Apple expands green initiative to Chinese manufacturing, to manage 1M acres of forest

Posted:
in General Discussion edited May 2015
Apple on Monday local China time announced a major expansion of its environmental responsibility operations in the region, including the creation of one million acres of responsibly managed forests and a buildout of clean energy infrastructure for manufacturing facilities, offices and retail stores.




The managed forest initiative, established in cooperation with World Wildlife Fund China, is a multi-year plan that brings Apple closer to its goal of achieving net-zero impact on the world's virgin fiber. As the world's largest timber importer, China will also see benefits from growing and harvesting its own wood in a sustainable manner.

"Forests, like energy, can be renewable resources," said Lisa Jackson, head of Apple's environmental efforts. "We believe we can run on naturally renewable resources and ensure that we protect--and create--as much sustainable working forest as needed to produce the virgin paper in our product packaging. This is an important step toward that goal and our commitment to leave the world better than we found it."

Along with the forestry program, Apple offered further details on its upcoming 40-megawatt solar farm in Sichuan Province, which promises to generate enough energy to power the equivalent of 61,000 Chinese homes. The company is building two 20-megawatt solar installations in partnership with Leshan Electric Power Co., Sichuan Development Holding Co., Tianjin Tsinlien Investment Holding Co., Tianjin Zhonghuan Semiconductor Co. and SunPower Corporation.

Apple also announced plans to expand renewable energy projects to Chinese factories manufacturing its products.

"We've set an example by greening our data centers, retail stores and corporate offices, and we're ready to start leading the way toward reducing carbon emissions from manufacturing," said Apple CEO Tim Cook. "This won't happen overnight--in fact it will take years--but it's important work that has to happen, and Apple is in a unique position to take the initiative toward this ambitious goal. It is a responsibility we accept. We are excited to work with leaders in our supply chain who want to be on the cutting edge of China's green transformation."

Today's news comes three weeks after Apple issued an update on a broader environmental responsibility program targeting all facets of product research, development, manufacture and sale. At the time, the company announced a recent purchase of 36,000 acres of forest in Maine and North Carolina, with output directed toward eco-friendly packaging. Also highlighted were clean energy installations like a hydroelectric plant in Oregon.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 25
    dougddougd Posts: 218member
    How can Apple do so much that's right and good but the U.S. Government can't do a single thing right ?
  • Reply 2 of 25
    jaaycojaayco Posts: 46member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DougD View Post



    How can Apple do so much that's right and good but the U.S. Government can't do a single thing right ?

    Apple think they can afford it, and the government think they can't. At the very least, the cost to the government is greater than the benefit - particularly once old-school energy kickbacks are taken into account. No one pays Apple to make bad decisions. Tim Cook is like a president with no ties to vested interests, and a real desired to promote positive change.

  • Reply 3 of 25
    thewhitefalconthewhitefalcon Posts: 4,453member
    dougd wrote: »
    How can Apple do so much that's right and good but the U.S. Government can't do a single thing right ?

    It should be private corporations doing this. Governments need to butt out, they are horridly inefficient compared to what passes for a free-market system these days.
  • Reply 4 of 25
    ksecksec Posts: 1,545member

    When they started the green initiative, And I thought to myself

    "May be one day they will even provide Green renewable solar energy to Chinese manufacturers, so the whole Apple, from Front End Retail to Back End Manufacturing will be totally green, a true Energy Net Zero Company."

    But then Apple has over 700 supplying partners over lots of countries, this is HUGE and complex!.

    "Meh, this might just be a pipe dream"

     

    And here we are. Stunned by Apple again. 

     

    For those wondering, getting Solar Energy to factories doesn't bring any financial incentives, the initial capital cost are huge, and over the years with deprecation and interest accounted it will properly be close to net zero gain.  That is why no one really wants to do it. I dont blame them because it is hard just to even survive in the cruel business world. But Apple has more money then they know what to do, so it make sense to rip the benefits out of it. 

     

    I hope the next stage would be Energy Net Zero for Apple's 323 worldwide Carrier Partners. 

  • Reply 5 of 25
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 18,894member
    This is far-reaching. Apple is upping the game for global companies doing business not only in China, but in other developing economies. It is also a game changer for domestic companies in these economies who will learn and do by example.

    I know this'll sound hokey to some, and there's a whole anti-Apple brigade that'll just cynically laugh it off (who cares), but Apple shows us that sometimes, corporations can be a force for good.
  • Reply 6 of 25
    splifsplif Posts: 592member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post





    It should be private corporations doing this. Governments need to butt out, they are horridly inefficient compared to what passes for a free-market system these days.



    Yeah okay...US Government and private industry have been practicing reforestation quite successfully for years. It was actually the  deforestation by private industry that caused the problem. 

    http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/reforestation/overview.shtml

  • Reply 7 of 25
    This is why Apple's smartphone share in China has increased 50% YOY. Think about the beaches in China here...

    Click the link from here to imgur:
    http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/2boqq6/dirty_beaches_in_china/

    If some foreign company came in and invested in my country and gave a crap about my environment, I'd be a fan too. It's just smart from a business and brand perspective. Forget idealist environmentalism and think about economics. Apple is a premium brand, and if they are viewed as selfish pillagers, and lazily take profits, they'll eventually fail. If they get big profits, and use some of those to respect their supplier country, they'll win long-term customers that stick with them and proselytize them.
  • Reply 8 of 25
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 1,888member

    This is not only just a good thing to do, it's great for Apple's brand. I suspect the brand aspect of this will be particularly valuable in China, where the environmental costs of rapid development have been high. The Chinese can now afford to care about the environment, and they do. 

  • Reply 9 of 25
    jameskatt2jameskatt2 Posts: 704member
    This is fantastic for both Apple and China.

    China has so much pollution from manufacturing it is endangering the people. They LOVE that Apple is helping them become green and responsible. With so much renewable sources of wood, metals, and other resources and so much solar power, Apple will be more green than any other large corporation in the world.

    Where is Greenpeace's statement of support?

    I hear crickets.

    I suppose when their money comes from big polluting corporations other than Apple, they are speechless.
  • Reply 10 of 25
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,725member
    I think Apple should disrupt the power grid. If Tesla wants to sell home batteries, Apple should sell solar power.
  • Reply 11 of 25
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,394member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splif View Post

     



    Yeah okay...US Government and private industry have been practicing reforestation quite successfully for years. It was actually the  deforestation by private industry that caused the problem. 

    http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/reforestation/overview.shtml


    Unfortunately, the Forest Service is responsible for both protection and resource harvesting, all under a guise of multiple use. There's hardly anything they do that isn't impacted by politics, good or bad.

     

    But overall, they are doing a much better job than private industry could or would do. It isn't a difficult argument to make that forests probably generate more money for the local populace from fishing, hunting and tourism than resource extraction. Sadly, climate change is having a substantially negative effect on the forests of the Southern Sierra, among others, and bug kill from droughts is a continuing problem in forests of the Northwest.

     

    This is a no brainer for Apple, and I would hope to see more of it from Corporate America. It really is good business.

     

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-millions-of-dead-trees-found-mostly-in-sierra-nevada-mountains-20150506-story.html

  • Reply 12 of 25
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 1,888member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post





    It should be private corporations doing this. Governments need to butt out, they are horridly inefficient compared to what passes for a free-market system these days.



    That's ideological BS. There are some things that the government does better than private corporations (for example, medicare is more efficient than private health insurance), other things not as well (the Soviets showed that governments don't make very good cars, for example). 

     

    In the case of the US, the federal government spends most of its money on the things it does better than private corporations. As Paul Krugman has said, you can think of the US federal government as an insurance company with an army. In terms of how most of the money is spent, that's what the US government is. And those functions really are much more efficiently performed by government. 

     

    There's also a set of things where it's not entirely clear whether government or private corporations are better. For example, would it be better if the government were more involved in providing Internet service? And if so, exactly what would that involvement look like (municipal wifi?). I think that's where the sensible, BS-free debate is taking place today. 

  • Reply 13 of 25
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,581member
    ^^^^ Paul Krugman? Please. The man is more ideologue than intellectual. His opinions are jokes that keep writing themselves.
  • Reply 14 of 25
    thewhitefalconthewhitefalcon Posts: 4,453member
    blastdoor wrote: »

    That's ideological BS. There are some things that the government does better than private corporations (for example, medicare is more efficient than private health insurance), other things not as well (the Soviets showed that governments don't make very good cars, for example). 

    In the case of the US, the federal government spends most of its money on the things it does better than private corporations. As Paul Krugman has said, you can think of the US federal government as an insurance company with an army. In terms of how most of the money is spent, that's what the US government is. And those functions really are much more efficiently performed by government. 

    There's also a set of things where it's not entirely clear whether government or private corporations are better. For example, would it be better if the government were more involved in providing Internet service? And if so, exactly what would that involvement look like (municipal wifi?). I think that's where the sensible, BS-free debate is taking place today. 

    Is that why Medicare is insolvent? Like, hugely insolvent? That's amazingly efficient I guess. Also why so many doctors love having to deal with it, right? :no:
  • Reply 15 of 25
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,581member
    Is that why Medicare is insolvent? Like, hugely insolvent? That's amazingly efficient I guess. Also why so many doctors love having to deal with it, right? :no:

    I think part of the problem is there are so many people hooked on government handouts, they only view government as beneficial, whereas the rest of us just get stuck with the bills.
  • Reply 16 of 25
    bubbaonebubbaone Posts: 11member

    A noble cause and great PR stunt by Apple.  But hardly a difference maker -- China (way more so than the US) is an ecological and environmental disaster.  Unlike governments, private enterprise can often choose how little or how much to participate/contribute to social well being.  They answer to share holders and customers and not voters.  Unlike governments, private companies come and largely depending on the whims of consumers.

     

    This is totally different than the responsibilities of governments which are answerable to their populations and other countries.

  • Reply 17 of 25
    netroxnetrox Posts: 700member
    Love how delusional the right wing people are when it comes to "private companies care about forests." They don't. It's too expensive to clean up their mess they leave behind. Governments are ALWAYS needed to enforce their environmental responsibilities.
  • Reply 18 of 25
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post



    This is fantastic for both Apple and China.



    China has so much pollution from manufacturing it is endangering the people. They LOVE that Apple is helping them become green and responsible. With so much renewable sources of wood, metals, and other resources and so much solar power, Apple will be more green than any other large corporation in the world.



    Where is Greenpeace's statement of support?



    I hear crickets.



    I suppose when their money comes from big polluting corporations other than Apple, they are speechless.



    You've made this comment before about Greenpeace and crickets.  I'll post what I said before.

     

    Quote:

     

    We have.  As of Feb 2015:

     

    Quote:
     

    "It's one thing to talk about being 100% renewably powered, but it's quite another thing to make good on that commitment with the incredible speed and integrity that Apple has shown in the past two years. Apple still has work to do to reduce its environmental footprint, but other Fortune 500 CEOs would be well served to make a study of Tim Cook, whose actions show that he intends to take Apple full-speed ahead toward renewable energy with the urgency that our climate crisis demands."


     

    Also Apple listened to them and got rid of a lot of toxic materials in their products.

     

    Tim Cook is the man.



     

    Tim Cook is still the man.

  • Reply 19 of 25
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 1,888member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post





    Is that why Medicare is insolvent? Like, hugely insolvent? That's amazingly efficient I guess. Also why so many doctors love having to deal with it, right? image



    You're confusing issues. Medicare has a lower overhead cost than private insurers, thanks primarily to its size. 

     

    The issue of whether Medicare will be "solvent" or not is not a matter of efficiency. It's a matter of whether there will be enough tax revenue to meet Medicare's obligations. That's a different thing from efficiency. 

  • Reply 20 of 25
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 1,888member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    ^^^^ Paul Krugman? Please. The man is more ideologue than intellectual. His opinions are jokes that keep writing themselves.



    So are you disputing the point that the federal government is essentially an insurance company with an army? 

     

    If so, what's your basis for arguing that? 

     

    If not, what's your point?

     

    My guess -- you're post is pointless. 

Sign In or Register to comment.