Apple responds to EPEAT concerns

Apple on Tuesday responded to concerns that it asked to have its products removed from EPEAT, the U.S. government’s list of environmentally friendly products.

“Apple takes a comprehensive approach to measuring our environmental impact and all of our products meet the strictest energy efficiency standards backed by the US government, Energy Star 5.2,” Apple representative Kristin Huguet, told The Loop. “We also lead the industry by reporting each product’s greenhouse gas emissions on our website, and Apple products are superior in other important environmental areas not measured by EPEAT, such as removal of toxic materials.”

It’s important to note that in addition to not measuring toxins and other environmental areas, EPEAT also doesn’t measure smartphones or tablets. Clearly these are two areas that are vitally important for Apple and not covered by EPEAT.

Companies like Dell have 171 products listed on EPEAT, but yet if you look on Dell’s Web site, none of their computers are even Energy Star Compliant.

By its own admission, the EPEAT certifications are old.

“Part of it is expanding EPEAT’s global reach through the multiple certification [process]; as well as moving into new, additional products; as well as updating the EPEAT [certifications], because they’re a little long in the tooth. [Each of those] is a huge project on its own,” Christine Ervin, an EPEAT board member told GreenBiz in March.

The hubbub over Apple pulling out of EPEAT is interesting because the products that were listed as gold products by the environmental organization are the same ones Apple is currently selling.

Apple has done more than any other technology company in recent memory to be environmentally friendly. What’s more, Apple publishes everything that makes up its carbon footprint on its Web site. Again, this is something EPEAT doesn’t measure.

  • beidaren

    is this AL Gore’s idea?

    • Charles Martin

      Wow, really? Gonna beat that dead horse some more, huh? Man I can’t wait until your generation dies off … it might single-handedly save the planet from climate change by eliminating the leading source of HOT AIR.

      • Snake


      • “Save the planet from climate change.” Haha, as if the planet were really in need of saving. Whoever filled your head with that garbage should be thrown in jail.

        • JohnDoey

          It was climate scientists. People who spend their entire lives studying the climate.

          Also — anyone who has run a fireplace knows that it not only warms the house, but of the chimney is blocked, it will fill the house with smoke. Now look at a smokestack on a factory or at a car exhaust or incandescent light bulb (90% heat, 10% light) and remember that the earth’s atmosphere does not have a chimney, and then finally, recognize that we burned more stuff in the 20th century than all other centuries combined. With all of that, wouldn’t it be surprising if the earth was the same temperature or cooler than in the 19th century? Wouldn’t you expect that burning more than half the planet’s wood an oil all within 100 years would warm it? Wouldn’t it be ridiculous to promote the idea it would be the same temperature if you hadn’t tested it? And once it has been tested by climate scientists and found to be much warmer, how f’ing stupid would you have to be to still say it is not warmer?

          The scientific principle here is “burning stuff within the atmosphere makes the atmosphere warmer.” NOT COMPLICATED.

          Apple has helped a lot, because they have enabled a lot of people to trade in an Intel architecture system ($25 per year in AC power use) for an ARM architecture system ($1–$2 per year in AC power use) which also is much smaller and more recyclable. Only 1 in 7 have Intel, but ARM can scale to global and the fact that we can now run PC software and apps (iOS, App Store) on ARM is very significant for the environment.

        • Yann

          Stuart Schram is actually not wrong. Even if we were to annihilate any living creature on the planet, the planet itself would still survive and some other kind of life would probably appear within the next 100 million years to come. So, Stuart, you’re right, why bother ?

  • I do much work with 3rd party certification projects and read up on EPEAT. It appears to me that Apple no longer values what the EPEAT certification provides versus the cost to acquire and maintain certs as that rating system evolves. They can just design to IEEE 1680 and continue posting their own green scorecards online. As a consumer, I don’t want to pay additional costs for them to apply a green cert label.

    • Just because Apple saves, doesn’t mean you save.

      • CalebC

        …unless you’re a shareholder.

        • Guest

          … unless something relatively trivial for Apple to accomplish with Apple’s scale and resources ends up causing them a massive black eye all over the environmental world, and then causes a loss of sales for environmentally conscious companies, cities and the federal govt. WTF? Just re-certify already with EPEAT.

          • Thom Kozik

            No… the answer is to get EPEAT certifications updated to the current realities of the market and product design. It’s ridiculous to assume that consumers are going to break down their PCs and laptops in order to recycle discrete components or sub-assemblies (regardless of manufacturer). Would much rather have a manufacturer/retailer take-back model as they do in Germany and elsewhere… easier/simpler for consumers to understand.

          • David K.

            FYI Apple accepts computers for recycling.

          • Jim

            You know for a fact certification is a trivial exercise? A review of current the EPEAT rating system begs to differ.

      • Jim

        What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

      • JohnDoey

        If you are an Apple customer, then when Apple saves, you save. Apple has dropped their prices by about 50% over the past 10 years no matter how you want to measure it. They have been doing that by lowering costs and by not being wasteful. When you hear about their awesome supply chain efficiency, that means “not wasteful.”

  • Just having people use tablet instead of full laptops has helped lower the power consumption of the world…

    • Zachary Stern

      How many people do you REALLY know, that have replaced their laptop completely with a tablet. Some? Sure. But for most it’s an ADDITIONAL product, not a substitute.

      • Agreed.

        • JohnDoey

          Apple Basher agree. Apple Basher like. Apple Basher make fire. Grubt grunt grunt.

      • Gonji

        I haven’t completely replaced my laptop with my iPad, however, I use it a hell of a lot less. Thus, as Zenfar says, I have reduced my energy consumption.

        • Example

          Really? So how much energy do you think it tool to build your iPad in the first place?

          • Gonji

            That’s a fair question. Not sure how much it costs in energy to make a single iPad. Also not sure how much it used to cost me to run my MacBook Pro, now six years old, everyday (I now only run it once or twice a week for a couple of hours, sometimes less). I do know it costs $1.36 a year to charge the iPad. I wonder, over a couple of years, if the cost difference between using the two devices would make up for the energy cost of making the iPad. Definitely a good question to ponder though.

          • stephenl123

            No need to guess. Apple publishes the answers to energy us over the life of the product at: This includes building it, shipping it, and recycling it. The electricity used by the customer is also broken out as a separate number. The New iPad for example is 180kg CO2e; of which 67% is manufacture. A 13 inch MacBook Pro is 440kg CO2e of which 65% is manufacture. The CO2e to manufacture an iPad is slightly more than the expected electric use of a MacBook Pro 13 inch over the expected life of the product. CO2e means Carbon Dioxide emission equivalent. This is CO2 plus other greenhouse emissions.

          • JohnDoey

            Your MacBook Pro has double everything compared to iPad. Your MacBook Pro cost the environment at least 2x an iPad. Just look at the weight alone.

          • JohnDoey

            It took far less energy to build the iPad than it took to build the computing device it replaced. It then also takes far less energy to run the iPad than it took to run the device it replaced.

            PC’s do not appear out of thin air. PC’s have dozens of chips, hundreds of parts, many of which actually go unused by many users. An iPad is just a battery, screen, modem, and a single tiny chip has the whole computer. The iPad CPU’s are microscopic. So are its GPU’s. iPad is less than half the size and weight of a Mac. It costs less to ship every part and the completed device. Less to store. Less to recycle. It is painfully obvious that iPad has a much smaller environmental impact than Mac/PC.

            If I sit down today and spend 8 hours making a Keynote presentation on an iPad, I will use about 5% of the environmental resources that I would have used if I did the same Keynote hours on a Mac. There is no controversy there at all. That is why ARM architecture is popular even in new server designs. You can run 20 ARM servers in the power and cooling of 1 Intel.

          • He was hallucinating under the influence of design apple. And now reviewing their concepts about the apple. No doubt this. Good reply.

      • Yes, but most people with tablets probably don’t use BOTH at the same time. The tablet likely now makes up a good percentage (time-wise) of their power usage, lowering the overall.

        The question is more around recycling of the components after the products are dead and gone. Does gluing them make them not able to be recycled, or just harder? How does Apple compare to other products as far as the materials utilized and recycle-ability?

        • Technically, everything can be recycled if you have unlimited time and energy, but the world doesn’t work that way. The question is does gluing the battery shift that curve enough that it doesn’t reasonably make sense to recycle that aluminum?

        • Neil Anderson

          Apple has their own recycling program.

      • CalebC

        It doesn’t matter. Some is more than none, and very few are using both at the same time. Any tablet use in place of laptop use is a net plus for reducing energy consumption.

      • gjgustav

        A few – those that don’t use a computer for work.

        How many people do you know that only bought a computer to use facebook, email, web, and a few games? All easily done on an iPad.

      • David K.

        I’ve reduced my laptop use to near zero and my desktop use by about 95% thanks to my iPad and iPhone. So yeah, there are plenty of us who have obviated the need for more power hungry devices. Not true for everyone but definitely true for many.

      • JohnDoey

        You missed the point.

        I don’t have to totally get rid of a Mac/PC to replace it with an iPad. If I am using my iPad 75% of the time and PC 25% of the time instead of 100% PC in the past, then I have replaced 75% of my PC usage and power usage with iPad use and power, which is about 4 or 5% of the AC power and heat to do the same task.

        Every person who is running a full-size Web browser or Keynote or iMovie or GarageBand on iPad would have had to use 25x the power to do so before iPad. That is millions of users across millions and millions of hours. Very significant power savings.

        Further, we know from Apple that roughly 40% of iPad sales were purchased “instead of a new Mac,” and roughly 40% were purchased “instead of a new PC,” and for 10% of buyers, it is their first computer. That leaves only 10% who bought iPad as a Mac/PC accessory rather than standalone device.

        Me, I just replaced my 2008 MacBook Air and 2010 iPad with a 2012 iPad that does the same jobs that the 2 previous devices did. I also have a MacBook Pro, but for the first time in about 15 years, I only have one Mac, not two. I have 2 iOS devices, though, so I have 3 computers. Less Mac/PC, but more computers overall. That is a significant trend. That is why high-end PC sales are up 10x since iPhone, but low-end PC sales are flat or down. Once you have an iPhone and iPad, if you need a PC at all, you need a really high-end one, not a low-end cardboard Windows PC that can’t outclass your iPad.

        We have matching sales figured from the generic PC makers, who are getting killed by iPad because Windows PC’s have an average sales price of $400 and consumers are choosing to spend that money on iPad next time they buy. Most consumers run a Web browser, iTunes, Netflix, and almost nothing else, and they like to do that from the couch on batteries and iPad is the perfect PC for them.

      • Jasper

        Every hour that you use a tablet instead of a laptop, energy consumption is lowered (a full charge for an iPad is about 2/3 of the capacity of a laptop battery and lasts 1.5 times as long, so it uses about half to a third of the power).

        You don’t have to replace 100% of usage to have a significant number.

    • Neil Anderson

      Yep, it only costs $1.36 per year to charge an iPad.

  • jameskatt

    Apple will make BETTER products because it won’t be part of EPEAT.

    Certainly, if Apple’s competitors participate in EPEAT, they will have thicker, heavier products that consumers don’t love compared to Apple’s products.

    • Matthew Davis

      Define your terms, here. How do you define “better” and what do consumers “love?” You’re making blanket statements with the assumption that there is not a subset of consumers that want access to the internals of the products they buy, and want to be able to reuse parts as needs be.

  • aardman

    I bet they use their (less energy efficient) laptops less than they used to.

  • “Apple has done more than any other technology company in recent memory to be environmentally friendly.”

    Greenpeace releases an annual reports on how green various tech companies and their last one in 2011, Apple was ranked 4th overall. HP, Dell and Nokia rank above Apple. That said, Apple has cleaned up and gone up in Greenpeace’s ranking. In their 2010 report, Apple was down as 9th overall. In part from a lot of pressure from environmental groups who put a spotlight on some of Apple’s really dirty policies seemed to have help force Apple to clean up their act. They still have ways to go, but I wouldn’t say that they have done more than any other tech company if you look closely as their various environmental policies.

    • Puggsly

      90% of why green peace down grades Apple is because it gets them noticed. The other 10% is because apple doesn’t play the game their way.

      • Perhaps in campaigns Greenpeace launches, they might target companies that might get them more attention. However, Greenpeace has a very detailed Guide To Greener Electronics that they release each year. They have 13 categories that make up each companies ratings and write in detail why a company got any particular score. They also provide links showing where they got all of their data, mainly from the company themselves, either from their website or annual reports.

        Nothing in the report seems to be able getting more attention or getting paid off. You can read through the facts and see clearly why Apple would score lower (or why their score has gone up as they became greener).

        • One of the major areas Greenpeace uses in it’s rankings is announcements about current standards and plans to become more environmentally friendly. Apple will always lose when it’s about making pre-announcements.

          Under Apple’s Report, all of it’s lowest ranks are about not sharing information publicly:

          GHG emissions reductions and targets 1/8 (Apple seeks to minimise GHG emissions by setting stringent design-related goals for material and energy efficiency per model of product. However, there are no details of these goals.)

          Clean Electricity Plan 3/8 (Apple does not provide targets to increase use of renewable energy or reduce energy consumption through energy efficiency, or a plan to achieve this.)

          Clean Energy Policy Advocacy 0/8 (No information given to GP)

          Use of Recycled Plastic in Products 0/3 (Apple provides no information on its use of post-consumer recycled plastics. Apple products are designed using recyclable materials.)

          Policy and practice on sustainable sourcing of fibres for paper 0/3 (Apple provides no information on its policies and practices for sustainable sourcing of fibres for paper.)

    • The Shambolic Skeptic

      Greenpeace? Really?

    • No

      Greenpeace is a shakedown operation. Their racket is to drum up some negative publicity, and then get paid to fuck off and shut up. SJ wouldn’t play that game, and neither will Tim Cook.

    • Last time I checked, Greenpeace also gave better ratings to companies like HP and Dell based upon promises for future improvements, rather than manufacturing policies already in place.

      Greenpeace knows it can do a lot more fundraising when it publicly beats upon Apple, regardless of which company is actually doing more physical harm.

      I no longer pay attention to Greenpeace where computer technology is concerned.

      • It is true that they based their part of their guide on when companies promise to eliminate using certain toxic products but this does include Apple. As it can be hard for large companies to make any sudden changes in removing anything from their production line.

        Go to a link like the following from Apple which is a number of years old: It’s all about not just what Apple is doing now but what their plans were for the future.

        However, if you look up Greenpeace’s Guide to Greener Electronics, they have a timeline and any time a company broke a promise they launched a big campaign against the company. You will see recent campaigns against Samsung and Dell when they didn’t follow through with promises and how they lost points in later guides.

    • gjgustav

      Greenpeace is not credible. They value PR over actually advising companies.

  • Tcrowns

    Who monitors Greenpeace?

  • derekmorr

    “Companies like Dell have 171 products listed on EPEAT, but yet if you look on Dell’s Web site, none of their computers are even Energy Star Compliant.”

    I don’t believe this is accurate. IIRC, meeting the Energy Star requirements is a prerequisite for EPEAT listing.

  • Apple products have NEVER been green.

    The notion that this “certification” ever meant that Apple cares for the environment is outrageous.

    In fact, Apple products are text-book examples of non-essential gadgets with a high impact on the environment throughout the entire lifecycle of the product — from manufacturing processes, to packaging and retail, through to waste disposal.

    Apple is a perfect example of a corporation which has succeeded in ensuring that neither they nor the end consumer have paid the true price of the product in terms of long-term environmental impact (and in other terms too, e.g. fair pay and conditions for workers). This is achieved partly by “offshoring” the manufacturing to locations where the factories can do things that would not be allowed in Apple’s home country.

    “many governments and universities rely on the EPEAT registry when making purchasing decisions”

    It’s a disgrace that public officials use this “certification” as a thin veneer of environmental credibility. You don’t need a “certification” to realise that Apple’s products are absolutely NOT environmentally friendly and neither have they ever been.

    Moreover, Apple products are consistently over-priced and more expensive than the alternatives, and while it may be acceptable for private companies to make trendy purchases rather than economical ones, it is unacceptable for our taxes to be wasted when better and cheaper options are readily available.



    • iLoLAtHaters

      Umad bro?

    • Compared to what? Whose products do you use and consider essential, environmentally friendly, or better long-term value for their cost?

      • “Whose products do you use and consider essential, environmentally friendly, or better long-term value for their cost?”

        I said is “Apple products have NEVER been green” and that remains true regardless of any other companies.

        But, since you mentioned it, although I don’t consider any Apple product essential:-

        GREENER – Greenpeace’s independent list consistently rates Dell, HP and Nokia above Apple, year after year.

        BETTER VALUE — the list of cheaper products that do the same job or better is too long to list.

        Did you doubt what I was saying? It sounds like you need to wake up to what Apple really is.

        • I’m wide awake, son. You’re preaching vague dogma instead of addressing my question directly.

          Greenpeace’s “independent” list isn’t reliable. They grade less publicity-worthy targets (like Dell and HP) on a curve and rate them higher. Slamming Apple gets Greenpeace more publicity and more contributions.

          Better value? Cheaper products get you what you paid for: commodity crap that doesn’t last as long in actual use and requires additional maintenance for malware prevention or removal. Yes, that sure is a long list.

          I’ll ask again. Whose products do you use and consider essential, environmentally friendly, or better long-term value?

          • “You’re preaching vague dogma instead of addressing my question directly.”

            No, I’m specifically saying that Apple is not the most environmentally-friendly company, and it is therefore wrong for them to make this claim.

            I have unambiguously answered your question, however you seem unable to accept the truth. I therefore suspect that your own dogmatic faith in Apple has become entrenched.

            You asked two questions:-

            You asked whose products are greener, and I cited a major independent source which clearly ranks other companies above Apple. You also asked which products are better value and I pointed out that there are too many examples to list. I consider it common-knowledge that Apple is a designer label. Apple products and services are almost universally more expensive than most of the alternatives, from music downloads to mobile devices. That doesn’t mean Apple products are not good — some of them are very good, but there are generally equal or superior alternatives available at lower prices.

            “Greenpeace’s list isn’t reliable.” Show me an alternative list, then. Greenpeace is comparing numerous companies. Apparently, you prefer to ignore this and instead use Apple’s own propaganda as your primary source for information about the own corporation.

            “Slamming Apple gets Greenpeace more publicity and more contributions.”

            Nonsense. I consider it common-knowledge that pro-Apple stories are more popular than anti-Apple stories, thanks to the corporations loyal, misguided, and disproportionately vocal fan community — of which I gather you are part. Many major tech blogs are known for jumping on the Apple hype bandwagon.

          • Greenpeace’s report gathers information from the companies’ own websites and annual reports. It’s not like Greenpeace is doing new research that cannot be trusted. They are taking publicly available company data and breaking it down into various categories and giving each category a score. You or anyone one else can look over the information and clearly see that Apple is not a leader in being environmentally friendly.

            That said, Apple is a lot better than they were just a decade ago where they used to be one of the worst and have slowly moved up the list. Currently, they are 4th out of 15th, where just a year before they were 9th. They could get a lot better, but they are not the best, which is what this article mentioned and why I commented.

            Perhaps you might not care if a product is environmentally friendly, I think most don’t consider this above all else, but it is something they think about. Some companies or organizations go as far as refusing to buy from companies who are not environmentally friendly enough, I imagine in order to try to put pressure on all companies to clean up their act.

    • Agilis

      Tim Acheson –> Troll. Nuff said.

      • @ “Agilis” I disagree with your assessment. You may think that, but it doesn’t alter the truth and substance of what I’ve said here.

        • Joe

          You are correct! While there may or may not be truth to what you are saying, there certainly is no substance, and that fact is not altered by any of our (foolish-to-be-feeding-the-troll) responses…

          • What I’ve said is true. Your trolling comments have not even attempted to find fault in any of the points I made.

  • Apple’s official response:

    “Apple has done more than any other technology company in recent memory to be environmentally friendly. “

    Sorry, but that is an outrageous lie. This is pure corporate PR, and it a demonstrable falsehood. Apple should be held to account for repeatedly making false claims like this, it’s tantamount to false advertising. This has already been reported to the Advertising Standards Authority here in the UK.

    For example, in Greenpeace’s 2010 annual report ranking how green the major tech companies are, Apple was ranked #8! Last year, Apple was not even in the top 3 green tech companies (HP, Dell and Nokia were the top 3).

  • Let’s inject some reality back into this corporate PR exercise.


  • Eric Scoles

    Right, but none of this explains why they pulled out. It’s all just rationalizations about why pulling out doesn’t matter.

    This is basically saying “yes, we’re going to stop caring about everything that’s in EPEAT, but that’s OK, because we still care about these other things that aren’t in EPEAT [and are thus irrelevant to the discussion].”

  • kpom

    Wait. Are you telling me that EPEAT is just another feel-good measure like E85 that is more symbolism vs. substance?

  • schandur

    “Companies like Dell have 171 products listed on EPEAT, but yet if you look on Dell’s Web site, none of their computers are even Energy Star Compliant.”

    Uh, come again? Please run a search on Energy Star’s website before making such nonsense statements –

  • The reasons why still seems unclear. The problem as many seemed to point out was that the new MacBook Pro line would not meet EPEAT standards due to method by which the parts are glued together thereby making them difficult to recycle.

    Is this not the issue and merely a co-incidence or is still the issue and Apple is trying to re-frame it?

    Jim, have you tried contacting Apple Canada to see how this affects their recycling program? They seem to imply that the provincial third party programs can recycle the equipment but I wonder if they can with the new machines?

  • When you have to buy 2 or 3 Dell computers to 1 Apple computer you are wrong it takes more to build those computers and more greenhouse effects on the planet.

  • Talk2Tony

    Still not sure Why it was necessary to drop out? , why not just leave the units that are approved up? What am I missing here?

  • Apple being Apple, they’ve requested to be removed from EPEAT, because they know people and other media sites will actually do that for them… this one is sure… when they release their first product that do not have any EPEAT cert., media/blog/tech sites will scramble to tear it down and check the environmental impact and even cross check them with the EPEAT Standards.. parts by parts!!!!

  • JohnDoey

    The most important thing a manufacturer can do is remove toxic chemicals, because no matter how recyclable a system is, it is going to be recycled today, and the toxic chemicals kill the people who disassemble the components. If EPEAT doesn’t cover that, they are useless.

  • airmanchairman

    For those commenters asking why Apple has announced their withdrawal from EPEAT so apparently hastily, read Tim Acheson’s thinly-veiled hate tirade in same comments, and wait for the GreenPeace follow-ups to come in pubs like NYT and vengeful blogs like Gizmodo.

    It’s a pre-emptive move aimed at drawing the bulk of the poison out of the predictably venomous stings to come from all quarters of the inferiority-complex phalanx, whose only response to Apple’s Phoenix-like rise from near-death is to try and kick it back to the kerb with slings, shots and barbs.

    Good luck with that, as anyone who’s been close to the abyss will tell them. We’ll see how well they fare when their turn in the Valley of Decision inevitably comes around…

    Put quite simply: “You do as you would be done by, or be done by as you did” (nod to Charles Kingsley of yore).

    • “It’s a pre-emptive move aimed at drawing the bulk of the poison out of the predictably venomous stings to come from all quarters of the inferiority-complex phalanx, whose only response to Apple’s Phoenix-like rise from near-death is to try and kick it back to the kerb with slings, shots and barbs.”

      Yet Greenpeace has given overall given Apple better environmental ratings over the past recent years as Apple have cleaned up their act. By your theory, Apple’s rating should have gone down as Apple has gotten successful no matter what they have done to be more environmentally friendly. However, Apple’s rating will go back down if they stop caring about things like how recyclable their products are, versus using glue and proprietary screws to make it harder for people to modify & fix their own computers, so that Apple can make more money from their Genius bars at their Apple stores.

  • Jeroen De Vleesschauwer

    energy-star website: Guess Apple CEO’s have problems analyzing data

  • CB

    “Companies like Dell have 171 products listed on EPEAT, but yet if you look on Dell’s Web site, none of their computers are even Energy Star Compliant.”

    If you look closely at EPEAT, you will see a part of EPEAT requirement is the most recent version of E* or a same process.

  • Tim

    Instead of selling me an iPhone, why doesn’t Apple just lease me the service of one? It gives them more control (which we all know they love), and they can update my hardware when they want. I pay $200/year instead of $600 up front, and everybody wins. The bonus is that they reclaim 100% of the phones. It provides an incentive for them to make the phones easily recyclable, and they can use the metals / materials for the next generation of phones…

  • Samuel Korfmacher

    Apple is actually a company that is quite environmentally conscious. They have now decided to re-evaluate this decision, but they are also one of the few companies that actually publishes the total CO2 emissions for which their products are responsible ( Here in Europe, they also are one of the few manufacturers of IT equipment that actively sells refurbished equipment in their webshops. In other segments of the industry, notably network equipment, this is left to third parties like DURABILIT ( which is nominated for several sustainability prices for their business model.

  • i have a tablet as well and a smartphone.. i use my laptop less.. and my desktop still but less.. but i use my smartphone 24/7 and my tablet a lot more than my laptop.. which the tablet and the smartphone is always charging.. therefore, i use the same or more energy then i did before just using the laptop.. because i’m on them more during the full day/night.. rather than having a life and using the laptop during down time.

  • romiche

    J’ai pas compris

    • romdapark

      moi non plus

  • VanessaElizebeth

    This sounds good.

    Shop as you like