Apple touts energy, material efficiency in Mac Pro environmental report
Apple on Thursday released an environmental impact report regarding the company's latest Mac Pro desktop, noting the cylindrical machine uses 74 percent less aluminum than its predecessor, while keeping greenhouse gas emissions low.
Source: Apple
The document, published to Apple's Environmental Reports webpage, breaks down the percentage of material used to build and package the Mac Pro, as well as the amount of energy consumed by shipping and predicted consumer use over the computer's lifetime.
According to Apple, the Mac Pro was designed to help minimize the machine's footprint and therefore materials used. The company points out that aluminum and copper, two of the most-used metals in the Mac Pro's build, are highly desired by recyclers. Compared to the old boxy Mac Pro, the black cylinder consumes 74 percent less aluminum and steel.
To maximize shipping efficiency, the company cut down on packaging, using corrugated cardboard made with a minimum 33 percent recycled content. In comparison with the legacy Mac Pro's package, the new version consumer 82 percent less volume. Compared to the old tower, the new Mac Pro can fit three times as many retail packages into an airline container.
As for energy efficiency, the Mac Pro incorporates intelligent components that are able to power down during periods of inactivity, thereby cutting down on estimated greenhouse gas emissions. Meeting ENERGY STAR requirements, the new professional desktop consumes 68 percent less power while idling than the previous Mac Pro.Total greenhouse gas emissions are pegged at 940 kilograms carbon dioxide equivalent, 65 percent of which comes from production, 33 percent from consumer use and one percent each for shipping and recycling.
Finally, as with most Apple devices, the new Mac Pro complies with various governmental best-practice guidelines such as the RoHS Directive, which restricts the use of lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, PBB and PBDE. Apple goes further by incorporating designs that are BFR-free, include PVC-free internal cables and offer PVC-free power cords in all regions except India and South Korea.
Source: Apple
The document, published to Apple's Environmental Reports webpage, breaks down the percentage of material used to build and package the Mac Pro, as well as the amount of energy consumed by shipping and predicted consumer use over the computer's lifetime.
According to Apple, the Mac Pro was designed to help minimize the machine's footprint and therefore materials used. The company points out that aluminum and copper, two of the most-used metals in the Mac Pro's build, are highly desired by recyclers. Compared to the old boxy Mac Pro, the black cylinder consumes 74 percent less aluminum and steel.
To maximize shipping efficiency, the company cut down on packaging, using corrugated cardboard made with a minimum 33 percent recycled content. In comparison with the legacy Mac Pro's package, the new version consumer 82 percent less volume. Compared to the old tower, the new Mac Pro can fit three times as many retail packages into an airline container.
As for energy efficiency, the Mac Pro incorporates intelligent components that are able to power down during periods of inactivity, thereby cutting down on estimated greenhouse gas emissions. Meeting ENERGY STAR requirements, the new professional desktop consumes 68 percent less power while idling than the previous Mac Pro.Total greenhouse gas emissions are pegged at 940 kilograms carbon dioxide equivalent, 65 percent of which comes from production, 33 percent from consumer use and one percent each for shipping and recycling.
Finally, as with most Apple devices, the new Mac Pro complies with various governmental best-practice guidelines such as the RoHS Directive, which restricts the use of lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, PBB and PBDE. Apple goes further by incorporating designs that are BFR-free, include PVC-free internal cables and offer PVC-free power cords in all regions except India and South Korea.
Comments
I can understand South Corea, but India ?
60"- 110lbs,
55"- 100lbs
42"- 85lbs
37"- 60lbs
2) The graph is not accurate for the values given.
3) Here is the graph with the given values represented accurately (as well as my quick-and-dirty design using images that correspond to the various items for no other reason than to not use wood).
I see your point, but I wouldn't expect them to use anything but modern ultra-slim display technologies which reduces the weight considerably… assuming they would create a TV at all.
Interesting thought, but I'm sure the perspective will be they are x% more efficient than competing brands and include 100% less suck.
Why Apple ships power chords with PVC to India ?
I can understand South Corea, but India ?
Probably regulatory. PVC is a better flame retardant than the substitutes meaning it's safer in a fire. It's also more flexible, meaning it won't crack and start one.
And why are you not surprised about South Korea? South Korea has a much higher average income than India.
You beat me to it. My first reaction was ... WTF .. there is no wood in this thing is there? As I stared at my Mac Pro
Imagine coming on appleinsider, reading an article about how a piece of new technology is efficient, and your main take away from the experience is "I don't like the wood texture on the pie chart they used", and feeling so strongly about the matter, that you have to post it in the comments. I literally can't.
On a related note- good for apple for cutting down on excess materials and continuing to do what they realistically can for the environment.
Imagine coming on appleinsider, reading an comment about someone not liking a wood texture on the pie chart they used, and feeling so strongly about the matter, that you have to create an account just to mention it. I literally can't.
On a related note- welcome to the forum.
2) The graph is not accurate for the values given.
Well done for spotting the inaccurate graph. It seems to be something of a tradition for environmental reports to have inaccurate graphs
Yeah, it's not illegal if the values given are accurate but could or should this be classified as being mildly unethical even if done for visual appeal.
So any company that makes TVs doesn't care about the environment?
Wasn't my point, at all.
But certainly, there is no TV manufacturer that cares about the environment as much as Apple.
Now I remember why I usually just lurk and read. No use throwing oneself to the wolves by trying to talk sense and actually talk about the article rather than something inconsequential that has hijacked the comments.
And by the way…
Anybody know what the deal is with this comment board crashing my Safari browser every time I try to type a comment?
Never seen that anywhere, ever before.
And by the way…
Anybody know what the deal is with this comment board crashing my Safari browser every time I try to type a comment?
Never seen that anywhere, ever before.
There is some kind of bug in Safari but this site is the only one that triggers it. When Apple upgraded the Mac from 10.9 to 10.9.1 it fixed it for me, but the iPad is still not fixed.
Can you point where you've tried to start a discussion about the environmental impact or where you've been prevented from doing so? So far your only comments are doing exactly what you're complaining about.
Imagine starting a company, putting tremendous amounts of work into creating a product that is more environmentally friendly then is required by law, spending extra money and time to do it, releasing your product into the wild… And you see someone's first comment is – I don't like your pie chart… You shouldn't use wood. I work in a business where I see this kind of stuff often. You literally do everything perfect except for one small minor detail that is negligible at best, and I literally see customers complaining to other customers about it. We are an interesting race.
Right at the bottom of my first post. Please just stop, at this point your just arguing for the sake of it, not even over the article, but as a personal attack against somebody who was pointing out that there are more important things in this article than the texture used in the pie chart.