Will you buy more greener Apples?

[Pat Coyle]

Will you buy more Mac products because of this?
Fast Company - Apple has never done particularly well in Greenpeace's quarterly Guide to Greener Electronics. In the most recent guide it ranked near the bottom, at number 11 out of 18 electronics manufacturers. But Apple took its biggest step last Friday with the introduction of its Apple and the Environment website, which reveals all the dirty details of the company's environmental practices, including its overall carbon emissions (10.2 million metric tons, more than 2 million metric tons over HP's and Dell's reported emissions).

Will you buy more greener Apples? Share your thoughts here

[Devi Multimedia]

Always been a fan of Apple products because of their innovation and user focus. In the past couple years, I have become more environmentally conscious. Whenever you deal with electrical products, there are several factors to consider like carbon emissions—one of the biggest factors apart from any of the device functionality is WASTE. Where do these units go after use? How can we reduce dump sites? How can we remanufacture parts?

[Chris Tomlinson]

I'm not going to change my opinion/view on Apple because this guide said they weren't environmentally friendly or this one said they are friendly.

For me a computer has to have form and function and Apple is one of the best at doing this.

But as Devi mentioned, I would like to know what happens to the waste. Or better yet maybe Apple could increase their "green value" (if there is such a thing) by educating more of their customers on how to be more environmentally friendly after a computer has gone out of date or is ruined.

[Douglas Karr]

Environmentalism has turned from a concern into a rabid fanatical movement. It would be unfortunate if we started making every decision on how 'green' each independent item was. It's the collective that makes the difference. If everyone just turned out lights when they weren't using them, we'd reduce carbon emissions significantly.

What if we could develop the next green energy plant but it required us to pour twice the carbon emissions into the air to build the plant than if we generated a regular plant. The investment would be worth it - but would green fanatics allow it to happen? It's really getting ridiculous if you ask me.

Take the highest carbon emission, energy sucking computer on the market and it's still, ultimately, saving us energy. Why? Because we're working virtually - not requiring transportation, distribution, mechanical operations, etc. Computers and the Internet are making our lives more efficient and less dependent. Heck, we can even work, talk, and meet virtually right now. How much is that saving us in carbon emissions?

Chances are, your energy-sucking computer is saving quite a bit!