SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
January, 07 2010, 10:15am EDT
Contact:
Contacts CES Daniel Kessler, Greenpeace Media Officer, USA Mobile +1 510 501 1779, email: dkessler@greenpeace.org
Casey Harrell, Greenpeace International Toxics Campaigner, based in San Francisco, email: casey.harrell@greenpeace.org
Greenpeace's Electronics Guide Cuts Through the Greenwash at CES
Apple, Sony Ericsson and Nokia products free of worst hazardous substances – Samsung, Dell, Lenovo and LGE disappoint
LAS VEGAS
As technology companies jostle for attention at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) , Greenpeace's newest edition of the Guide to Greener Electronics, released at CES, cuts through the greenwash. Apple, Sony Ericsson, and Nokia lead the way for introducing products free of the worst hazardous substances with HP following just behind.
Samsung, Dell, Lenovo, and LGE pick up penalty points in the Guide (1) for failing to follow through on a promised phase-out of toxic chemicals in their products. The majority of the companies in the Guide had pledged to remove toxic PVC vinyl plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) (2) from their product range by the end of 2009, which would have meant a greater show of greener, toxic-free products for visitors to preview at the CES. But, for now, it's a no show for these companies, who have delayed their phase-out to 2011 or beyond.
"It's time for a little less conversation and a lot more action on removing toxic chemicals," said Casey Harrell, Greenpeace International Electronics campaigner. "Apple is leading and HP is playing catch up, but the lack of action from other companies is ensuring that customers and the environment are still losing out."
Several companies see their scores reduced in this edition of the Guide, with the bar being raised on hazardous substances. Having endorsed the precautionary principle, companies now need to actively support bans on PVC, BFRs and chlorinated flame retardants (CFRs) during the revision of the European Union's Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electronics Directive.
"Companies need to support legislative bans to ensure a consistent phase out of PVC and BFRs across all electronic products," said Casey Harrell, Greenpeace International toxics campaigner. "Sony Ericsson and Apple are already calling on EU institutions to support such a ban. Other big players, such as HP and Dell - who have so far been silent - and Acer, need to ensure the ban is passed in the European Union parliament."
Nokia leads the ranking with a score of 7.3. Sony Ericsson follows closely, and is the only company to score full marks on all the toxic chemicals criteria. In third place is Toshiba, but it risks losing points if it fails to meet its commitment to market new models of all its consumer electronics products that are free of PVC and BFRs by April 1, 2010. Philips comes in fourth place, while Apple rises from ninth place to fifth.
Samsung drops dramatically from second place to a tied seventh place for failing to eliminate BFRs in all its products by January 2010. With only its latest models of mobile phones free of toxic substances, it has set January 2011 as the deadline for eliminating them from new models of its notebooks and still has no definitive timeline for removing them from its TVs and household appliances. Nintendo continues to languish at the bottom of the ranking.
"In 2010, we should see significant developments, with products free of PVC and BFRs in the PC and TV markets," continued Harrell. "Any company failing to achieve this goal is taking a big gamble with its green reputation. More positively, it's good to see non-ranked companies beyond the PC and TV sectors, like Cisco (3), committing to eliminate these harmful substances."
Greenpeace is a global, independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
+31 20 718 2000LATEST NEWS
'The Fighter We Need': Progressive Adelita Grijalva Wins Special Primary for Her Late Father's Seat
"Adelita's victory tonight isn't just a win for families in Southern Arizona," said the national director of the Working Families Party. "It's a win for all those who believe in a government that works for everyday people."
Jul 16, 2025
Adelita Grijalva prevailed Tuesday in an Arizona Democratic primary race to fill the U.S. House seat left vacant by the death of her father, progressive stalwart Raúl Grijalva.
Grijalva previously served on the Pima County Board of Supervisors and the Tucson Unified School District Governing Board, and her congressional bid is backed by prominent progressive lawmakers and organizations including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC, National Nurses United, and the Working Families Party.
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, implored Arizona voters to turn out for Grijalva in a video message posted on the morning of the primary contest, calling her "the fighter we need to take on Trump and the establishment."
With more than three-quarters of the vote tallied, Grijalva has 62% support. Deja Foxx, a 25-year-old activist and Grijalva's closest competitor, has received 21% of the vote as of this writing, according to The Associated Press.
"This is a victory not for me, but for our community and the progressive movement my dad started in Southern Arizona more than 50 years ago," Grijalva said following her decisive win.
"We know that Adelita is going to be a fearless fighter for working families in her district."
Arizona's 7th Congressional District is heavily Democratic, so Grijalva—who campaigned on defending Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security from Republican attacks, bolstering workers' right to unionize, and lowering housing costs—is virtually guaranteed to win the September special election.
"Adelita's victory tonight isn't just a win for families in Southern Arizona. It's a win for all those who believe in a government that works for everyday people," Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party, said in a statement late Tuesday. "Voters are tired of politicians who hide in the pockets of their billionaire donors. We know that Adelita is going to be a fearless fighter for working families in her district."
"There's real energy right now for a different kind of politics, one that puts working people first," Mitchell added. "That's exactly why the Working Families Party was founded—to take on the corporate interests and billionaires who are rigging our economy and taking a wrecking ball to our democracy."
The New York Times faced backlash for its specious coverage of the race's outcome, which characterized Grijalva's win as a blow to progressive momentum generated by Zohran Mamdani's victory in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary.
The newspaper, whose coverage of Mamdani's mayoral bid has been a frequent source of outrage and ridicule, described Foxx as "a Gen Z activist who tried to recreate the youthful magic" of Mamdani's campaign, glossing over ideological differences and other factors.
Mamdani did not weigh in on the race, and many of the progressive lawmakers and groups that supported the New York City democratic socialist backed Grijalva. Foxx, who has a large social media following, was endorsed by a PAC founded by activist David Hogg.
"This is where superficial generational discourse gets you," writer Adam Johnson observed on social media in response to the Times coverage of the Arizona contest. "An AOC and Bernie-endorsed candidate wins and it's somehow an indictment on Mamdani—who didn't endorse anyone and has nothing to do with the race."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Urge Senate to Reject Trump's Deadly Rescission Package, Regardless of AIDS Funding
One humanitarian leader pointed out that the bill contains $1.3 billion in cuts to initiatives "every bit as lifesaving" as the AIDS prevention program that Republicans spared amid public pressure.
Jul 15, 2025
Progressives and public health advocates on Tuesday were among those urging U.S. senators to vote against Republican legislation that would let President Donald Trump claw back billions of dollars already appropriated by Congress, even as GOP lawmakers ditched plans to cut funding for an HIV-AIDS prevention program that has saved tens of millions of lives in Africa.
Politico reported that Senate Republicans will remove $400 million in funding cuts to the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), an initiative of former President George W. Bush credited with saving more than 25 million lives in Africa since its implementation in 2003.
However, the rescission package—a version of which was passed last month by the House of Representatives—still includes $1.3 billion in cuts to humanitarian aid programs that Jeremy Konyndyk, president of the advocacy group Refugees International, called "every bit as lifesaving as PEPFAR."
These include programs to fund public health, emergency food and shelter assistance, peacekeeping, economic development, and other essential aid that helps stabilize war- and disaster-stricken populations in the Global South.
"Even though the Senate has removed $400 million in PEPFAR funding from the rescissions package, another $500 million in global health funding could still be cut," Think Global Health managing editor Nsikan Akpan noted Tuesday.
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said Tuesday that the White House has agreed to an exemption for PEPFAR funding via a substitute amendment.
"It's substantially the same package and the Senate has to work its will and we've appreciated the work along the way to get to a place where they've got the votes," he explained.
Jacob Leibenluft and Devin O'Connor, respectively senior adviser and senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, noted that in addition to cuts to critical programs, the rescission package, combined with the Trump administration's wider campaign of unlawfully impounding funds, "could also make it far more difficult for Congress to fund the government in a bipartisan way in the future."
As the pair explained:
Most of the funds in the rescission package were enacted in March legislation that was passed by Congress—including on a bipartisan basis in the Senate—and signed into law by the president to fund the government for the rest of fiscal year 2025. To provide the 60 votes required to avoid a Senate filibuster, at least eight Democratic senators needed to join with 52 Republican senators to invoke cloture on the funding bill.
But presidential rescission requests operate under different rules and require only 51 votes to pass the Senate, so no Democratic votes are needed. If the Senate approves the package (which passed the House on a party-line vote), this would show that Republicans could quickly revise on a partisan basis, with merely 51 votes in the Senate, a bipartisan funding agreement reached only a few months earlier that required support from no fewer than 60 senators.
"Senators should keep those consequences in mind as they consider the president's current rescission request," Leibenluft and O'Connor advised.
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen cited both PEPFAR and the billions of dollars in other cuts to foreign aid contained in the package as reasons to oppose it.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) took aim at the bill's $1.1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which funds PBS and NPR.
"Like all authoritarians, Trump doesn't like criticism or objective reporting. He just wants flattery," the senator said on social media. "That's why he wants to defund NPR and PBS. We need media in this country that is not owned by billionaires and corporate interests. I will vote to support public broadcasting."
The chairs of the Congressional Tri-Caucus—Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), and Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.)—on Tuesday led a letter urging senators to reject the rescissions bill due to CPB cuts.
"CPB's elimination would decimate public media infrastructure, as the vast majority of its funding goes directly to local stations, many of which rely on it for over half their operating budgets," the lawmakers wrote. "In rural and tribal areas, this would shut down stations that serve as lifelines for public safety, education, and culturally relevant programming. Eighty percent of Native American and Alaska Native communities are rural or remote, and public television is often the only station reaching them consistently."
Polling published Tuesday by Data for Progress revealed that the proposed cuts in the rescission package are deeply unpopular, with a majority of respondents saying that funding for global health programs, public broadcasting, and developmental aid should be maintained at current levels or increased.
NEW: As Senate Republicans approach the Friday deadline to pass Trump’s rescissions package, voters reject the proposed billions of dollars in cuts to global aid and public broadcasting.We find that less than 30% of voters want cuts to these programs.www.dataforprogress.org/datasets/pol...
[image or embed]
— Data for Progress (@dataforprogress.org) July 15, 2025 at 6:54 AM
GOP senators—who are under pressure, as the proposed cuts must be approved by Friday under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974, the law they are using to skirt a Democratic filibuster—say they hope to pass the entire package before next month's summer recess.
On Monday, a coalition of 24 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration, alleging it violated the ICA and demanding the release of $6.8 billion in approved education funds that the suit argues have been illegally withheld.
"Courts across the country have made it clear to Donald Trump that he and his administration do not have the authority to unilaterally block funding that Congress has already approved," Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said in a statement. "These education grants are designed to help Michigan students thrive. By freezing them, the Trump White House is not just breaking the law but jeopardizing our kids' future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unconstitutional. Unethical. Authoritarian.' ICE Bars Millions of Immigrants From Bond Hearings
One watchdog said the new policy "seems like a blatant attempt to stop them from exercising their right to due process."
Jul 15, 2025
In yet another controversial move from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons recently told officers that immigrants who arrived in the United States illegally are no longer eligible for a bond hearing as they fight against deportation and should be detained "for the duration of their removal proceedings."
The Washington Post first revealed Lyons' July 8 memo late Monday. He wrote that after the Trump administration "revisited its legal position on detention and release authorities," and determined that such immigrants "may not be released from ICE custody." He also said that rare exceptions should be made by officers, not judges.
The reporting drew swift and intense condemnation online. One social media user said: "Unconstitutional. Unethical. Authoritarian."
In a statement shared with several news outlets, a spokesperson for ICE confirmed the new policy and said that "the recent guidance closes a loophole to our nation's security based on an inaccurate interpretation of the statute."
"It is aligned with the nation's long-standing immigration law," the spokesperson said. "All aliens seeking to enter our country in an unlawful manner or for illicit purposes shall be treated equally under the law, while still receiving due process."
The move comes as President Donald Trump and leaders in his administration, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, attempt to deliver on his promised mass deportations—with federal agents targeting peaceful student activists, spraying children with tear gas, and detaining immigrants in inhumane conditions at the so-called "Alligator Alcatraz."
In a statement about the ICE memo, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said that "President Trump and Secretary Noem are now enforcing this law as it was actually written to keep Americans safe."
"Politicians and activists can cry wolf all they want, but it won't deter this administration from keeping these criminals and lawbreakers off American streets—and now, thanks to the Big Beautiful Bill, we will have plenty of bed space to do so," she added, referring to $45 billion for ICE detention in Republicans' recently signed package.
According to the Post:
Since the memos were issued last week, the American Immigration Lawyers Association said members had reported that immigrants were being denied bond hearings in more than a dozen immigration courts across the United States, including in New York, Virginia, Oregon, North Carolina, Ohio, and Georgia. The Department of Justice oversees the immigration courts.
"This is their way of putting in place nationwide a method of detaining even more people," said Greg Chen, senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "It's requiring the detention of far more people without any real review of their individual circumstances."
Rebekah Wolf of the American Immigration Council told NBC News that her group has also received reports of some immigration judges "accepting the argument" from ICE, "and because the memo isn't public, we don't even know what law the government is relying on to make the claim that everyone who has ever entered without inspection is subject to mandatory detention."
The Post reported that "the provision is based on a section of immigration law that says unauthorized immigrants 'shall be detained' after their arrest, but that has historically applied to those who recently crossed the border and not longtime residents."
The newspaper also noted that Lyons wrote the new guidance is expected to face legal challenges. Trump's anti-immigrant agenda—like various other policies—has been forcefully challenged in court, and there has been an exodus from the Justice Department unit responsible for defending presidential actions.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular