A Greenpeace report naming Apple as one of the worst companies for pollution in the world has been debunked by Daniel Eran of Roughly Drafted. Greenpeace claimed that Apple had used many toxic chemicals in manufacturing, without asking where these toxic chemicals or by-products would end up, and Apple's position of 2.7 out of 10 (10 being the highest) was based upon this.

The article suppresses Greenpeace as being a valid organization for factual results, suggesting that their report was skewed in their favour, with previous Greenpeace works being 'sloppy' and using 'loose facts'. The Greenpeace report has been accused of using press releases by companies or public statements to determine their position rather than raw facts.

Greenpeace's report seems particularly flawed when you weigh up the differences between HP and Apple. HP received a much-higher ranking of 5.7 compared to Apple's 2.7 points, but HP have said on their website: In 2005, we found that some [Resistance of Hazardous Substances] RoHS compliant components were not yet available. Although we did not meet our goal for 2005, significant progress was made in transitioning HPÂ?s product lines to RoHS compliance.

Even will Apple's low score, here is what Apple had on their website: Apple products are compliant with the European Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, also known as the RoHS directive. Examples of materials restricted by RoHS include lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and PBB and PBDE flame retardants. As a result of our precautionary approach to substances, Apple was able to meet many of the RoHS restrictions long before the July 2006 deadline.

Despite this, Apple got a bad rating whilst HP were ranked particularly good. Next time you see a Greenpeace report, take it with a pinch of salt.