Green Rankings: U.S. Companies

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Newsweek has posted a list of the Top 500 greenest companies in the world and Dell, HP, IBM and Intel are in the top five on the list. Oddly enough, Google came in 36th and Apple 65th. Ouch.

Here’s a look at our exclusive environmental ranking of the 500 largest publicly traded companies in America, as measured by revenue, market capitalization, and number of employees. NEWSWEEK ranked the biggest publicly traded companies in developed and emerging world markets.
 
Too bad Newsweek is still polluting the earth with their mindless dribble… What a shit magazine...
 
Too bad Newsweek is still polluting the earth with their mindless dribble… What a shit magazine...

Beat me to it. What a waste of time and energy... "WHO'S THE MOSTEST GREENEST COMPANIEZ!?!??!!"
 
A lot of this "green" stuff almost feels like shakedown efforts to me. Am I the only one who feels that way?
 
A lot of this "green" stuff almost feels like shakedown efforts to me. Am I the only one who feels that way?

Nope, most people are just too cowardly to speak up and they just go along and retweet (lol) everything they are told.
 
Obviously something is grossly amiss with these rankings if a software company like Google (who builds data centers powered by clean energy sources) ranks significantly lower than a company like Dell who manufactures and ships often times very large, very heavy and sometimes excessively-packaged products worldwide.
 
Obviously something is grossly amiss with these rankings if a software company like Google (who builds data centers powered by clean energy sources) ranks significantly lower than a company like Dell who manufactures and ships often times very large, very heavy and sometimes excessively-packaged products worldwide.

Yeah, it is call arbitrary crap.
 
Obviously something is grossly amiss with these rankings if a software company like Google (who builds data centers powered by clean energy sources) ranks significantly lower than a company like Dell who manufactures and ships often times very large, very heavy and sometimes excessively-packaged products worldwide.

But dells are usually powered by shit, which is a biofuel.
 
My employer CB Richard Ellis (#30 on the list) goes ape shit over being green and it just makes me gag every day. It's funny the inefficiencies they put up with just to improve their green rating.
 
Too bad Newsweek is still polluting the earth with their mindless dribble… What a shit magazine...

And the fact their magazine is not made from green materials.:rolleyes:

together /end thread

*highfive
 
PR and a big fat money grab (think of the carbon credit BS).
On the flip side one of my companies biggest contracts involves developing greener processes that actually pay for themselves: hazmat fees and liability insurance are expensive and only go up in price with time.
 
A lot of this "green" stuff almost feels like shakedown efforts to me. Am I the only one who feels that way?

Not at all. Most of this "green" stuff is just nonsense. My company just uses it as a marketing tactic. Slap a "green" sticker on something and it sells itself.
 
My employer CB Richard Ellis (#30 on the list) goes ape shit over being green and it just makes me gag every day. It's funny the inefficiencies they put up with just to improve their green rating.

That must be why your company is a big customer of my company :D We spew out the shit, you guys lick it up. In reality, nothing has changed, but when we throw the word "green" in the mix, oh well, now its a whole new ball game right? ha!
 
A lot of times, the making of green products is more un-green than the non-green counterpart. But it's ok, because it's only polluting some area around a factory in China.
 
A lot of times, the making of green products is more un-green than the non-green counterpart. But it's ok, because it's only polluting some area around a factory in China.

QFT. Penn and Teller cover this pretty well in their Recycling is bullshit episode of Bullshit.
 
i'm calling BS on this too, "these" companys just off-shore the business and they say, "we reduced our e-waste."
 
QFT. Penn and Teller cover this pretty well in their Recycling is bullshit episode of Bullshit.

I just saw it on the news today, CA wants to shut down Recycling Centers here because they produce a lot of toxic chemicals. But they stopped it and saved 500 jobs.
 
The top 10:

1 Dell» Technology 100.00 81.49 100.00 84.33
2 Hewlett-Packard» Technology 99.32 90.60 94.09 95.35
3 International Business Machines» Technology 99.20 98.71 89.52 98.42
4 Johnson & Johnson» Pharmaceuticals 99.02 74.95 98.86 80.34
5 Intel» Technology 97.57 95.74 88.79 92.71
6 Sprint Nextel» Technology 94.98 99.70 94.58 44.72
7 Adobe Systems» Technology 94.15 89.61 88.08 72.57
8 Applied Materials» Technology 92.67 91.98 87.33 60.06
9 Yahoo!» Technology 92.67 68.62 89.07 59.74
10 Nike» Consumer Products, Cars 92.66 67.63 77.53 97.39

Interesting and hard to believe how Dell is the greenest of them all.
 
The big question here is: Did Newsweek print this article?

10 Nike» Consumer Products, Cars 92.66 67.63 77.53 97.39
Child labour, who needs electricity when you can use candles?
 
Obviously something is grossly amiss with these rankings

And when companies like the one I work for can make the list at all when I've never even heard of a single green policy, we don't shut the lights off at night, PCs are on 24/7 for no reason. The do like to sweat us out by not running the air whenever possible, but I think that constitutes being cheap, not green.

321 Fiserv» Industrial Goods 67.50 75.15 28.32 45.02

Of course, Newsweek didn't even get the industry sector right, as you would guess fiserv is in the financial services sector...
 
QFT. Penn and Teller cover this pretty well in their Recycling is bullshit episode of Bullshit.

I just saw it on the news today, CA wants to shut down Recycling Centers here because they produce a lot of toxic chemicals. But they stopped it and saved 500 jobs.

Hey now, regardless of what you think of pollution we need to conserve our finite natural resources. Using something again > mining new stuff in the long run.
 
Hey now, regardless of what you think of pollution we need to conserve our finite natural resources. Using something again > mining new stuff in the long run.

I've got no problem trying to recycle things when they make sense. But when we freak out (as a country) over recycling things like paper (paper trees are renewable) and cost ourselves 9 billion annually subsidies I think we're doing ourselves a disservice.
 
I've got no problem trying to recycle things when they make sense. But when we freak out (as a country) over recycling things like paper (paper trees are renewable) and cost ourselves 9 billion annually subsidies I think we're doing ourselves a disservice.

Trees are renewable, but it takes a long time for them to grow. At the rate we use paper we are way outpacing forest growth, and the fewer trees there are the less oxygen gets generated, and I'm sure I don't have to explain to you the importance of oxygen.
 
Zarathustra[H];1036315621 said:
Trees are renewable, but it takes a long time for them to grow. At the rate we use paper we are way outpacing forest growth, and the fewer trees there are the less oxygen gets generated, and I'm sure I don't have to explain to you the importance of oxygen.

Right, because trees are the only plant on the face of the Earth that produce Oxygen. Ferns, roses, grass, bushes, algae, etc. don't produce any Oxygen :rolleyes:. Nevermind that if there is money to be made in owning tree farms we will not run out of trees. You don't see people worrying about us running out of potatoes and we eat a shit-ton of them. Anyone worried we're going to run out of eggs?
 
Back
Top