Priligy online now, save money

JAN 21

Recent Comment

""The lowest scores are higher than they were last year, but the highes..."

View all Comments

Greenpeace Releases 2010 Green Electronics Rankings


This year's annual Greenpeace "Guide to Greener Electronics" has been released, and it is a mixed bag. The lowest scores are higher than they were last year, but the highest scores are lower. Nokia is still at the top. In 2009, they were at 7.45, but in 2010 they are down to 7.3.

Samsung, which was in second place last year, dropped significantly down to a tie for 7th place because of penalty points they were assessed for "backtracking on its commitment to eliminate brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in new models of all products by January 2010 and PVC by end of 2010." Most of wow look it cheap cialis generic the rest stayed about where they were. Sony Ericsson, Apple and Sony are a few that moved up. HP, Fujitsu, and Nintendo also improved, but are still near the dosage viagra bottom of the list.

Below is the list with each company's score from 1 - 10 (10 being the best) with the brief explanation of the score provided by Greenpeace.

  • 7.3 Nokia -- Remains in first place with good scores on toxics use reduction, but loses points on energy.
  • 6.9 Sony Ericsson -- Moves up with top marks on toxics elimination but weak on recycling.
  • 5.3 Toshiba -- Good score on ordering viagra online toxics elimination but needs to meet upcoming phase out commitment by March 2010.
  • 5.3 Philips -- Loses points for failing to lobby for phase out of hazardous substance in legislation.
  • 5.1 Apple -- Continues to improve, scoring best on eliminating toxic chemicals and e-waste criteria.
  • 5.1 LG Electronics -- LG score improves, but is still penalized for postponing date for toxics phase out.
  • 5.1 Sony -- Maintains overall score with better energy total, but needs to lobby for stronger chemicals legislation.
  • 5.1 Motorola -- Slightly reduced score, due to cialis soft tabs lack of lobbying for stronger chemicals legislation.
  • 5.1 Samsung -- Big drop due to penalty point for failing to meet commitment to phase out hazardous substances.
  • 4.9 Panasonic -- Score unchanged, strongest on energy but poor on e-waste and recycling.
  • 4.7 HP -- Improved position thanks to clear support for global emissions reductions, but needs to lobby for improved chemical legislation.
  • 4.5 Acer -- Score unchanged but Acer is the best place cheap levitra no prescription lobbying for stronger chemicals legislation.
  • 4.5 Sharp -- Loses points due to poor information on toxics elimination and fails to support stronger chemicals legislation.
  • 3.9 Dell -- Reduced score on energy criteria and penalty point for delaying toxics phase out till 2011.
  • 3.5 Fujitsu -- Improved score due to support for global carbon emission reductions and cutting its own emissions.
  • 2.5 Lenovo -- Score unchanged, with penalty point for indefinite delay on toxics phase out.
  • 2.4 Microsoft -- Reduced score, fails to support strong chemicals legislation.
  • 1.4 Nintendo -- Nintendo remains in last place with the same score.

The complete Greenpeace report (PDF) contains much more detail about the rankings and each company's individual performance.

Hits: 31207
Comments (3)Add Comment
What the....?
written by Doc Rings, January 21, 2010
All the entries seem so arbitrary, with what weighting placed on the variables? Based on cheap cialis without rx carbon offsets? Based on millions of pounds of toxic chemicals produced per year in the no prescription drugstore tramadol manufacturing process? Hundreds of 50 mg viagra consumers killed per year secondary to manufacturing pollutants? Is the score logarithmic? Is a "3" ten times worse than a "4"? Or just 25% worse?

And who decides this? What is Greenpeace's political agenda beyond just safer products?

(Based on the low Microsoft score... you'd think Microsoft was making Agent Orange all over again and drug generic levitra dumping weapons grade plutonium into the world's river systems).
written by kareniel, January 21, 2010
Ranking criteria explained:

There's also detailed report for each company on Greenpeace's website.
written by Karl, January 22, 2010
"The lowest scores are higher than they were last year, but the highest scores are lower."

That seems to make sense, as time goes on and technology improves you would expect that progress should be held to higher standards.

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


Are you an EcoGeek?

We've got to keep 7 billion people happy without destroying our planet. It's the biggest challenge we've ever faced....but we're taking it on. Are you with us?

The Most Popular Articles