Apple commits to 100% carbon neutral footprint by 2030

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 42
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member
    If Apple REALLY wants to be carbon neutral and be an environmental leader, it would design Macs like they once did:  with replaceable storage, memory and battery.   An awful lot of Macs get tossed and do NOT wind up in proper recycling once they become unusable in those regards.    But of course, not enabling replacement/upgrades of those components increases sales of Apple 's computers. 

    Personally (and I'm not suggesting that what I do would apply to the masses because I don't have the data), I would actually update more often if Apple supported this because I would know that the person I pass my current Mac on to would have a viable machine by investing a bit in the upgrades.  
  • Reply 22 of 42
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member

    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.
    So let's not do anything at all because the solutions aren't perfect and they don't eliminate ALL carbon usage.   

    I suppose you think cancer drugs are a scam because they don't solve all cancers.  

    Some wood chips do come from forests (although not old growth forests).  Most wood chips come from recycled wood, off-cuts and sawmill residues.
    fastasleeplolliver
  • Reply 23 of 42
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,858administrator
    zoetmb said:
    If Apple REALLY wants to be carbon neutral and be an environmental leader, it would design Macs like they once did:  with replaceable storage, memory and battery.   An awful lot of Macs get tossed and do NOT wind up in proper recycling once they become unusable in those regards.    But of course, not enabling replacement/upgrades of those components increases sales of Apple 's computers. 

    Personally (and I'm not suggesting that what I do would apply to the masses because I don't have the data), I would actually update more often if Apple supported this because I would know that the person I pass my current Mac on to would have a viable machine by investing a bit in the upgrades.  
    While I'm certain that there are a large volume of Macs and iPhones not being properly recycled, the soldering down of RAM and whatnot have cut the per capita failure rates in half in the last decade.

    And even before then, almost nobody in the general population did self-repairs, RAM installations, or drive replacements. I'm certain that the AI reader demo did, but the wider population and user base? Nope.

    I'd like it, you'd like it. The other 99 out of 100 users or so these days don't care.
    edited July 2020 anantksundaramthtfastasleepJWSClolliveruraharaDetnator
  • Reply 24 of 42
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,403member
    tht said:
    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.
    This goes way past MSFT's commitments, which only addresses its "operational" emissions -- i.e., so-called Scope 1 (direct) emissions, Scope 2 (purchased electricity) emissions, and a tiny part of Scope 3 (emissions associated with employee commuting/travel).

    Apple's stated goal is to do all that (which they already have) plus neutralize the emissions associated with its entire value chain: i.e., product manufacturing, raw material extraction/processing, inbound and outbound transportation, and emissions associated with consumer use and disposal of its products.

    This is pathbreaking stuff. Let's put is this way: if Apple only committed to what Microsoft has said it will do, Apple would be promising to be carbon-neutral for less than 5% of what it has actually promised to do today. Noting that it is the 5% that Apple has already done.
    edited July 2020 fastasleep
  • Reply 25 of 42
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,403member

    tht said:
    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.
    Apple says in its report that use of forests (and other other nature-based solutions) as carbon sinks will be an integral part of its strategy.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 26 of 42
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,403member

    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.
    ANSWERS IN CAPS

    Nonsense.  Apple is already hooked up to the grid even though they claim that the new campus is 100% green energy.  APPLE IS 100% CARBON-NEUTRAL FOR ALL THAT IS HOOKED UP TO THE GRID.
    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?? APPLE SAYS THAT THE EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH RAW MATERIAL EXTRACTIONS ARE A PART OF ITS GOAL. IT DOES NOT ADDRESS ISSUES OF CHILD LABOR ETC HERE: THIS REPORT IS ABOUT EMISSIONS).
    how about the thousands of tons of concrete alone used in the base of 1 wind turbine non of it possible without fossil fuels?? THIS IS A FAIR POINT, BUT APPLE USES VERY LITTLE WIND.
    How about the millions of birds and bats killed by (many of which are protected and endangered species) wind turbine blades every year??? THIS IS A FAIR POINT BUT APPLE USES VERY LITTLE WIND. 
    what about the 1000s of miles of transmission lines from the turbines?? EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH TRANSMISSION LINES ARE NOT HUGE (IN ANY EVENT, APPLE USES VERY LITTLE WIND).
    How about the fact that you need 100% fossil fuel back up when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine??? APPLE IS NOT DEPENDENT ON IT: IT USES TECHNOLOGIES SUCH AS FUEL CELLS; IT IS ALSO INVESTING IN STORAGE.
    CO2 is NOT a pollutant!!!!  Each of us almost 8 billion people exhale 2 pounds of it every day! YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENCE NEEDS AN UPDATE
    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. WOODCHIPS ARE CARBON NEUTRAL BUT NOT CLIMATE NEUTRAL, SO YOU DO HAVE  A POINT. BUT APPLE USES NO WOODCHIP-BASED ENERGY, AFAIK.
    Green energy is a scam.  THIS IS FLATLY INCORRECT.
    Wake up people. MAYBE YOU SHOULD CONSIDER GOING BACK TO SLEEP :-)

    Xedfastasleepjony0Detnator
  • Reply 27 of 42
    thttht Posts: 5,421member
    tht said:
    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.
    This goes way past MSFT's commitments, which only addresses its "operational" emissions -- i.e., so-called Scope 1 (direct) emissions, Scope 2 (purchased electricity) emissions, and Scope 3 (emissions associated with employee commuting/travel).

    Apple's now stated goal is to do all that (which they already have) plus neutralize the emissions associated with its entire value chain: i.e., product manufacturing, raw material extraction/processing, inbound and outbound transportation, and emissions associated with consumer use and disposal of its products.

    This is pathbreaking stuff. Let's put is this way: if Apple only committed to what Microsoft has said it will do, Apple would be promising to be carbon-neutral for less than 5% of what it has actually promised to do today.
    Hopefully MS responds in kind by furthering their emissions goals for their supply chain and any and all emissions related to their business. This is the type of race where everyone wins if they try to outdo each other. ;)

    The movement on this is slow, very very slow. Wish Apple would continue to push. Hoping they come out with EV, synthetic jet fuel, sponsor electric rails where appropriate for wherever they are heavily located. Just a railway from their multi-billion dollar facility the airport. Lots of opportunity to make money. There's always a high speed rail project in proposal for the Texas triangle of Houston-Dallas-San Antonio. There's never enough of a push. Big companies like Apple can help push it through.
    fastasleeplolliver
  • Reply 28 of 42
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    lkrupp said:
    Wind, water, solar will help tremendously but they will never get rid of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. 
    Not with that attitude.

    Thankfully, there are more optimistic people working on this stuff.
    edited July 2020 lolliver
  • Reply 29 of 42
    toddzrxtoddzrx Posts: 254member
    Too bad Mike Schellenberger isn't on Apple's BOD. He'd at least be a voice of reason even though they probably wouldn't listen to him. 
    JWSC
  • Reply 30 of 42
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,403member
    toddzrx said:
    Too bad Mike Schellenberger isn't on Apple's BOD. He'd at least be a voice of reason even though they probably wouldn't listen to him. 
    Yes he is an important voice of reason, but there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that Apple wouldn't listen to someone like that.

    That said, it's way past time for someone like a Gore to move on. He's been around forever. More generally, Apple could do with a younger, more diverse (as in diversity of views/opinions) Board.
  • Reply 31 of 42
    thttht Posts: 5,421member
    toddzrx said:
    Too bad Mike Schellenberger isn't on Apple's BOD. He'd at least be a voice of reason even though they probably wouldn't listen to him. 
    Yes he is an important voice of reason, but there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that Apple wouldn't listen to someone like that.

    That said, it's way past time for someone like a Gore to move on. He's been around forever. More generally, Apple could do with a younger, more diverse (as in diversity of views/opinions) Board.
    Unless he has ideas on how to reduce CO2 emissions from Apple's supply chain and manufacturing, on how to increase the use of recycled materials (Apple also has a long term goal for closed-loop manufacturing), or how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, he isn't going to be very useful, especially at a board level position. Apple has set a goal for being CO3 emissions neutral by 2030. The policy is set. They have to start racing to get there now to achieve it. It has to be priority number 2 after making great products.

    Look at this plot from the report:


    There is a slope change after 2022 for emissions reduction and CO2 air capture (carbon removal) is just starting this year. Their forestry conservation initiative probably isn't going to be enough. Hopefully they'll sponsor carbon farming and maybe even direct air capture.
    fastasleeplolliver
  • Reply 32 of 42
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    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.
    Interesting. Could you perhaps point out specifically what it was he said that is no longer true? Otherwise, the statement you made might better reflect back on you as far as subject knowledge is concerned. Not intending to be adversarial. But you hit him pretty hard and I’m wondering why because I didn’t spot anything that was totally out of place or non-factual.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 33 of 42
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    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.
    Ya guys oughta know that frequent use of ad hominem attacks doesn’t exactly impress anyone when it comes to making a point.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 34 of 42
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    toddzrx said:
    Too bad Mike Schellenberger isn't on Apple's BOD. He'd at least be a voice of reason even though they probably wouldn't listen to him. 
    You’ll have to bring Shellenberger in over Algore’s dead body. And Lomborg? There’ll be a insurrection before he steps foot in Apple Park. (And they say there’s no politics in business.)
  • Reply 35 of 42
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    lkrupp said:
    Wind, water, solar will help tremendously but they will never get rid of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. 
    Not with that attitude.

    Thankfully, there are more optimistic people working on this stuff.
    There is nothing wrong with the OP's statement. There is no way we will be getting rid of fossil fuels anytime soon unfortunately. The last thing we need to be doing is building more dams. Those destroy river ecosystems. 
  • Reply 36 of 42
    PezaPeza Posts: 198member
    Sounds like a step in the right direction, but it seems many scientists now believe it’s all too late. We’ve pondered about what to do and how much it will cost for so long now, that we cannot reverse global warming. We will have to deal with the consequences of those actions.
    Personally I think I most money and investment should be in renewable energy sources. But it doesn’t seem to be the case with governments of most businesses.
  • Reply 37 of 42
    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. 
    If can't be done! Yes, that is the American motto, right? I guess we faked the moonshot. Enjoy your flat earth.
  • Reply 38 of 42
    hexclockhexclock Posts: 1,243member
    lkrupp said:
    Wind, water, solar will help tremendously but they will never get rid of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. 
    Not with that attitude.

    Thankfully, there are more optimistic people working on this stuff.
    Diesel will be the toughest to replace. Battery powered excavators and other heavy equipment will be very challenging to produce until an alternative to lithium ion batteries exist. Some progress is being made using sodium instead of lithium, which would be far safer and much cheaper, but a lot needs to be worked out before that happens. 
  • Reply 39 of 42
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,335member
    zoetmb said:
    If Apple REALLY wants to be carbon neutral and be an environmental leader, it would design Macs like they once did:  with replaceable storage, memory and battery.   An awful lot of Macs get tossed and do NOT wind up in proper recycling once they become unusable in those regards.    But of course, not enabling replacement/upgrades of those components increases sales of Apple 's computers. 

    Personally (and I'm not suggesting that what I do would apply to the masses because I don't have the data), I would actually update more often if Apple supported this because I would know that the person I pass my current Mac on to would have a viable machine by investing a bit in the upgrades.  
    Maybe, but that's probably your gut feel rather than based on evidence. I'd love to see a study that evaluates whether replacing components on older and less energy efficient Macs has a lower environmental impact than purchasing newer more energy efficient Macs. I don't know the answer, but it would be an interesting study to see the total cradle-to-grave "carbon cost" and environmental impact of something like a MacBook Pro. Like many things in life, there are things that we do to make ourselves feel better but we seldom take the time to truly understand the system level realities of our actions, even when we feel we're doing the right thing. I'd be willing to bet that we apply a lot more big data analytics to understanding consumer purchasing behaviors than we do to understanding the total environmental impacts of force fed consumerism. 
    edited July 2020
  • Reply 40 of 42
    who cares if they will uphold this boast, i enjoyed the earth graphic shown on  the home page, instead of that dumb 400 dollar phone 
Sign In or Register to comment.