From the Article:
In short, while Greenpeace's point that Apple really should have shown some materials leadership with the iPhone is a valid one to make, why get stroppy when Apple has not exceeded the limits it has set itself or those imposed upon it by Europe's RoHS regulations? What about all the other phone makers out there?
We'd guess it's because Apple is an easy target, and Greenpeace knows iPhone related commentary gains press coverage. Perhaps that's why it's chosen to lay into the Apple handset rather than others. Greenpeace's write-up doesn't once compare and contrast the iPhone's use of hazardous substances with that of any other mobile phone from any other vendor.
It's worth noting that they may be in violation of California laws though.
Although the iPhone may meet ROHS standards, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) is asserting the Apple has violated California law, which says that products that can expose consumers to phthaltes or other such chemicals must carry a warning label.
I'm not a big fan of Greenpeace in the first place. While I agree with their goals I do not agree with their methods. In some cases violent, and usually overly dramatic, I feel their actions put environmentalists like myself in a bad light. Making us look like tree hugging unrealistic hippies.
