Should Apple go green?

In case you haven't heard, Apple has recently found themselves the target of an unlikely foe: Greenpeace. It all started in August, when Greenpeace launched their "Green Electronics Guide," and named Apple a primary offender for using toxic chemicals in their manufacturing process. This was shocking news for Mac fans, many of whom assumed that the company used responsible manufacturing practices in line with their corporate image. Apple contested the claims and Greenpeace fired back--by creating an Apple parody website, protesting at MacExpo in London and turning the flagship Apple store in New York green, using handheld green lights.

Ars Technica has been covering the story for a while and in an editorial piece today, they suggest that Apple might even save money if they relent and clean up their manufacturing process. The reasons given are a little tenuous--it's suggested that the example of chipmakers saving money by phasing out toxic chemicals in favor of water provides "hard evidence" that "going green" saves money. Of course, these sorts of things are going to differ from process to process and my guess would be that an environmentally-friendly manufacturing process is almost always more expensive than the status quo.

Which is not to say, however, that Apple shouldn't do it anyway. As Ars notes, most Apple customers are the type of folks who might be willing to pay a premium in order to know that their MacBook helped save the whales. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out--will Apple eventually cave-in in the face of Greenpeace's efforts to tarnish their corporate image? In the meantime, check out this article for some ideas on how you can "go green" in your own IT department.

For more on Apple's tiff with Greenpeace:
- see this Ars Technica article
- Greenpeace's latest rankings of the greenest tech companies
- and Greenpeace's full report card for Apple