Apple buys 36,000 acres of forest to create sustainable eco-friendly product packaging

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 63
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    The issue with eco-friendly paper like unbleached hemp is that it is not as smooth or as white as most high end consumer products companies want for their packaging. In this case, it is probably one of those footprint offset trade examples where Apple ecologically maintains their US timber and it is used in the US by others. Apple actually needs their paper in China so getting eucalyptus pulp from Australia is probably better because it requires less shipping, hence, less fossil fuel emissions. Eucalyptus is also much better paper material than other species for high quality uses. In any case, making paper uses up a lot of energy, water and bleaching with chlorine is harmful to the environment.


    Is the Eucalyptus pulp Australia supplies to China from sustainable sources?  If there is anything Australia shouldn't do it's cut down any more trees.  The devastating deforestation that has already occurred in Western Australia has had many ugly repercussions, including increasing soil salinity, the spread of fungal die-back and I suspect possibly decreased rainfall in an already quite arid region.

  • Reply 22 of 63
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 2,066member
    Why not commit to using 100% post-consumer fibers?

    Because Apple wants pretty and perfect material appearances. Or rather, prince Ive demands it.

    "Post-consumer material only" would be a bigger move, IMO. It would show that resource conservation is more important than luxurious packaging. Packaging is such a waste of materials in the first place. It's used once, in most cases. Few people hold on to packaging for future shipping (I do, and I have entire closets and shelves consumed by it).
  • Reply 23 of 63
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by williamh View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    I'll assume you were missing the "/s" tag.

     

    If not, replace the above sentence with: grow up.




    Do you really need tags to figure out simple things?  If yes: <b> That's a rhetorical question. </b>


    Fixed.

     

    See original post. :D

  • Reply 24 of 63
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PatchyThePirate View Post

    For instance, Hurricane Sandy was hilariously attributed to global warming, yet overall the hurricanes have been very limited in the past several years, the exact opposite of what was predicted. 

    I don't think you are accurately portraying what the science on this says as reflected in the IPCC 2014 report (but that's not the first time I've seen it misinterpreted or misrepresented): the sum total of evidence only says that storms will likely become more intense* (due to ocean warming), but says nothing at all about the frequency of hurricanes (in fact, some research shows that the number could actually decrease).

     

    *And, in the N. Atlantic, start to move further north.

  • Reply 25 of 63
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post



    Why not commit to using 100% post-consumer fibers?



    Because Apple wants pretty and perfect material appearances. Or rather, prince Ive demands it.



    "Post-consumer material only" would be a bigger move, IMO. It would show that resource conservation is more important than luxurious packaging. Packaging is such a waste of materials in the first place. It's used once, in most cases. Few people hold on to packaging for future shipping (I do, and I have entire closets and shelves consumed by it).

    Why? And drive up costs unnecessarily?

     

    As I mentioned above, supply of post-consumer paper accounts for only  third of the demand.

  • Reply 26 of 63
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

     

    This a very admirable move.

     

    I wonder if growing hemp might not be something they could also look at as that can be turned into paper without vast quantities of noxious chemicals.

     

    Quote:

     "Since 1937, about half the forests in the world have been cut down to make paper. If hemp had not been outlawed, most would still be standing, oxygenating the planet." - Alan Bock




    You're actually right about that!

  • Reply 27 of 63
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

     

    Is the Eucalyptus pulp Australia supplies to China from sustainable sources?  If there is anything Australia shouldn't do it's cut down any more trees.  The devastating deforestation that has already occurred in Western Australia has had many ugly repercussions, including increasing soil salinity, the spread of fungal die-back and I suspect possibly decreased rainfall in an already quite arid region.


    For the most part I believe yes. Eucalyptus grows really fast, but it uses a LOT of water and considered a fire hazard because it is, what is known as, a dirty tree because it litters the ground with leaves and bark. It also vaporizes flammable oil during hot weather. It does grow well even in poor soil and can be planted very close together.

  • Reply 28 of 63
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    What does that mean?

    C'mon man, he clearly meant 36000 virgins. :lol:
  • Reply 29 of 63
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    I don't think you are accurately portraying what the science on this says as reflected in the IPCC 2014 report (but that's not the first time I've seen it misinterpreted or misrepresented): the sum total of evidence only says that storms will likely become more intense* (due to ocean warming), but says nothing at all about the frequency of hurricanes (in fact, some research shows that the number could actually decrease).

     

    *And, in the N. Atlantic, start to move further north.


     

    There have been predictions of increasing intensity as well as frequency for years, which were incorrect. Now, in 2014, that they have been proven wrong, they just happen to be predicting what has already been going in the the past 2 years? (Hurricane Sandy occurred in 2012.) What geniuses!

     

    So just to recap: their predictions were wrong, so their next prediction, coincidentally, exactly mirrors what has already happened (decreased frequency, increased intensity, and higher up in the gulf stream).

     

    I'm not trying to be snarky, well, not too much. But it only takes a little critical thinking to see how ridiculous some of these climate forecasters are that predict apocalyptic destruction on a daily basis, despite being so wrong in the past. Meanwhile the environment is being steadily destroyed by habitat destruction, toxic pollution, invasive species, lack of sustainable practices, overfishing, poaching.... All of these seem vastly more important to me than climate theory.

  • Reply 30 of 63
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PatchyThePirate View Post

     

    There have been predictions of increasing intensity as well as frequency for years, which were incorrect. ....

     

    I'm not trying to be snarky, well, not too much. But it only takes a little critical thinking to see ....


    Why don't you post a link to the "intensity as well as frequency" prediction "for years" from the IPCC.

     

    Until then I'll maintain as my default hypothesis that your snark and your politics are getting the better of your critical thinking.

  • Reply 31 of 63
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Why don't you post a link to the "intensity as well as frequency" prediction "for years" from the IPCC.

     

    Until then I'll maintain as my default hypothesis that your snark and your politics are getting the better of your critical thinking.


     

    Um, who says I have a political agenda? (I don't). How did politics get into this? (How is it even relevant?) Really? It's always the climate believers that assume that there's some political agenda, when it usually seems the opposite is true.

     

    How about you post evidence that the IPCC correctly predicted the same hurricane patterns that were demonstrated by hurricane sandy before 2012. Until then I'll maintain my default hypothesis that your politics are getting the better of your critical thinking. (Particularly since even the evidence you presented suggests they don't know what they're talking about, and just "predicted" what has already been occurring.)

  • Reply 32 of 63
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PatchyThePirate View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Why don't you post a link to the "intensity as well as frequency" prediction "for years" from the IPCC.

     

    Until then I'll maintain as my default hypothesis that your snark and your politics are getting the better of your critical thinking.


     

    Um, who says I have a political agenda? (I don't). How did politics get into this? (How is it even relevant?) Really? It's always the climate believers that assume that there's some political agenda, when it usually seems the opposite is true.

     

    How about you post evidence that the IPCC correctly predicted the same hurricane patterns that were demonstrated by hurricane sandy before 2012. Until then I'll maintain my default hypothesis that your politics are getting the better of your critical thinking. (Particularly since even the evidence you presented suggests they don't know what they're talking about, and just "predicted" what has already been occurring.)


    Yep, just the pap I expected from a self-described 'critical thinker' like you. <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> 

     

    Provide the evidence that the IPCC made a prediction about frequency of hurricanes (you made the claim they had made such a claim), or please just shut up on this topic.

     

    I truly hope you are capable of comprehending the fact that I cannot give you evidence for something that, as far as I know or believe, does not exist.

     

    (I have no damn idea what you mean by "correctly predicted the same hurricane patterns".... Are you meteorologist, or just pulling something else out of your.... hat?)

  • Reply 33 of 63
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Yep, just the pap I expected from a self-described 'critical thinker' like you. <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> 

     

    Provide the evidence that the IPCC made a prediction about frequency of hurricanes (you made the claim they had made such a claim), or please just shut up on this topic.

     

    I truly hope you are capable of comprehending the fact that I cannot give you evidence for something that, as far as I know or believe, does not exist.

     

    (I have no damn idea what you mean by "correctly predicted the same hurricane patterns".... Are you meteorologist, or just pulling something else out of your.... hat?)


     

    Wow, that's condescending.

     

    By the way, I looked it up, and you were right! Studies done in 2010 and before showed no strong trends in frequency over the previous years, but an increase in the % of class 4 and 5 hurricanes. Didn't know that. Here's the link.

  • Reply 34 of 63
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PatchyThePirate View Post

     

    Wow, what a condescending jerk. "shut up"? Please, how about you grow tf up?

     

    By the way, I looked it up, and you were right! Studies done in 2010 and before showed no strong trends in frequency over the previous years, but an increase in the % of class 4 and 5 hurricanes. Didn't know that. Here's the link.


    Hmmm... let me see: you accuse me of lack of 'critical thinking,' agree that you were being a bit "snarky," call me a "condescending jerk", tell me to "grow tf (presumably meaning "the ****") up", and ....

     

    ....I am the jerk?

     

    Sounds to me like you're not happy about losing arguments on facts, and tend to lash out.

  • Reply 35 of 63
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Sounds to me like you're not happy about losing arguments on facts, and tend to lash out.


     

    FWIW: I clearly remember reports in the media of increasing frequency as well as intensity, but from what I found (in the link above) it seems pretty clear that the scientific community was not making claims about frequency. I was flat out wrong there. Kudos to you for that.

  • Reply 36 of 63
    FWIW: I clearly remember reports in the media of increasing frequency as well as intensity, but from what I found (in the link above) it seems pretty clear that the scientific community was not making claims about frequency. I was flat out wrong there. Kudos to you for that.

    The media gets issues related to climate change wrong all the time.
  • Reply 37 of 63
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,756member
    mstone wrote: »
    Paper manufacturing is a really complicated subject. The conservation of forests is a noble undertaking but the actual paper manufacturing process is the more environmentally impactful aspect. There are just so many nuances ranging from the species of trees, transportation, water usage, to the chemical treatments, that all contribute to the discussion. Sustainability of the forests is just one small part of the paper industry.
    The other part of the equation is that forest can sustain themselves. When one talks about sustainability in the case of forests, they are talking about the harvest of said forest. In a sense the phrasing is misleading, in this case sustainability implies using the forest.
    Recently there have been many certifications promotions launched and a number of organizations have tried to promote their conservation programs, although several of the so called 'non-profit' organizations turned out to be fronts for the paper/pulp/timber industries themselves. 

    Part of the problem is with the environmental groups that aren't exactly concerned with productive use of a forest. They see a forest and would rather see it never harvested, that unfortunately flies in the face of property rights. Also forest lands are extremely durable, even with disasters like wild fires the forest come back quickly. Nature is pretty rugged.
  • Reply 38 of 63
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    You really think that implying someone lacks critical thinking (which is what you did) -- when the facts are on his side -- will not invite a "put up or please shut up" type of response? (I did say 'please'). That your original comment -- and the admitted snarkiness -- was not condescending? (I'll leave aside whether that was being jerky or not).



    As an aside, the media gets issues related to climate change wrong all the time.

     

    My apologies, that was not my intention, although I could see how you could easily infer that. But, FWIW, I was speaking in general terms, and it wasn't trying to single you out. My intention behind mentioning being snarky was in part to try to convey a jovial tone, and in part to acknowledge that what I was saying about critical thinking could be interpreted as offensive to some; by pointing this out I was trying to convey that I actually wasn't trying to be offensive or condescending. Apparently I was not effective in this goal. Unfortunately, the example I chose to make my point turned out to be wrong, as I had based my thoughts on what has been presented in the media in general (both pro and anti climate change sources). Anyway, thanks for pointing out that info, and sorry it got out of hand. I like having these discussions. It's great to learn something new, even when I'm wrong.

  • Reply 39 of 63
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,756member
    frankie wrote: »
    Sounds great!  Now let's do the same thing for people.

    You want to harvest people? Do you have any niche in mind for the first harvest, welfare bums maybe? How about the global warming crowd? Further once you start harvesting people what do you expect to do with them - fertilizer for the forest maybe.????
  • Reply 40 of 63
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PatchyThePirate View Post

     

     

    Um, no. I was not expecting to be proven wrong (obviously), but being wrong did not upset me.* I even looked it up and presented why I was wrong. What I wasn't happy about was you being a condescending jerk. The reason I called you a condescending jerk because you were being a condescending jerk in the comment that I had quoted.

     

    *FWIW: I clearly remember reports in the media of increasing frequency as well as intensity, but from what I found (in the link above) it seems pretty clear that the scientific community was not making claims about frequency. I was flat out wrong there. Kudos to you for that.




    There were reports of increased frequency and severity, just not necessarily promulgated or endorsed by the IPCC, so anantksundaram was correct on that point.

     

    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-man-made-particles-affect-hurricane-frequency.html

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

     

    Quote:

     The model also supports the notion of a substantial decrease (~25%) in the overall number of Atlantic hurricanes and tropical storms with projected 21st century climate warming. However, using the CMIP3 and CMIP5 multi-model climate projections, the hurricane model also projects that the lifetime maximum intensity of Atlantic hurricanes will increase by about 5% during the 21st century in general agreement with previous studies.   The hurricane model further projects a significant increase (+90%) in the frequency of very intense (category 4 and 5) hurricanes using the CMIP3/A1B 18-model average climate change projection


     

    All these hurricane related predictions seem predicated on the models for increased global warming being actually accurate.  Since none of the models predicted, or can account for, the current 18 year long pause in global warming, I personally don't think they should be taken too seriously.

Sign In or Register to comment.