Is Your Apple Organic? Apple Forbids O2 Eco Rating After Bashing from Greenpeace

Apple Inc., bashed by Greenpeace going all the way back to 2007 when the company launched the first iPhone, has recently come under fire yet again, this time because the iPad emits a hefty carbon footprint. Also cited is the fact that Apple has banned its iPhone from Telefónica's O2 UK Eco rating, an environmental "greenness" scheme based in the UK. The old whine relayed by peer-pressured kids everywhere comes to mind. "But, mom, all the other kids are doing it..." If all the other "big kid" companies are helping to develop the Eco rating program, then why is Apple Inc. forbidding the addition of the iPhone 4 to the scheme? Between this and the Greenpeace issue, some are wondering what the company is hiding.

Apple's Greenpeace Problem

In a report released on March 30, 2010 by Greenpeace, they state that the iPad may contribute much more to carbon emissions and other environmental factors than they initially reported. Because the iPad necessitates the use of other devices and is not the ideal all-in-one, people end up using more carbon producing devices than they realize. Additionally, with the usage of so many applications, programs and other things-the cloud is the biggest factor-carbon emissions many jump radically. Apple has built a 500,000 square foot data center, which has an estimated at a cost of over $1 billion. This data center, according to Greenpeace's report, consumes an estimated energy supply consisting of 50.5 percent coal and 38.7 percent nuclear with only 3.8 percent from renewable electric sources.

What is Eco Rating?

Forum for the Future, working side by side with the Telefónica's O2 UK network officially started their rating program on August 25 2010. This Eco rating program is developed with the help of input from seven of the biggest telecom manufacturers in the world including Nokia, Samsung, HTC, LG, Sony Ericsson, Palm, and RIM. While the Eco rating actively ranks the first six, all were included in the development of the system and sustainability issues at hand and RIM promises to include its devices in the upcoming year.

The reasoning behind this rating system is described as a way to encourage handset manufacturers to compete and drive environmental standards higher between them, making the greenest headsets available to the public. This not only makes the manufacturers more transparent with consumer issues but also promotes a more sustainable workplace and product.

How Does Eco Rating Work?

This Eco rating takes many factors into account for a complete corporate and product assessment, according to the project outlines and raw data provided by O2 and Forum for the Future in the UK. Some of the factors of the corporate assessment include company policy, communications, resource use, external recognition, and others. The product factors are probably the most important, because this could influence the products that consumers buy, based on the manufacturer's answers to these important areas such as raw materials, use, disposal, substance, and manufacturing impact, packaging, delivery and functionality.

The overall ratings are based on 63 specific questions, which are then ranked from one to five and given an overall rating. The Samsung Elm is currently in the top spot of this ranking system with a 4.8 out of five. When consumers shop, they are presented with a rainbow-colored sticker that alerts them using the one to five scale, with one being the worst and five the best, where the product stands and in which category.

Where is Apple?

The question remains that is Apple is as green as it claims, then why have they excluded their devices from Eco rating with no explanation? Simply stating a company's product is environmentally conscientious does not mean that it is and consumers should not take these statements at face value. The fact is that while on the iPhone 4 tech specifications page of their website state that they have eliminated some very poisonous substances from the handsets and accessories such as arsenic, mercury, BFR (Brominated flame retardants), PVC (Polyvinyl Chlorine) and stopped using nikel plating on any external surfaces.

However, according to the outline of the O2 program, several other substances are restricted from use in the UK (where the rating program is in force) and are included in the green rating program factorizations. These include chlorine and chlorine compounds, which are also called chloro-paraffins, antimony trioxide which is a FR synergist, beryllium, phthalates, most Bromine compounds, sodium antimonite and its like compounds. The problem is that while there are no reports conclusively stating that Apple uses these compounds in the manufacturing of the iPhone 4, there are none stating that Apple does not use them, either.

So what is the real story behind Apple's exclusion from the new Eco rating system? Why is Greenpeace consistently urging Apple Inc. to do better when it comes to manufacturing their products? Why is it consumers take everything they see at face value? Maybe soon we can all receive some answers to these questions. I emailed Apple Inc. for a statement and, to date, have yet to receive an answer. Until I do, we, the consumers, can only guess at what Apple Inc. is hiding and when I do, you can bet I will let you know.

Sorry folks, lots of references today:

O2 Think Big
Apple Inc., "A Greener Apple"
O2 Eco-Rating brief August 2010 (PDF)
Apple: IPhone 4 Product Environmental Review (PDF)
Apple and Environment: Measuring Performance one Product at a Time
Cameron Scott, "iPhone Drops the call for environmental ratings," SFGate
"Eco Rating: Assessing the Sustainability of Mobile Phones," Forum for the Future
"O2 Eco Rating helps Consumers Choose a Sustainable Future," Forum for the Future
Sam Oliver, "Greenpeace criticizes Apple for carbon footprint of iPad cloud," Apple Insider
Leander Kahney, "Apple is Live Streaming Sept. 1 Event to Test ne Server Farm," Cult of Mac
Duncan Riley, "Greenpeace: iPhone Not Good for the Environment," TechCrunch
Make IT Green: Cloud Computing & Its Contribution to Climate Change (PDF) Greenpeace