Apple commits to 100% carbon neutral footprint by 2030

Posted:
in General Discussion edited July 2020
Apple is shooting for total carbon neutrality across all of its business aspects 20 years sooner than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change targets are aiming for.

Apple solar farm, part of its existing carbon reduction initiatives
Apple solar farm, part of its existing carbon reduction initiatives


Apple is already carbon neutral today for its global corporate operations, but on Tuesday, the company unveiled its plan to become carbon neutral across its entire business, manufacturing supply chain, and product life cycle by 2030. Specifically, Apple has detailed its plans to reduce emissions by 75 percent by 2030 while developing carbon removal solutions for the remaining 25 percent of its footprint.

"Businesses have a profound opportunity to help build a more sustainable future, one born of our common concern for the planet we share," said Apple CEO Tim Cook. "The innovations powering our environmental journey are not only good for the planet -- they've helped us make our products more energy efficient and bring new sources of clean energy online around the world. Climate action can be the foundation for a new era of innovative potential, job creation, and durable economic growth. With our commitment to carbon neutrality, we hope to be a ripple in the pond that creates a much larger change."

By 2030, Apple's entire business will be carbon neutral -- from supply chain to the power you use in every device we make. The planet we share can't wait, and we want to be a ripple in the pond that creates a much larger change. https://t.co/bltmlnau1X

-- Tim Cook (@tim_cook)


Apple is establishing an "Impact Accelerator" that will focus on investing in minority-owned businesses that drive positive outcomes in its supply chain and in communities that are disproportionately affected by environmental hazards. This accelerator is part of Apple's recently announced $100 million Racial Equity and Justice Initiative.

"We're proud of our environmental journey and the ambitious roadmap we have set for the future," Apple's Vice President of Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives Lisa Jackson said. "Systemic racism and climate change are not separate issues, and they will not abide separate solutions. We have a generational opportunity to help build a greener and more just economy, one where we develop whole new industries in the pursuit of giving the next generation a planet worth calling home."

In the short term, Apple will lower carbon emissions in the next 10 years by continuing to increase the use of low carbon and recycled materials in its products. Specifically, Apple cites a new "Dave" iPhone disassembly robot, the company's Material Recovery Lab in Texas, and expanding energy efficiency across its corporate facilities and supply chain.





Apple will remain at 100% renewable energy for its operations -- a goal it reached in data centers in 2014, and in China in 2015. It now has commitments from over 70 suppliers to use 100 percent renewable energy for Apple production -- equivalent to nearly 8 gigawatts in commitments to power the manufacturing of its products. Once those commitments are fulfilled, these commitments will avoid over 14.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually -- the equivalent of taking more than 3 million cars off the road each year.

The company also says that over 80 percent of the renewable energy that Apple sources for its facilities are now from Apple-created projects, efforts that also benefit communities and other businesses.

As part of the 100% commitment, Apple is also announcing a first-of-its-kind carbon solutions fund to invest in the restoration and protection of forests and natural ecosystems globally. In partnership with Conservation International, the company will invest in new projects, building on learnings from existing work like restoring degraded savannas in Kenya and a vital mangrove ecosystem in Colombia.

Apple supported the development of an aluminum production method that releases oxygen, rather than greenhouse gases, during the smelting process.
Apple supported the development of an aluminum production method that releases oxygen, rather than greenhouse gases, during the smelting process.


Other recent process improvements also include development of the first-ever direct carbon-free aluminum smelting process that it started funding in 2018. Apple has also announced today that the first batch of this low-carbon aluminum is intended to be used for 16-inch MacBook Pro enclosures.

As part of the announcement, Apple's mobile and desktop homepages are trumpeting the target as a "planet-size plan." It has also released the 2020 progress report on existing initiatives.
lolliver
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 42
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    Great plan Apple but you lost me when you said “Systemic racism and climate change are not separate issues.”
    edited July 2020 anantksundaramJWSCboltsfan17gatorguy
  • Reply 2 of 42
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 1,727member
    That’s nice and all.
    But carbon neutral has become a fig leaf, an accounting game. Not that Apple would, but too often I’ve been seeing companies play three card monte with their emissions to make it look like it’s carbon neutral, but in reality they are still emitting.
    Really, carbon emission zero is the standard we should be demanding
  • Reply 3 of 42
    thttht Posts: 4,035member
    Woo. Great to hear this. Was waiting for the commitment after Microsoft made its commitment for removing the CO2 footprint they produced since the start of the company. A lot easier for MS to do, but Apple starting down this path is great.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 4 of 42
    thttht Posts: 4,035member
    DAalseth said:
    That’s nice and all.
    But carbon neutral has become a fig leaf, an accounting game. Not that Apple would, but too often I’ve been seeing companies play three card monte with their emissions to make it look like it’s carbon neutral, but in reality they are still emitting.
    Really, carbon emission zero is the standard we should be demanding
    The last 10 to 20% is going to be really hard. I don't think any mass market conglomerate can do it without CO2 air capture (trees, direct, farming, whatever sequestration technique), but it will be done eventually. If Apple is actually carbon neutral in 2030, which includes the supply chain of its products, it's going to be a huge achievement. Then, if they can build on their successes, being CO2 negative by 2040 would be a wonder to see. Hopefully their recycling efforts also sets new standards for how to do it. Recycling is not done well at all today.
    fastasleepmontrosemacslolliver
  • Reply 5 of 42
    Or they will shut everything down and cease to exists if the goal is not achieved!
  • Reply 6 of 42
    buckkalubuckkalu Posts: 29member
    Nonsense.  Apple is already hooked up to the grid even though they claim that the new campus is 100% green energy.  How about all the mining of minerals and rare earth metals taking place in China and the Congo where child and slave labour are used??
    how about the thousands of tons of concrete alone used in the base of 1 wind turbine non of it possible without fossil fuels??
    How about the millions of birds and bats killed by (many of which are protected and endangered species) wind turbine blades every year???
    what about the 1000s of miles of transmission lines from the turbines??
    How about the fact that you need 100% fossil fuel back up when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine???
    CO2 is NOT a pollutant!!!!  Each of us almost 8 billion people exhale 2 pounds of it every day!
    Biomass is destroying forests globally for wood chips another “green energy “ joke.  Trees that have takes decades if not centuries to grow are being bulldozed over in the name of green energy.
    Green energy is a scam.  Wake up people.
    mtlion2020inTIMidatorJWSC
  • Reply 7 of 42
    XedXed Posts: 1,028member
    buckkalu said:
    Nonsense.  Apple is already hooked up to the grid even though they claim that the new campus is 100% green energy.  How about all the mining of minerals and rare earth metals taking place in China and the Congo where child and slave labour are used??
    how about the thousands of tons of concrete alone used in the base of 1 wind turbine non of it possible without fossil fuels??
    How about the millions of birds and bats killed by (many of which are protected and endangered species) wind turbine blades every year???
    what about the 1000s of miles of transmission lines from the turbines??
    How about the fact that you need 100% fossil fuel back up when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine???
    CO2 is NOT a pollutant!!!!  Each of us almost 8 billion people exhale 2 pounds of it every day!
    Biomass is destroying forests globally for wood chips another “green energy “ joke.  Trees that have takes decades if not centuries to grow are being bulldozed over in the name of green energy.
    Green energy is a scam.  Wake up people.
    It’s too early in the day for that much nonsense.
    [Deleted User]thtzoetmbmuthuk_vanalingamfastasleepmontrosemacspbruttojony0lolliverurahara
  • Reply 8 of 42
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,466member
    Humans will be using fossil fuels for the next 100 years at least. Wind, water, and solar simply cannot do the job. Talk to a power engineer if you don’t know that. A working, efficient fusion reactor remains a pipe dream and anti-nuclear activists would try to prevent one from ever coming online anyway. Unless there is a major breakthrough in energy generation we will be relying on fossil fuels to boil water, generate steam, and turn a turbine to produce electricity for a long time to come. Yet we sill have these pie-in-the-sky activists who refuse to accept the reality of the world’s energy needs which are increasing exponentially, not declining. Sure, we should do what we can to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels but they aren’t going away. Wind, water, solar will help tremendously but they will never get rid of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. 
    inTIMidatorJWSC
  • Reply 9 of 42
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 1,727member
    buckkalu said:
    Nonsense.  Apple is already hooked up to the grid even though they claim that the new campus is 100% green energy.  How about all the mining of minerals and rare earth metals taking place in China and the Congo where child and slave labour are used??
    how about the thousands of tons of concrete alone used in the base of 1 wind turbine non of it possible without fossil fuels??
    How about the millions of birds and bats killed by (many of which are protected and endangered species) wind turbine blades every year???
    what about the 1000s of miles of transmission lines from the turbines??
    How about the fact that you need 100% fossil fuel back up when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine???
    CO2 is NOT a pollutant!!!!  Each of us almost 8 billion people exhale 2 pounds of it every day!
    Biomass is destroying forests globally for wood chips another “green energy “ joke.  Trees that have takes decades if not centuries to grow are being bulldozed over in the name of green energy.
    Green energy is a scam.  Wake up people.
    I have a suggestion; Learn something about a subject before you comment. That way you won't look so foolish.
    Literally everything you said is not, or is no longer true.
    muthuk_vanalingammontrosemacsmacxpressjony0lolliverPezadewme
  • Reply 10 of 42
    buckkalu said:
    Nonsense.  Apple is already hooked up to the grid even though they claim that the new campus is 100% green energy.  How about all the mining of minerals and rare earth metals taking place in China and the Congo where child and slave labour are used??
    how about the thousands of tons of concrete alone used in the base of 1 wind turbine non of it possible without fossil fuels??
    How about the millions of birds and bats killed by (many of which are protected and endangered species) wind turbine blades every year???
    what about the 1000s of miles of transmission lines from the turbines??
    How about the fact that you need 100% fossil fuel back up when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine???
    CO2 is NOT a pollutant!!!!  Each of us almost 8 billion people exhale 2 pounds of it every day!
    Biomass is destroying forests globally for wood chips another “green energy “ joke.  Trees that have takes decades if not centuries to grow are being bulldozed over in the name of green energy.
    Green energy is a scam.  Wake up people.
    This has all the greatest hits of an unhinged rant. There is excessive punctuation, intermittent capitalization, lack of a coherent thought and dubious claims. I give it a 9.5 out of 10. The .5 was deducted for using people instead of sheeple. Everyone knows it is “Wake up sheeple.”  
  • Reply 11 of 42
    buckkalu said:

    How about the millions of birds and bats killed by (many of which are protected and endangered species) wind turbine blades every year???

    that is a padded and inflated stat,  my friends monitor bird patterns and advice those to turn off the blades when danger approached for hawks, eagles an do the birds in North America. 
    i liked your other comments and gave you a "like"
  • Reply 12 of 42
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    DAalseth said:
    buckkalu said:
    Nonsense.  Apple is already hooked up to the grid even though they claim that the new campus is 100% green energy.  How about all the mining of minerals and rare earth metals taking place in China and the Congo where child and slave labour are used??
    how about the thousands of tons of concrete alone used in the base of 1 wind turbine non of it possible without fossil fuels??
    How about the millions of birds and bats killed by (many of which are protected and endangered species) wind turbine blades every year???
    what about the 1000s of miles of transmission lines from the turbines??
    How about the fact that you need 100% fossil fuel back up when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine???
    CO2 is NOT a pollutant!!!!  Each of us almost 8 billion people exhale 2 pounds of it every day!
    Biomass is destroying forests globally for wood chips another “green energy “ joke.  Trees that have takes decades if not centuries to grow are being bulldozed over in the name of green energy.
    Green energy is a scam.  Wake up people.
    I have a suggestion; Learn something about a subject before you comment. That way you won't look so foolish.
    Literally everything you said is not, or is no longer true.
    I have a suggestion. Learn how to give specifics when you criticize someone’s post. 
    edited July 2020 buckkaluJWSCboltsfan17urahara
  • Reply 13 of 42
    XedXed Posts: 1,028member
    jd_in_sb said:
    DAalseth said:
    buckkalu said:
    Nonsense.  Apple is already hooked up to the grid even though they claim that the new campus is 100% green energy.  How about all the mining of minerals and rare earth metals taking place in China and the Congo where child and slave labour are used??
    how about the thousands of tons of concrete alone used in the base of 1 wind turbine non of it possible without fossil fuels??
    How about the millions of birds and bats killed by (many of which are protected and endangered species) wind turbine blades every year???
    what about the 1000s of miles of transmission lines from the turbines??
    How about the fact that you need 100% fossil fuel back up when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine???
    CO2 is NOT a pollutant!!!!  Each of us almost 8 billion people exhale 2 pounds of it every day!
    Biomass is destroying forests globally for wood chips another “green energy “ joke.  Trees that have takes decades if not centuries to grow are being bulldozed over in the name of green energy.
    Green energy is a scam.  Wake up people.
    I have a suggestion; Learn something about a subject before you comment. That way you won't look so foolish.
    Literally everything you said is not, or is no longer true.
    I have a suggestion. Learn how to give specifics in a reply before you comment.
    To what end? You don’t get to that point without having shut yourself off from reality for far too long.
    fastasleeplolliver
  • Reply 14 of 42
    buckkalubuckkalu Posts: 29member
    If CO2 is a pollutant then why do they pump it into greenhouses????
    if CO2 is a pollutant, why do they put it into carbonated drinks???
    the amount of CO2 I the atmosphere is 0.04%.
    edited July 2020 JWSCgatorguy
  • Reply 15 of 42
    buckkalu said:
    If CO2 is a pollutant then why do they pump it into greenhouses????
    if CO2 is a pollutant, why do they put it into carbonated drinks???
    the amount of CO2 I the atmosphere is 0.04%.
    97% if CO2 occurs naturally.  We contribute on 3%
    Question 1 + 2:
    CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests  has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere,  plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C). What is going into greenhouses and drinks is different that what is being released by fossil fuels. 

    Yes, CO2 is not a large part of the atmosphere but it doesn't take much of a change in the ratio to cause climate changes. We know what percent of CO2 in the air is caused by humans by the change in ratios of 12C/13C. Over the last 150 years we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. 

    That said, I suspect you don't actually care about the science behind climate change and will dismiss it out of hand. 
    edited July 2020
  • Reply 16 of 42
    XedXed Posts: 1,028member
    I can’t wait until he gets into his climate change isn’t real, how the Earth is flat, that wearing masks are dangerous, and how this pandemic was developed my Hillary Clinton with 5G technology. Little known fact: Huawei is Chinese for Hillary.
    Rayz2016zoetmbmontrosemacsjony0lolliverPezadewme
  • Reply 17 of 42
    XedXed Posts: 1,028member
    buckkalu said:
    If CO2 is a pollutant then why do they pump it into greenhouses????
    if CO2 is a pollutant, why do they put it into carbonated drinks???
    the amount of CO2 I the atmosphere is 0.04%.
    97% if CO2 occurs naturally.  We contribute on 3%
    Question 1 + 2:
    CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests  has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere,  plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C). What is going into greenhouses and drinks is different that what is being released by fossil fuels. 

    Yes, CO2 is not a large part of the atmosphere but it doesn't take much of a change in the ratio to cause climate changes. We know what percent of CO2 in the air is caused by humans by the change in ratios of 12C/13C. Over the last 150 years we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. 
    None of the nuance will register because he doesn’t have a scientific bone in his body. He only thinks in conspiracy theories. You need critical thinking skills to follow your posts.
    fastasleepjony0lolliver
  • Reply 18 of 42
    thttht Posts: 4,035member
    buckkalu said:
    If CO2 is a pollutant then why do they pump it into greenhouses????
    if CO2 is a pollutant, why do they put it into carbonated drinks???
    the amount of CO2 I the atmosphere is 0.04%.
    97% if CO2 occurs naturally.  We contribute on 3%
    As has been said many many, many, many times before, humanity is taking CO2 from the ground (in the form of carbon rich fossil fuels) and releasing it into the atmosphere. It is a net addition to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    N2 and O2 in the atmosphere mostly let the Sun's radiation from infrared, the visible spectrum to some UV pass through it. When this radiation hits the planet, it heats up that material (the ground, oceans, etc) and that energy is re-radiated out as infrared. CO2 lets the visible spectrum through it, but absorbs infrared. So, when CO2 concentrations are increased in the atmosphere, the atmosphere will get hotter. Changes in CO2 concentrations on 0.01% level can shift the Earth's climate from a human-relative ice age to hot-house, as it is a logarithmic scale, not linear.

    We are currently on pace to at least double the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, where we are digging carbon materials up, pumping it up, and burning it, and releasing it's CO2 byproduct into the atmosphere. The estimates are that they was will increase atmospheric temperatures from 4 to 10 °F. The downstream effect is a change in the water cycles in most of the world, making near equatorial regions unlivable, so on and so forth.

    People's breathing is CO2 neutral. You eat material that was built from CO2 in the atmosphere, and the net exchange from breathing is zero or neutral.

    zoetmbanantksundaramfastasleepmontrosemacspbruttojony0lolliverbestkeptsecreturahara
  • Reply 19 of 42
    thttht Posts: 4,035member

    lkrupp said:
    Humans will be using fossil fuels for the next 100 years at least. Wind, water, and solar simply cannot do the job. Talk to a power engineer if you don’t know that. A working, efficient fusion reactor remains a pipe dream and anti-nuclear activists would try to prevent one from ever coming online anyway. Unless there is a major breakthrough in energy generation we will be relying on fossil fuels to boil water, generate steam, and turn a turbine to produce electricity for a long time to come. Yet we sill have these pie-in-the-sky activists who refuse to accept the reality of the world’s energy needs which are increasing exponentially, not declining. Sure, we should do what we can to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels but they aren’t going away. Wind, water, solar will help tremendously but they will never get rid of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. 
    Yes, humans will be using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, but if it is in the 10% range of our energy needs, it is going to be awesome. Those emissions can be removed from the atmosphere through air capture technology. And there is tech to make carbon neutral synthetic fuels, but will need more time to mature.

    In Texas, by 2030, our electricity grid will be about 50 to 75% renewable. Some said we could never get off coal, but Britain, some countries in Europe, are going to be coal free in a couple of years. So, if you look at the glass half full rather than half empty, we can do this, as there are a lot of examples. It is doable. And it is net-net improvement for everyone's lives. If you recognize something as being a problem, you do something to change it, from small little things to big things depending on your means.

    Renewables are still riding a mass production scale, and is projected to continue to be cheaper still. It won't take much more for it to be the only economical choice for most of the world. Maybe the last 10% of the power grid needs to be nuclear, but that is still a ways out. Grid batteries and virtual power plants of residential/onsite batteries can do it too. It'll play out.
    fastasleepmontrosemacspbruttololliver
  • Reply 20 of 42
    Xed said:
    buckkalu said:
    If CO2 is a pollutant then why do they pump it into greenhouses????
    if CO2 is a pollutant, why do they put it into carbonated drinks???
    the amount of CO2 I the atmosphere is 0.04%.
    97% if CO2 occurs naturally.  We contribute on 3%
    Question 1 + 2:
    CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests  has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere,  plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C). What is going into greenhouses and drinks is different that what is being released by fossil fuels. 

    Yes, CO2 is not a large part of the atmosphere but it doesn't take much of a change in the ratio to cause climate changes. We know what percent of CO2 in the air is caused by humans by the change in ratios of 12C/13C. Over the last 150 years we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. 
    None of the nuance will register because he doesn’t have a scientific bone in his body. He only thinks in conspiracy theories. You need critical thinking skills to follow your posts.
    Yeah I updated the post to acknowledge I was basically wasting my time. I need to learn to not be sucked into these kinds of debates. 
Sign In or Register to comment.