is a far more complex issue than purely how they are manufactured and the materials used.
I have always believed that Apple is an example of a company who produces products that are sustainable. Why? Because they last! I wonder how many PCs are sitting in landfill sites leaking out chemicals, because their owners thought they were worn out and running too slow. In fact, these machines were probably perfectly all right, its just that they had been infected with a virus, or their users could not workout how to upgrade them.
Having spent most of my working life in front of a Mac, I know how long they can keep working reliably. You can upgrade Apple computers without the need of a Phd in software programming and engineering. So what’s better for the environment – 4 dead PCs or one upgraded Mac?
My only gripe with this Apple and Greenpeace issue is that they have not addressed the topic of power consumption of PCs and Macs. Yes – Apple did adopt LCD screens ahead of other manufacturers, probably more to do with aesthetics rather than any energy saving though. They also build some models with no fans, which is great. It’s also rumored that Apple are developing “flash memory” laptops, and if true, these machines should be far more energy efficient than conventional hard drive based laptops. Also the introduction of LED backlight technology for screens should also drive down power consumption. However what’s really needed is a complete commitment to energy efficient products across the computer industry and not just focused on portable devices where battery life is important. I’d love an energy efficient long-lasting, upgradeable desktop machine. The only issue is my old G4 is still working!
