.
/v3-uk/news/1984501/greenpeace-stages-rooftop-protest-hp
29 Jul 2009, Shaun Nichols , V3
Environmental activist organisation Greenpeace has targeted IT giant HP in its latest campaign.
The group staged a protest at HP's Silicon Valley headquarters on Tuesday, climbing to the roof of the building and painting the words 'Hazardous Products' in giant letters.
Greenpeace said that the protest was in retaliation for what the group sees as a broken promise by HP to remove toxic materials such as PVCs and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) from its products.
Elimination of both materials has been a major component of Greenpeace's consumer electronics campaigns, and has become central to the environmental programmes of major PC makers.
"Instead of making progress on phasing out toxic chemicals from their products, HP continues making excuses," said Greenpeace. "They are backtracking on their commitment to eliminate PVC plastic and BFRs from their products by the end of 2009."
An HP spokesperson told V3.co.uk that the company is preparing to release products free of PVC and BFRs later this year, and plans to eliminate both materials completely by the end of 2010.
"The unconstructive antics at HP's headquarters today did nothing to advance the goals that all who care about the environment share," the spokesperson said.
"HP will continue its efforts to develop new products and programmes around the globe that help the company, its business partners and customers to conserve energy, reduce materials use and reduce waste through responsible reuse and recycling."
Greenpeace has long targeted the IT industry. The group has been publicly prodding Apple for several years over its environmental policies.
The group also maintains a Green Technology index which grades and ranks PC and mobile phone makers on hardware recycling policies and the use of toxic materials.
Do you agree?
Greenpeace?
As far as I can see, Greenpeace are a bunch of scaremongering sensationalists who 'expose' relatively minor things that might possibly harm the environment, whilst at the same time not offering any realistic solutions, using the very technologies they condemn as 'dirty' in their protests and condemning those, like nuclear, that do appear to offer such solutions, mainly on the basis of rather flimsy, or even plain wrong, evidence that, to my mind at least, adds little in the way of credibility to their other moves. Their vandalism on a company that, despite its slender profit margins, is likely trying its best to cut out the use of the chemicals does nothing for it.
Posted by JH, 30 Jul 2009