[QUOTE=Foo2;1689113]You do understand the difference between a watt and a milliwatt, don't you?{/QUOTE]
Obviously.
You see, unlike you, I have a scientific education and understand what I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Foo2 
The real benefits to the environment would seem to be Apple's promotion of rechargeables, not its charger.
No, the real benefit is that Apple is taking the lead in being environmentally friendly. It's not about any one thing. It's about reduced packaging. It's about reduction or elimination in chemical use. It's about miniaturization (less materials used). It's about energy efficient devices (like the Mini which is EXTREMELY low energy consumption for a desktop computer).
You may think that the world has endless resources, but most people understand that the planet is finite. Even if you think there's a 1,000 year supply of fossil fuels and that global warming will never happen, the more fossil fuels we use, the more money we have to send to mostly terrorist countries. There is no excuse for wasting energy and resources. Even if you've only saving a few watts, multiply that by a few billion people (or even a few hundred million in the US) and the savings can be immense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
melgross 
No more energy has been spent in designing and building this recharger than any other. What kind of misunderstanding do you have here?
Probably less. Loos at the size of Apple's charger vs the average battery charger. The less metal and plastic you use, the less impact on the environment (everything else being equal, of course). Batteries with a 10 year life have 1/2 the environmental impact of similar batteries with a 5 year life. And so on.