Did you know that your version of Internet Explorer is out of date?
To get the best possible experience using our website we recommend downloading one of the browsers below.

Internet Explorer 10, Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.

The Apple iPhone: Not So Green

Like us on Facebook:
The current article you are reading does not reflect the views of the current editors and contributors of the new Ecorazzi


When we first reported on Apple going green, we couldn’t be more thrilled. Which makes this all the more difficult to report on Greenpeace’s recent exposure of how not so green the iPhone is.   Scientific tests, arranged by Greenpeace, reveal that Apple’s iPhone contains hazardous chemicals including bromine,chlorine, and PVC.

And evidently, Apple could face legal action unless it begins to address the environmental concerns. The Centre for Environmental Health (CEH), a campaign group based in Oakland, California, said that it would launch legal action in 60 days unless Apple took action. According to the Times Online:

A notice sent to Apple and the California attorney-general gives the nonprofit environmental law group legal standing to sue Apple in 60 days. A lawsuit could force Apple to put warnings on iPhone packaging, but is unlikely to lead to a product recall. An Apple spokesman said: “Like all Apple products worldwide, iPhone complies with RoHS [the European Union’s Restriction of Hazardous Substances directive], the world’s toughest restrictions on toxic substances in electronics.” The spokesman added that Apple had already pledged to eliminate the use of PVC and brominated flame retardants by the end of next year. The campaigners’ action may prove embarrassing for Al Gore, a member of Apple’s board, who last week won the Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental work. Apple has sold more than a million iPhones since the device’s launch this summer in the United States. In that time, the gadget has proved itself a magnet for lawsuits – some of more apparent merit than others. This month an iPhone buyer that said she was suing Apple for $1 million (£490,000) after the company cut the price of the device by $200 only 68 days after its American launch.

This really REALLY pains us to have to report this, but in the name of green awareness, check out the  following clip to see the breakdown for yourself and read more of the specifics here (via Techcrunch).

Like us on Facebook:

Concerned about endangered animals? Stop eating them

Methods of animal conservation that support the exploitation of animals don’t exist for the animals, they exist for human profit.

Why we SHOULDN’T genetically ‘disenhance’ animals

Creating bandaid “solutions” to ethical problems we’ve created doesn’t address the issue at hand

What you can do if live exports disturb you

The outcry should go further than importation and should be directed at the fact that the animals in question were on their way to slaughter in the first place.