Noooo! That's not true! That's impossible!

I love my iPod. It's cute. It's cuddly. It helps me look cool and avoid small talk with strangers on the bus. I can even use it to listen to music. On top of all that, I was actually feeling pretty good about it fitting into my green lifestyle. Since getting my iPod, I've purchased only digital music, meaning no CD packaging waste for the me. Plus, Apple has a decent recycling program in place. However, this article hit me like a glitch right in the middle of my favorite song. According to the report quoted in the story, Apple's iPods are made in China by mainly female workers who earn as little as £27 per month--that's $49.75 to you and me. Not good.

Of course, the report goes on to point out that "Apple is just one of thousands of companies that now use Chinese facilities to manufacture its products. Low wages, long hours and China's industrial secrecy make the country attractive to business, particularly as increased competition and consumer expectations force companies to deliver products at attractive prices." So one could argue that, as a corporation, Apple is just a symptom of a larger problem. They have to answer to stockholders who demand the largest profit margin possible, meaning they must find ways to reduce production costs while continuing to offer the best product possible. One could argue that, but I won't. All the competition may be doing it, but that doesn't make it right. Integrity goes a long way with consumers like me, and I'd personally pay more if I knew the reason for the increased cost was that the people who made my iPod were being fairly compensated. It may be time to write a little letter to Mr. Jobs.

Screw that!

A few weeks ago I made a post about voting with your dollars, i.e., buying organic and fair trade products so major manufacturers are forced to take note and change their ways. Well, I still think that's the right thing to do, but I may have been a little naive in believing it would only produce positive results. From what I've been reading, Wal-Mart's choice to sell organics in response to consumer demand is a double-edged sword. Yes, a wider audience will be educated (hopefully) on the benefits of organic farming, but a large corporation like Wal-Mart actually has the power to weaken organic standards. Whaaaa? Yeah, that's right, and don't think they won't do it either if it means greater profit for them. They're apparently already exposing loopholes in the existing laws. Frankly, I'm a little disenchanted. Wal-Mart? Smiley face? I thought I could trust that little guy. I guess the lesson is that it's always wrong to be optimistic when there's money involved. You are right to laugh at me.

Thank you, CO2! Now, I don't have to wear a sweater.

Wow. It's a good thing this is a blog and not a radio show because I'm speechless. This ad campaign has me absolutely dumbfounded this morning. In addition to arguing that global warming isn't happening, which is the standard approach of Kyoto-offenders like GM and Exxon Mobil, the first of these two spots funded by said corporations is ostensibly saying the more CO2 the better. "Hey, let's get excited about global warming. Don't you want to wear your bathing suit year-round and have leathery-brown skin and live with the threat of catastrophic hurricanes in Manhattan?" It has to be a joke, right? I'm afraid not.

By the way, this campaign is strategically timed to coincide with the opening of Al Gore's new movie An Inconvenient Truth, which I encourage everyone to see when it opens next Wednesday. Don't worry, it won't be cold in the theatre like it used to be before fabulous global warming.