Apple posts new Earth Day 2017 video in connection with environmental conference

Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple on Thursday took the unusual step of releasing a new video in its animated series for Earth Day 2017 -- over a month after the actual holiday, but alongside an executive's appearance at an environmental connection in Detroit.




Titled "Does my iPhone believe in reincarnation," the video features Apple's recycling robot, Liam, and three people from the company. These include director of Operations and Environmental Initiatives Sarah Chandler, VP of Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives Lisa Jackson, and finally another person from Operations and Environmental Initiatives, T.J. Tyler.

The trio explain that the goal of Liam is to reduce the need to extract new materials from the ground by disassembling old iPhones, harvesting and sorting their individual parts.



The video appears to be linked to Chandler's appearance today at the end of a four-day conference, Sustainable Brands Detroit, where she spoke about the concept of a "closed loop supply chain."

The first round of Apple Earth Day videos was published on April 20, and covered topics like solar power, zero-waste initiatives, and even the company's use of artificial sweat to test wearables. Earlier that month the company set a long-term goal of recyling all of its materials -- in a rare moment of public uncertainty however, it admitted that it's not sure how it will reach that point.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,030member
    1) Am I the only one that hates that kind of animation? For me, it's so unpleasant that it takes away from a great message.

    2) I'd like to see Apple hire Liam Neeson in a funny ad where he tries to out-perform L.I.A.M. and fails.
  • Reply 2 of 14
    davidinsfdavidinsf Posts: 21member
    I certainly don't want to rain on Apple's Environmental record, but if they were really concerned about their impact on the environment wouldn't they be shipping new Macs with the latest, more energy efficient, processors instead of shipping Macs with processors that are a generation or two behind. They ship millions of Macs a year each with a life cycle of 5 -7 years or more. The quicker they get the newer, more efficient processors into their Macs, the better for the environment... Obviously, they feel that way or we wouldn't be seeing new processors in each new generation of iPhone. Why not Macs?
  • Reply 3 of 14
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,454member
    I will celebrate Earth Day in my usual fashion. I will burn a tire (tyre for those across the pond). Meanwhile Apple is doing a hell of a lot more for environmental friendliness than almost all other tech companies yet they are still vilified by environmental extremists. It’s why I burn that tire.
    edited May 2017
  • Reply 4 of 14
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,172member
    davidinsf said:
    I certainly don't want to rain on Apple's Environmental record, but if they were really concerned about their impact on the environment wouldn't they be shipping new Macs with the latest, more energy efficient, processors instead of shipping Macs with processors that are a generation or two behind. They ship millions of Macs a year each with a life cycle of 5 -7 years or more. The quicker they get the newer, more efficient processors into their Macs, the better for the environment... Obviously, they feel that way or we wouldn't be seeing new processors in each new generation of iPhone. Why not Macs?

    Solianomepaxman
  • Reply 5 of 14
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,030member
    lkrupp said:
    I will celebrate Earth Day in my usual fashion. I will burn a tire (tyre for those across the pond). Meanwhile Apple is doing a hell of a lot more for environmental friendliness than almost all other tech companies yet they are still vilified by environmental extremists. It’s why I burn that tire.
    This will always happen so long as there is still room for Apple to be better and while Apple has the largest mindshare. While comparatively unfair, this focus likely works for Apple's bottom line.
  • Reply 6 of 14
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,030member
    davidinsf said:
    I certainly don't want to rain on Apple's Environmental record, but if they were really concerned about their impact on the environment wouldn't they be shipping new Macs with the latest, more energy efficient, processors instead of shipping Macs with processors that are a generation or two behind. They ship millions of Macs a year each with a life cycle of 5 -7 years or more. The quicker they get the newer, more efficient processors into their Macs, the better for the environment... Obviously, they feel that way or we wouldn't be seeing new processors in each new generation of iPhone. Why not Macs?
    This can't be a serious post.
  • Reply 7 of 14
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,670member
    davidinsf said:
    I certainly don't want to rain on Apple's Environmental record, but if they were really concerned about their impact on the environment wouldn't they be shipping new Macs with the latest, more energy efficient, processors instead of shipping Macs with processors that are a generation or two behind. They ship millions of Macs a year each with a life cycle of 5 -7 years or more. The quicker they get the newer, more efficient processors into their Macs, the better for the environment... Obviously, they feel that way or we wouldn't be seeing new processors in each new generation of iPhone. Why not Macs?
    I'm like that with cars. I know the manufacturers update their models every year in order to stay green, and because I too believe in the green cause I renew my car every year. I  am perhaps a little extreme because I change all my gadgets, devices and white goods every year, too. I do it for the environment. 
  • Reply 8 of 14
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,030member
    paxman said:
    davidinsf said:
    I certainly don't want to rain on Apple's Environmental record, but if they were really concerned about their impact on the environment wouldn't they be shipping new Macs with the latest, more energy efficient, processors instead of shipping Macs with processors that are a generation or two behind. They ship millions of Macs a year each with a life cycle of 5 -7 years or more. The quicker they get the newer, more efficient processors into their Macs, the better for the environment... Obviously, they feel that way or we wouldn't be seeing new processors in each new generation of iPhone. Why not Macs?
    I'm like that with cars. I know the manufacturers update their models every year in order to stay green, and because I too believe in the green cause I renew my car every year. I  am perhaps a little extreme because I change all my gadgets, devices and white goods every year, too. I do it for the environment. 
    If your motivation is truly about the environment then the "greenest" thing you can do is buy a used car and then drive it as long as possible. No matter how fuel efficient it may be, that environmental savings is practically zero compared to the cost of mining, refining, building, and transporting a new automobile.
    edited May 2017 propod
  • Reply 9 of 14
    bestkeptsecretbestkeptsecret Posts: 4,045member
    Soli said:

    2) I'd like to see Apple hire Liam Neeson in a funny ad where he tries to out-perform L.I.A.M. and fails.
    Wouldn't work. Liam would take his Taken gun and blow the iPhone to smithereens before L.I.A.M. is done!
  • Reply 10 of 14
    appexappex Posts: 687member
    "Apple posts new Earth Day 2017 video in connection with environmental conference".
    Really? Get the facts:

    Desktop headless Macs like Mac mini and Mac Pro are ecological, whereas all-in-one desktops like iMac are anti-ecological, since a CPU may last seven years, but a display lasts more more than 20 years. Apple should make brand new headless Macs and brand new displays.

  • Reply 11 of 14
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    appex said:
    "Apple posts new Earth Day 2017 video in connection with environmental conference".
    Really? Get the facts:

    Desktop headless Macs like Mac mini and Mac Pro are ecological, whereas all-in-one desktops like iMac are anti-ecological, since a CPU may last seven years, but a display lasts more more than 20 years. Apple should make brand new headless Macs and brand new displays.

    Anyone who cares about what they see (which excludes left-brained retentives like yourself?), will not be tolerating a 20-year-old display. The technology will always be progressing and obsolescing itself.

    Apple makes a big deal out of the recyclability of their displays. They'll continue to get more recyclable. 

    Edit: I'm still using an 8-year-old iMac as my desktop, by the way. They're meant to be nice enough to look at that you can live with them for a long time. Something about timelessness in the design . . .
    edited May 2017
  • Reply 12 of 14
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,670member
    Soli said:
    paxman said:
    davidinsf said:
    I certainly don't want to rain on Apple's Environmental record, but if they were really concerned about their impact on the environment wouldn't they be shipping new Macs with the latest, more energy efficient, processors instead of shipping Macs with processors that are a generation or two behind. They ship millions of Macs a year each with a life cycle of 5 -7 years or more. The quicker they get the newer, more efficient processors into their Macs, the better for the environment... Obviously, they feel that way or we wouldn't be seeing new processors in each new generation of iPhone. Why not Macs?
    I'm like that with cars. I know the manufacturers update their models every year in order to stay green, and because I too believe in the green cause I renew my car every year. I  am perhaps a little extreme because I change all my gadgets, devices and white goods every year, too. I do it for the environment. 
    If your motivation is truly about the environment then the "greenest" thing you can do is buy a used car and then drive it as long as possible. No matter how fuel efficient it may be, that environmental savings is practically zero compared to the cost of mining, refining, building, and transporting a new automobile.
    Ah, yes. I forgot the /s. Actually I didn't - I just thought it fairly obvious given the complete lack of logic. ;)
    edited May 2017
  • Reply 13 of 14
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,030member
    paxman said:
    Soli said:
    paxman said:
    davidinsf said:
    I certainly don't want to rain on Apple's Environmental record, but if they were really concerned about their impact on the environment wouldn't they be shipping new Macs with the latest, more energy efficient, processors instead of shipping Macs with processors that are a generation or two behind. They ship millions of Macs a year each with a life cycle of 5 -7 years or more. The quicker they get the newer, more efficient processors into their Macs, the better for the environment... Obviously, they feel that way or we wouldn't be seeing new processors in each new generation of iPhone. Why not Macs?
    I'm like that with cars. I know the manufacturers update their models every year in order to stay green, and because I too believe in the green cause I renew my car every year. I  am perhaps a little extreme because I change all my gadgets, devices and white goods every year, too. I do it for the environment. 
    If your motivation is truly about the environment then the "greenest" thing you can do is buy a used car and then drive it as long as possible. No matter how fuel efficient it may be, that environmental savings is practically zero compared to the cost of mining, refining, building, and transporting a new automobile.
    Ah, yes. I forgot the /s. Actually I thought it fairly obvious given the complete lack of logic. ;)
    It seemed out of character, but it's hard to tell in text and on forums, at times, hence my preceding "if."
  • Reply 14 of 14
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,670member
    Soli said:
    paxman said:
    Soli said:
    paxman said:
    davidinsf said:
    I certainly don't want to rain on Apple's Environmental record, but if they were really concerned about their impact on the environment wouldn't they be shipping new Macs with the latest, more energy efficient, processors instead of shipping Macs with processors that are a generation or two behind. They ship millions of Macs a year each with a life cycle of 5 -7 years or more. The quicker they get the newer, more efficient processors into their Macs, the better for the environment... Obviously, they feel that way or we wouldn't be seeing new processors in each new generation of iPhone. Why not Macs?
    I'm like that with cars. I know the manufacturers update their models every year in order to stay green, and because I too believe in the green cause I renew my car every year. I  am perhaps a little extreme because I change all my gadgets, devices and white goods every year, too. I do it for the environment. 
    If your motivation is truly about the environment then the "greenest" thing you can do is buy a used car and then drive it as long as possible. No matter how fuel efficient it may be, that environmental savings is practically zero compared to the cost of mining, refining, building, and transporting a new automobile.
    Ah, yes. I forgot the /s. Actually I thought it fairly obvious given the complete lack of logic. ;)
    It seemed out of character, but it's hard to tell in text and on forums, at times, hence my preceding "if."
    Yes, I tend to presume that what I say is clear and then if I re-read it a day or two later I often think 'Oh, that didn't come across the way I meant it'. I often find I comment in a hurry which is never a great idea. You, and some others, tend to be more considered  which is why your comments generally are a cut above.
Sign In or Register to comment.