Apple Addresses EPEAT Withdrawal

This really does seem like an excuse.

If someone, say, a teacher, requires you to do assignment A, and you proceed to do optional assignments B, C, and D without doing A, the teacher won't magically exempt you from Part A. You may have done work no other student did, and that's great, but you didn't do the required part. Apple is arguing that the whole project sucks because B, C, and D should be more important than A.

EPEAT's criteria are based on:

1. Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
2. Material selection
3. Design for end of life
4. Product longevity/life extension
5. Energy conservation
6. End-of-life management
7. Corporate performance
8. Packaging

Apple would probably pass 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8.

But the new unrecyclable casing would probably cause problems for the end of life categories. I'm not sure what corporate performance measures. You can argue that EPEAT needs to be updated to measure more things, like greenhouse gas emissions, but a valid sustainability concern has been raised about the battery + case.

I'm not trying to criticize Apple's environmental performance. (Although I can't say the same thing for their suppliers). Their energy efficiency and packaging standards are some of the best on the market, and the new battery design was an attempt to please the consumer. They are also building the biggest private solar field in the country.

But EPEAT is a requirement for certain customers and they shot themselves in the foot trying to get around it.

Maybe they can lobby for a revision in the standard to account for more things.

“We also lead the industry by reporting each product’s greenhouse gas emissions on our website..."

So Apple leads in problem reporting. I guess that's something to be proud of..?

Not really.