Greenpeace sour on Apple iPhone U.K. launch

I am engaged in selling Apple iphone 3 gs 32 GB I have a shop on ebay, I have a 1300 rating on ebay Apple ayphone 3 gs 32 GB -600 uSD minimum order 3 phones who are interested give my nickname on ebay, shop and vote on a pay-pal vertutd@hotmail.com

There is economic cost, and there is environmental cost. Both need to be looked at, lead free looks dubious on both sides... Also, the full life cycle including recycling needs to be looked at.

Actually, RoHS is quite a failure (in a technical sense; in a regulatory sense it's a raging success, having been adopted by countries and locales all over the world). Industry has spent tens of billions of dollars to remove the small amounts of these hazardous materials from products. Except for the brominated flame retardants, exposure and therefore risk does not appear to have been adequately determined prior to the law going in to effect (basically everyone agrees that the restricted substances are hazardous; risk is a function of hazard and exposure). So we've spent piles of money for little obvious improvement in environmental performance. I won't opine on Greenpeace; suffice it to say that they need to identify issues that resonate with their constituency and thereby enable them to continue to fund themselves. In my discussions with them they say they target the electronics industry because it's visible and, since product lifecycles are so short, they believe we should be able to change materials just as fast. The one does not exactly follow from the other as anyone who really understands how product development really works would know, and I don't expect Apple and Dell to be able to fully remove BFRs from their products by the end of '08 as they've promised. There is a fair amount that product industries (not just electronics) can and should do to improve environmental performance of products, but to allow governments and NGOs alone to set the agenda is misguided and results in expensive and ineffective results. Industry is failing to be proactive so this is what it gets. The call to understand COSTS is right on, but let's realize that the right way to do it is to determine cost/benefit across the entire substance and product lifecycle. This whole subject needs far more focus and attention from industry if we're going to obviate the (perceived and real) need for more regulation.

"Green Advocates" and the many so-called environmental protection groups are often part of an anti-Western civilization political movement consisting mainly of agitated college brats of rich families, and ex-hippies and ex-hippie college professors who hate "the establishment" and anything capitalistic. Protecting the enviroment is OK but they go way too far, relying on junk psuedo-science to promote political ideals. And most of these "advocates" are hypocrites: ask them what kind of car they drive, clothes they wear, energy they use, food they eat, personal electronics they own, etc.

As usual, our press correspondent positions herself firmly on the left of this issue, giving us two unattractive alternatives to choose from: "Are these regulations enough, or should the electronics supply chain face stricter green regulation?" Hey, here's an idea! Let's discuss the economic COSTS of these ever advancing environmental regulations. Suzanne, let's be a little more open-minded, shall we?

Comment on the comments: Oh Puleez!! Getting poisons out of our environment is more than laudable it is necessary. RoHS has caused some problems, but by and large is a tremendous success. Just like the previous elimination of ChloFluroCarbons. Sure some pain but add some human ingenuity and presto we get over it. If we just let narrow economics dictate than there is no incentive to improve, and in a finite world we have found out that that approach doesn''t work. Regarding GreenPeace They have a POV but I''m not sure that this battle is going to advance their cause.

Why does it always come down to one extreme or the other. None of us wanted more lead in our environment but there is no question that RoHS has not only been painful but has caused some reliability concerns. Is it possible we can look at these goals, form some concensus, and move forward at a pace that is neither foot dragging nor so fast that we may be causing more problems that we fix. I am a supporter of Greenpeace but I''m not sure this was the right time to pick this battle while we are all still reeling from RoHS.

Whackos on the fringe. Fortunately, most people see them for what they are. They really should consider changing their name to "Greenwar".

Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and its inventors have raised the baseline existence of people far more than the greenie weenies of greenpeace ever have or ever will. Environmental groups have brought us poisons like R-134 instead of safe R-12 in refrigeration systems and the elimination of useful things like DDT so that millions can die worldwide and especially in third world countries of malaria. I want to take this opportunity to thank them for their contributions to the genocide of millions and the destruction of civilization and health.