The naked truth about F-Gases
Explore Posterous
Search posterous
Search all posts and users. Type a name, type a favorite song title, whatever! See what comes up.
More posterous blogs
Here are posterous posts filed under greenpeace...
Greenpeace: Voices of change.
via vimeo.com
©2009 Greenpeace, created by Philip Bloom
Shot on Canon 5dmkII.
Grüner Balzen mit LovePeace.ch
Greenpeace verkuppelt Umweltschützer: LovePeace.ch ist eine Partner-Plattform, die ökologisch handelnde Menschen vernetzt. Weltverbesserer sollen hier nachhaltige Liebe und Liebe zur Nachhaltigkeit finden.
Greenpeace classe les leaders politiques avant le sommet de Copenhague : Obama complètement out
Brown en tête des leaders européens, Obama en queue de peloton. Sarkozy entre les deux. Et des pays émergents pas si mauvais que ça. C’est le verdict de Greenpeace qui a classé onze chefs d’État selon la force de leurs engagements dans la lutte contre le changement climatique.
A un mois du sommet de Copenhague, Greenpeace épingle les chefs d’État sur une cible.
Un classement de onze chefs d’État (six pays industrialisés, cinq pays en développement) du meilleur élève au bonnet d’âne. Critères retenus ? L’ambition de leur engagement sur le terrain de la réduction des gaz à effet de serre, de la déforestation ou de l’aide aux pays pauvres. Plus leurs objectifs collent aux recommandations des scientifiques, plus les leaders remportent de points. Et écopent, en fin de tableau, d’un score.
Un score que Greenpeace s’est amusé à transformer en jeu de fléchettes. Et c’est Gordon Brown qui s’approche le plus près du cœur. Avec 4,5 points sur 10, le leader britannique n’est certes pas un excellent élève. Mais il est quand même le seul à avoir donné une enveloppe - certes petite - pour aider les pays en développement à lutter contre le changement climatique. Et le locataire de Downing Street a aussi adopté des mesures contraignantes pour développer les énergies renouvelables. Au plus loin de la cible, planté dans le bois du mur, on aperçoit Obama. Avec 0,8 point sur 10, le nouveau leader charismatique de l’Amérique n’a pas de quoi fanfaronner. "Digne héritier de George W.Bush, Barack Obama tente d’affaiblir les dispositions contraignantes du protocole de Kyoto" , estime même Greenpeace. Certes, il a bien initié un plan de relance et débloqué des milliards en faveur des énergies renouvelables et de l’efficacité énergétique. Mais il ne prévoit "aucun objectif ambitieux de réduction des émissions" , regrette l’ONG.
Sarkozy entre deux eaux
A mi-chemin de la cible, oscillant entre le noir des inondations massives et le rouge des canicules mortelles, on trouve Nicolas Sarkozy. Avec 3,7 points sur 10, il arrive troisième sur la scène européenne. Le "champion des beaux discours" (dixit Greenpeace) n’a pas avancé de chiffre pour l’aide des pays en développement, se contente de réclamer une réduction de la déforestation de 50% ou évite de trop investir dans le renouvelable en misant sur le nucléaire.
Pour trouver les bons scores, il faut plutôt se tourner vers les pays en développement. Et notamment les plus vulnérables. La palme du classement de Greenpeace est attribuée au premier ministre du Tuvalu, petite nation du bout du monde menacée d’extinction sous les eaux pacifiques. Mais c’est surtout les scores des leaders chinois et indien qui surprendront ceux qui suivent de loin les négociations sur le climat. Souvent critiqués pour leur mauvaise volonté dans la lutte contre le réchauffement, ceux-là affichent de fiers 5,9 et 5,3% sur 10. Car si la Chine mise toujours sur le charbon, elle investit massivement et depuis déjà quelques années dans les énergies renouvelables. Comme l’Inde, elle s’est aussi engagée à réduire fortement ses émissions avec le soutien des pays industrialisés.
A quelques semaines du sommet de Copenhague, les mauvais joueurs ne sont pas forcément là où on le croit.
Stop murdering the enviroment with your gas guzzling dog
via good.is
I thought the above image was an interesting exercise in perspective. You hear environmentalists ranting about gas guzzling SUVs and lobbying for higher emission and gas mileage standards, but you don't see them going around murdering dogs left and right. Well, at least not yet.
However, I'm not sure I completely agree with the methodology used here. 10,000 kilometers is a little over 6,200 miles. That's not exactly average use, at least not here in the United States. But even if you double the annual driving distance, the carbon footprint is still less than that of a medium-sized dog.
I think the one thing we can be sure of is this: We are on the eve of an epic battle between PETA and Greenpeace. It will be bloody. There will be many casualties. And when the dust settles after the storm, there will be a lot less smelly people getting up in your face trying to get you to sign something when you walk out of Whole Foods.
This study also proves the superiority of cats. This has been known by most digital natives for some time though. Lolcats over Faildogs any day of the week. Twice on Caturday.
Greenpeace hates Apple, HP a little bit less today
Like many of you, my knowledge of Greenpeace begins and ends with that one Seinfeld episode, the one where the NBC executive, so in love with Elaine, freaks out and joins the organization in order to impress her. That is to say I don’t really understand the “point” of the organization, or who appointed it the protector of the environment. But, it is, somehow, so let’s roll with it. Good news for HP and Apple: Greenpeace hates you two a little bit less today! Break out the champagne!
Now, what have Apple and HP done to get on Greenpeace’s good side? We brought up Apple’s efforts to placate the environmental organization the other day, but to recap: Apple cut a whole bunch of garbage from its products, and does a lot to make sure its factories are as green as possible. So that’s what Apple did.
Meanwhile, over in HP Land, those guys have “[put] a PC on the market that is virtually free of PVC (vinyl plastic) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs).”
And who is Greenpeace’s favorite company? That would be Nokia. There’s a whole list of who are, in Greenpeace’s estimation, the greenest companies out there. The worst company? Nintendo! All those nuclear powered Wiis out there!
But like I said the other day, I really don’t know too many people who buy things based on their environmental impact. Can I afford it, and does it work well? That’s what I figure most people are thinking when they walk into the mall.
via crunchgear.com
Greenpeace insiste en consulta en el D.F. sobre basura
El Universal Edith Martínez 30/09/09
La organización ambientalista Greenpeace criticó al gobierno del Distrito Federal (GDF) por contradecirse en sus políticas públicas de manejo de residuos sólidos. Aseguró que mientras las autoridades promueven la reducción de la cantidad de basura que se genera a diario en la ciudad de México, planean ampliar el margen de las personas físicas y morales, de 50 a 250 kilogramos de residuos, para poder considerarlas “generadores de alto volumen” de desperdicios.
Link de acceso: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/ciudad/97770.html
RT @CrunchGear @nicholasadeleon: Apple to Greenpeace: Look, we're trying our best, ok!
Cupertino can't get a break from Greenpeace ever since the controversial NGO won a Webby in 2007 for taking a bite out of Apple's environmental record.
Back in July, Greenpeace ranked Apple lower versus Samsung and Nokia (though higher than Nintendo and Microsoft) in its quarterly "Guide to Greener Electronics" for levels of certain toxic chemicals in MacBooks and other Apple products:
Apple's score remains at 4.7 [out of 10] points but it drops one position in this edition of the ranking to 11th place. All Apple products are now free of PVC and BFRs with the exception of PVC-free power cords which are in the process of being certified. But Apple fails to score top marks on this criterion because it uses unreasonably high threshold limits for BFRs and PVC in products that are allegedly PVC-/BFR-free. The company needs to be commended for running a bold advertising campaign highlighting the green credentials of its MacBooks. Apple still needs to commit to phasing out additional substances with timelines, improve its policy on chemicals and its reporting on chemicals management.
CNET News reported that Apple updated its "green" site on Thursday with new information on corporate recycling, greener packaging and even how Mac OS X works with the CPU to save energy between keystrokes. How Greenpeace will respond is anybody's guess. Though, one has to wonder: how much longer is Apple PR going to kowtow to these guys?
When light bulbs flicker
Corporate social responsibility, be it charitable works or going green, is no longer a novelty. These days, CSR is expected. The dividends are immeasureable in many respects but pay handsomely in others, as companies line up to paint themselves green, blue, pink and red (like Apple does). Today's consumer wants to know that their purchases will find cures and build schools. Eco-conscious consumers want carbon neutral, organic, renewable, sustainable. Oh, and they are willing to pay for it.
But how much homage is Apple willing to pay Greenpeace? Is Apple afraid of not living up to its promise of being a green company, one that is EPEAT certified six ways from Saturday? Does Apple fear that it will alienate its core customers if the company doesn't concede to Greenpeace's every finding? For that matter, is Apple allowing itself to be bullied or just afraid to press back? And who died and made Greenpeace God?
Perhaps this is classic "no-win PR," a concept I'll address in a future post. Like any company, Apple vigorously defends its reputation and has the numbers to back it up:
- 18th out of the 25 "Most Reputable Companies in the United States" in the Reputation Institute's "2009 Global Reputation Pulse Study";
- second in Cision's "2009 Corporate Media Reputation Index" of U.S. companies; and
- 14th in Harris Interactive's most recent "Annual RQ" summary report.
Averaging the rankings of those three scorecards, essentially the Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch of a company's public image, can be fuzzy math at best, as there is no accepted industry standard. Still as they say, Apple appears to rank well in the PR department. Even adding these scores doesn't quite give an accurate depiction of Apple's (or any company's) environmental track record. In this department, Greenpeace sets the standard, perhaps better than the EPA. Though I must ask: who governs Greenpeace's market research? Are their stats impeccable or just reasonably good? And why did Greenpeace so brazenly take Apple to task like it did in the first place? I smell an agenda...
Garderning or boxing gloves?
Apple continues to play this hand carefully, but I think it can do better. Being in PR for 15 years is no lifetime, but I've counseled my share of clients with targets painted on their backs. You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em -- and when diplomacy falls off the table, know when to fight.
Kudos to Apple's new green site. Well written and designed, it steers clear of the self-congratulatory tone set by most CSR sites and utters ne'er a peep about Greenpeace, as did Apple's old green site. And if that has Greenpeace seeing "red," then too bad. With all due respect to Greenpeace, try picking on real targets instead of easy ones for a change.
Greenpeace Vs Dove
Dove - OnslaughtGreenpeace - Onslaught(er)
