According to Greenpeace — who’s here at CES to right and properly scold the consumer electronics industry for not doing more to keep the planet hospitable for humans — Apple is making them happier [PDF link].

Apple continues its climb up the ranking from 11th place in v.12 to 9th in v.13 and is now in 5th place, with a score of 5.1 points, up from 4.9. Apple does best on the toxic chemicals criteria, where it scores most of its points. It scores substantially less on waste and energy. In this evaluation, Apple wins and loses some points on toxic chemicals, but gains on energy. All Apple products are now free of PVC and BFRs, with the exception of PVC-free power cords in countries where their safety certification process is still ongoing. For this Apple continues to score full marks (doubled). The tightened C1 criterion now requires companies not only to have a chemicals policy informed by the precautionary principle, but also to show support for bans on PVC vinyl plastic and brominated/chlorinated flame retardants (CFRs/BFRs) during the revision of the EU’s RoHS Directive (Restriction of Hazardous Substances in electronics). Apple gains a point for lobbying the EU institutions, but for full marks it needs to provide a public position on its support for immediate restrictions in RoHS 2.0 on organo- chlorine and bromine compounds. It also needs to clarify its stance regarding the position of the trade federation TechAmerica on further immediate restrictions and in particular PVC and BFRs. Apple loses a point for providing even less information (on its updated web-pages) about its supply chain communications than before. This criterion evaluates disclosure of information flow in the supply chain. Apple also loses a point for minimal information about its future toxic chemical phase-out plans, reducing its communication on this subject on its updated web-pages.

Are you also happier knowing your iPhone is greener? And is Apple doing enough, or should Greenpeace continue to single out their singular brand?

Apple has set up a new, environment-focused section of their website, which covers their full product range and life-cycle — including TiPb’s titular iPhone [PDF link].

Give it a look and let us know how you think Apple’s doing.

[Thanks everyone who sent this in!]

Because of Apple’s high media profile, Greenpeace likes to have a little fun with them. Nothing gets headlines like bashing Apple in the tech industry, especially if you’re hippie enough to make Steve Jobs seem more like Stephen Colbert. With Al Gore on their board, however, it’s probably safe to say Apple has to at least appear to be one of the more — if not most — environmentally friendly major tech company in the US. Case in point, and unprecedented second open letter from Steve Jobs:

For the past several years, Apple has made a concerted effort to be more transparent about the steps we are taking to protect the environment and make our business more sustainable. In this environmental update, I’d like to inform you of our recent progress and introduce you to a groundbreaking system of reporting that we believe is unmatched in our industry.

The iPhone got a brief mention as well:

More recently we introduced our first BFR and PVC-free iPods and iPhone 3G with mercury-free displays.

Sounds okay? Second steppish enough at least? Not quite for Greenpeace:

Not quite the breakthrough we were hoping for.

Ouch. Though, to be less sensationalistic, they did have lots of positive feedback as well.

Hopefully Apple will make true on their timeline, and other manufacturers will follow suit.

It’s not easy being green, but I don’t think any of us want to live on the earth from Wall-E, do we?

Apple’s response to Greenpeace’s report of PVC, phthalates, and BFRs in the iPhone is short and sweet. Witness the words of the Apple spokesperson as told to MacWorld:

“Like all Apple products worldwide, iPhone complies with RoHS [Restriction of Hazardous Substances], the world’s toughest restrictions on toxic substances in electronics. As we have said, Apple will voluntarily eliminate the use of PVC and BFRs by the end of 2008.”

There’s another key quote from the Center for Environmental Health, the California-based organization that filed the 60-day notice of a suit yesterday. They aim to

“encourage the manufacturers through a negotiated settlement to reduce the use of these chemicals.”

I’m not a lawyer, but my wife is. If they want a negotiated settlement, that means they don’t want to go to court. Court is expensive. What exactly they want, I don’t know; if they want money, this is essentially a shakedown job. If they want to hurry Apple’s schedule or force a warning, they may be doing it on the basis of their ideals. Either way, it’s a lot of free publicity.

Apple was sued on the basis of information from Greenpeace’s report card for the iPhone from yesterday. Apparently, California’s Proposition 65 requires the disclosure of phthalates on a warning label, and the iPhone doesn’t have that. So, the Center for Environmental Health is suing. There will apparently be a 60 day notice before the lawsuit is actually, while the CEH independently verifies Greenpeace’s findings. And ensuring that this iPhone lawsuit is just as murky as all of the other ones, the findings that phthalates affect reproductive functions is apparently in dispute. And Apple is on the record for a timeline of getting rid of phthalates; they’ve already vowed to get rid of the bad stuff by the end of 2008 so I’m not sure who wins with a lawsuit like this except for the lawyers. It’s just bad press for everyone involved.

On the same week that notable Apple board member Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize, Apple gets excoriated by Greenpeace on the presence of Toxic Chemicals in the iPhone.

Chemical Phthalates (yes, I spelled that right) are found in the outer plastic of the iPhone’s earbud headsets, which means that you probably don’t want to hook your baby to the earbuds. Phthalates apparently interfere with reproduction; the chemicals are banned from childrens toys in Europe. They are not banned from electronics, however.

In addition to the toxic phthalates, brominated compounds are present on a significant portion of the iPhone’s circuit board. Circuit board makers include bromine as a fire retardant, but bromine is toxic when converted to a gas and inhaled and functions as an acid when it comes into contact with human skin as a liquid. Liquid is bromine’s natural metallic state at room temperature. Polyvinyl Chloride, or PVC, is also present in the iPhone’s materials.

“With next month’s European launch of the iPhone, Apple should sell a version which is at least as green as the offerings from Sony Ericsson, Nokia and Motorola”

“[Apple] has committed to eliminate all uses of PVC and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in its products by the end of 2008″

So suffice to say, iPhone 2.0 won’t suffer from these environmental deficiencies. If you want to read Greenpeace’s entire report on Apple, it is available here. If instead you’d prefer Greenpeace’s report on the iPhone, that is also available. Apple will get hammered on this position until they’re ahead of the pack. Even then, I’ll predict that their environmental shortcomings will be bigger news than their competitors successes. [via]

First, some backstory. Greenpeace, whether one likes or dislikes them, cares about the environment. They post reviews and analysis of tech companies to see how they do concerning the environment. And let’s face it, the churn of technology creates a lot of waste. Greenpeace gives scores to companies so people can tell in a short glance how much the company cares about the environment — Apple’s score was 2.7 out of 10. Not good, really; Apple had been at the bottom of the barrel, behind most all of its competitors.

Greenpeace wanted Apple, especially, to be greener. They had a few programs to get people to pester Apple. I’d like to think that noted documentarian and Apple board member Al Gore had something to do with it, but who knows.

And pester Apple, they did. There were a few organizations prepared to pester Apple about their environmental record, and they’re now not sure whether they’ll continue at the upcoming board meeting.

And, one month later since that report, Apple posted their new Environmental Report, and Greenpeace bumps their score up to 5. Still lagging a bit, but much better than they were, and Apple says they want to eventually lead the list, just like they do with everything else. That’s not an exact quote, but that’s pretty much the gist of it.

So, with the storm blown over a bit at Apple’s record, all Apple has to worry at the upcoming board meeting is how much money everyone is making and the upcoming phenomenal success of the Apple iPhone. Oh, and their stock options backdating scandal. And the suggested vote withholding of most board members to restore stockholder confidence.