When you use a carrier pigeon (brought up on organic grains) to deliver a hand-written note on a dried palm leaf to AI's offices -- instead of a computer (probably made in China) that you used -- you can talk.
Until then, the finger points at you.
Carrier pigeons emit quite the load when in flight.
Yes, both sides are over the top. But, sometimes (if not often), out of the frenzy emerges important ideas. If we were all middle-of-the-road thinkers, the world would be a worse place.
Just to clarify, nothing at all I said implied that we should be middle-of-the-road thinkers!
Radical thinking, you'll agree, is not the same as " lies, exaggeration, histrionics, and over-the-top behavior." It's the latter I am not thankful for.
When you use a carrier pigeon (brought up on organic grains) to deliver a hand-written note on a dried palm leaf to AI's offices -- instead of a computer (probably made in China) that you used -- you can talk.
Until then, the finger points at you.
Carrier pigeons emit quite the load when in flight.
A human emits between .5 and 1kg of CO2 per day just breathing. More if you exercise.
That's what happens when you take only a tiny portion of the energy cycle and try to draw conclusions.
The CO2 you exhale comes from the food you eat. The food (at least, the plant food) grows by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and converting it into plant material for your consumption. So there's no net increase in CO2 from a person's breathing.
Animal food is a little more complex, but the end result is the same.
That's what happens when you take only a tiny portion of the energy cycle and try to draw conclusions.
The CO2 you exhale comes from the food you eat. The food (at least, the plant food) grows by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and converting it into plant material for your consumption. So there's no net increase in CO2 from a person's breathing.
Animal food is a little more complex, but the end result is the same.
Exactly. Sales up 50%, CO2 emissions up 34%. Seems reasonable.
I agree with the concept - looking at a small portion of any cycle can be misleading. Not sure there is a net zero in a person's breath, but the idea of having a zero level carbon footprint is not attainable, nor required to be sustainable for the planet - there are far more plants and trees converting CO2 to O2 to deal with animals respiration levels. Our solar production handles all our power needs and all our Chevy Volt power charging needs, but our carbon footprint is far from zero. We grow a good deal of our food - However, I would hate to have someone like Greenpeace "target me", as I'm sure they would only point out the 2 x 4's, bolts, nails, etc that we bring into our home.
Some of the things missing from the "environment" discussion is how Apple compares to it's peers, and more importantly what environmental savings iDevices (and the like) bring to the world. From what I understand, Apple's competitors fail to do better than Apple in any of the areas discussed in the report - in most areas, others, have a higher environmental impact. So, buying an Apple's competitors product wouldn't reduce the environmental impact, but rather increase the environmental impact.
The second, and larger (ignored) piece of the environmental impact is the savings iDevices (and the like) bring to the table. The world is shipping a bunch of devices, but we are shipping far less CDs, DVDs since the easy access to services like iTunes - all made more practical with an iDevice. I don't profess to know all of the environmental savings, but do know I do far less driving because of the mobile devices (Apple's as well as other manufacturers). Since Apple's mobile devices are used far more than it's competitors, the environmental benefits would be larger with Apple products.
Somewhere in the discussion, we should be including the other side of the equation - otherwise, this type of report is meaningless.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
'Pretend'?
When you use a carrier pigeon (brought up on organic grains) to deliver a hand-written note on a dried palm leaf to AI's offices -- instead of a computer (probably made in China) that you used -- you can talk.
Until then, the finger points at you.
Carrier pigeons emit quite the load when in flight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Yes, both sides are over the top. But, sometimes (if not often), out of the frenzy emerges important ideas. If we were all middle-of-the-road thinkers, the world would be a worse place.
Just to clarify, nothing at all I said implied that we should be middle-of-the-road thinkers!
Radical thinking, you'll agree, is not the same as " lies, exaggeration, histrionics, and over-the-top behavior." It's the latter I am not thankful for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
'Pretend'?
When you use a carrier pigeon (brought up on organic grains) to deliver a hand-written note on a dried palm leaf to AI's offices -- instead of a computer (probably made in China) that you used -- you can talk.
Until then, the finger points at you.
Carrier pigeons emit quite the load when in flight.
100% recyclable.
That's what happens when you take only a tiny portion of the energy cycle and try to draw conclusions.
The CO2 you exhale comes from the food you eat. The food (at least, the plant food) grows by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and converting it into plant material for your consumption. So there's no net increase in CO2 from a person's breathing.
Animal food is a little more complex, but the end result is the same.
Exactly. Sales up 50%, CO2 emissions up 34%. Seems reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's what happens when you take only a tiny portion of the energy cycle and try to draw conclusions.
The CO2 you exhale comes from the food you eat. The food (at least, the plant food) grows by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and converting it into plant material for your consumption. So there's no net increase in CO2 from a person's breathing.
Animal food is a little more complex, but the end result is the same.
Exactly. Sales up 50%, CO2 emissions up 34%. Seems reasonable.
I agree with the concept - looking at a small portion of any cycle can be misleading. Not sure there is a net zero in a person's breath, but the idea of having a zero level carbon footprint is not attainable, nor required to be sustainable for the planet - there are far more plants and trees converting CO2 to O2 to deal with animals respiration levels. Our solar production handles all our power needs and all our Chevy Volt power charging needs, but our carbon footprint is far from zero. We grow a good deal of our food - However, I would hate to have someone like Greenpeace "target me", as I'm sure they would only point out the 2 x 4's, bolts, nails, etc that we bring into our home.
Some of the things missing from the "environment" discussion is how Apple compares to it's peers, and more importantly what environmental savings iDevices (and the like) bring to the world. From what I understand, Apple's competitors fail to do better than Apple in any of the areas discussed in the report - in most areas, others, have a higher environmental impact. So, buying an Apple's competitors product wouldn't reduce the environmental impact, but rather increase the environmental impact.
The second, and larger (ignored) piece of the environmental impact is the savings iDevices (and the like) bring to the table. The world is shipping a bunch of devices, but we are shipping far less CDs, DVDs since the easy access to services like iTunes - all made more practical with an iDevice. I don't profess to know all of the environmental savings, but do know I do far less driving because of the mobile devices (Apple's as well as other manufacturers). Since Apple's mobile devices are used far more than it's competitors, the environmental benefits would be larger with Apple products.
Somewhere in the discussion, we should be including the other side of the equation - otherwise, this type of report is meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Animal food is a little more complex, but the end result is the same.
If people would stop eating meat and dairy, we could dramatically reduce the amount of methane released into the atmosphere by cows.
Either that or capture it and use it to product electricity.