Apple wins UN Climate Action award for environmental work

Posted:
in General Discussion
The United Nations has included Apple in its 2019 Climate Action Awards for the company's efforts in using renewable energy sources, and donation to social intervention causes.

Apple's environmental work includes the use of solar energy
Apple's environmental work includes the use of solar energy


The United Nations has recognized Apple for its environmental efforts, including the move to using renewable energy sources. Apple is one of 15 firms or projects announced as winners of the 2019 UN Global Climate Action Award.

"Announced amongst the backdrop of nations signalling their renewed determination to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement," said Niclas Svenningsen, Manager of the UN Climate Change Global Climate Action Programme in a statement, "these awards shine a light on 15 incredible examples of scalable climate action around the world."

The UN singled out Apple for its emissions reduction and said that the company is "on a mission to make its products without taking from the Earth."

"At Apple, we take our responsibility seriously to leave the world better than we found it," said Lisa Jackson, vice president, environment, policy and social initiatives. "By running 100% of our operations on renewable energy and driving our entire global supply chain to do the same, we'll bring more than 6 gigawatts of clean power online next year.

"From restoring mangrove forests in Colombia to launching a new Clean Energy Fund in China," she continued, "we know that we must keep challenging ourselves to innovate and do more to take on the climate crisis globally."

"Thank you to the United Nations for recognizing our commitment to clean energy and reducing the carbon footprint of our products," concluded Jackson. "We promise to keep leading the charge for bold climate action."

Apple's most recent environmental effort was the donation of an undisclosed sum to preserve grasslands in Kenya and combat climate change.

The company now also runs on 100% renewable energy and has previously invested $300 million to power its supply chain with clean energy.

Apple now also publishes an annual Environmental Responsibility Report charting its ambition and its efforts in focusing on recycling.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,038member
    But, but, but... no Google, no Amazon, no Microsoft, no Facebook, no Samsung, no Huawei on the list. Only Apple among the big tech companies, Samsung especially. Aren’t they a bigger manufacturer of electronic goods and consumer durables? Why isn’t Samsung 100% renewable like Apple? Why isn’t Samsung investing hundreds of millions in grants for environmental projects like the above Kenya grasslands? Does Samsung have a Liam to disassemble and recycle its smartphones?

    The world may have to rely on fossil fuels for some time to come yet but at least Apple is trying to do something about it. What about its competitors?
    propodlolliverjony0
  • Reply 2 of 10
    lkrupp said:
    But, but, but... no Google, no Amazon, no Microsoft, no Facebook, no Samsung, no Huawei on the list. Only Apple among the big tech companies, Samsung especially. Aren’t they a bigger manufacturer of electronic goods and consumer durables? Why isn’t Samsung 100% renewable like Apple? Why isn’t Samsung investing hundreds of millions in grants for environmental projects like the above Kenya grasslands? Does Samsung have a Liam to disassemble and recycle its smartphones?

    The world may have to rely on fossil fuels for some time to come yet but at least Apple is trying to do something about it. What about its competitors?
    What's worse is that Apple's doing all this green fluffy save-the-planet nonsense, instead of giving me a SCSI port on my iPhone.

    If Steve were alive ...  etc.

    tmaykurailkruppmknelsonlolliverjony0
  • Reply 3 of 10
    Oh look Apple is doing the right thing without massive government regulations and interventions and they make good products which cost more and people are willing to pay for it. The real problem is all those consumers who rather buy the cheep stuff which does not make enough profits for a company to do the right thing like Apple. People need to look in the mirror each day and ask themselves are they doing everything they can to help the environment or they too selfish and expect everyone else to do what they should be doing.

    I always bought Apple, first because they make great production which do what I need second because they last so long. Unlike all my environmental friends who use PC's and Android product's and replace them every few years where my Mac on average lasted me 8 yrs before needing replace. Individuals need to weight their personal purchasing decisions on what is right for the environment.

    Yes Apple buildings are on solar, wind and fuel cells, which is good they are also planning to help their supply chain, but there are two major parts in Apple product which Apple can not help with, that is Aluminum and Glass, the amount of big power to run the furnaces can not be supply by wind, solar or fuel cells. 

    If Apple wanted to build their campus in New York, they most likely could not since they are now talking about banning the use of glass in building structures due the energy needed to make glass and the fact it not a great insulator of heat transfer
    edited September 2019 propodjony0
  • Reply 4 of 10
    kuraikurai Posts: 16unconfirmed, member
    Rayz2016 said:
    lkrupp said:
    But, but, but... no Google, no Amazon, no Microsoft, no Facebook, no Samsung, no Huawei on the list. Only Apple among the big tech companies, Samsung especially. Aren’t they a bigger manufacturer of electronic goods and consumer durables? Why isn’t Samsung 100% renewable like Apple? Why isn’t Samsung investing hundreds of millions in grants for environmental projects like the above Kenya grasslands? Does Samsung have a Liam to disassemble and recycle its smartphones?

    The world may have to rely on fossil fuels for some time to come yet but at least Apple is trying to do something about it. What about its competitors?
    What's worse is that Apple's doing all this green fluffy save-the-planet nonsense, instead of giving me a SCSI port on my iPhone.

    If Steve were alive ...  etc.

    I don't have one handy, but pretty sure even the SCSI-5 connector was thicker than the current iPhones. Perhaps you could go Lightning > USB > SCSI. After all, nobody should stop you from connecting a iPhone 11 MAX to your PowerMac G3. =)
    edited September 2019 lkruppmknelsonlolliver
  • Reply 5 of 10
    maestro64 said:
    Oh look Apple is doing the right thing without massive government regulations and interventions and they make good products which cost more and people are willing to pay for it. The real problem is all those consumers who rather buy the cheep stuff which does not make enough profits for a company to do the right thing like Apple. People need to look in the mirror each day and ask themselves are they doing everything they can to help the environment or they too selfish and expect everyone else to do what they should be doing.

    I always bought Apple, first because they make great production which do what I need second because they last so long. Unlike all my environmental friends who use PC's and Android product's and replace them every few years where my Mac on average lasted me 8 yrs before needing replace. Individuals need to weight their personal purchasing decisions on what is right for the environment.

    Yes Apple buildings are on solar, wind and fuel cells, which is good they are also planning to help their supply chain, but there are two major parts in Apple product which Apple can not help with, that is Aluminum and Glass, the amount of big power to run the furnaces can not be supply by wind, solar or fuel cells. 

    If Apple wanted to build their campus in New York, they most likely could not since they are now talking about banning the use of glass in building structures due the energy needed to make glass and the fact it not a great insulator of heat transfer
    Yes!

    I drive a 60mpg car, replaced my incandescent bulbs with CF and LED. New high efficiency furnace and water tank. Digital Thermostat in 1997. Condo Board replaced the windows and doors, all before the rebates became available, and I'm OK with the Carbon Tax.

    And, as for your aluminum comment: Apple is a major investor in a pilot smelter in Quebec. The new process vastly reduces the carbon produced (equivalent of removing over a million cars from the road) by the new smelting process and the electricity is all coming from Hydro.
    thtlolliverjony0
  • Reply 6 of 10
    lkrupp said:
    But, but, but... no Google, no Amazon, no Microsoft, no Facebook, no Samsung, no Huawei on the list. Only Apple among the big tech companies, Samsung especially. Aren’t they a bigger manufacturer of electronic goods and consumer durables? Why isn’t Samsung 100% renewable like Apple? Why isn’t Samsung investing hundreds of millions in grants for environmental projects like the above Kenya grasslands? Does Samsung have a Liam to disassemble and recycle its smartphones?

    The world may have to rely on fossil fuels for some time to come yet but at least Apple is trying to do something about it. What about its competitors?
    Well, Microsoft won in 2015.  Google won in 2016.  Maybe none of those other companies submitted applications to nominate their activities this year. Who knows. Did Apple submit applications in other years where they didn't win? Again, who knows.  We do know MS submitted an application in 2015.  We do know Google submitted an application in  2016.  We do know that Apple submitted their application by the May 3rd deadline this year else they wouldn't have been eligible to win. 

    If my post isn't clear, you (the company) submit your own activity for nomination for this award. https://unfccc.int/news/application-deadline-for-2019-un-global-climate-action-awards-extended  This isn't a slight.  If a company thinks their efforts are worthy, they should nominate them.

    Now, if your question wasn't rhetorical snark, and you really want to know what others are doing about the environment might I suggest actually researching what they do and don't do.  To be fair, it might take a little more effort, but it's a bit more intellectually honest than shaded innuendo don't you think?

    Samsung: https://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/sustainability/report-and-policy/

    Amazon: https://www.aboutamazon.com/sustainability

    Facebook: https://sustainability.fb.com/

    Microsoft: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility

    Google: https://sustainability.google/

    Huawei: https://www.huawei.com/us/about-huawei/sustainability/sustainability-report

    So how about we just congratulate Apple for their well deserved win without trying to take everyone else down in the process? 
    edited September 2019 minicoffee
  • Reply 7 of 10
    fred1fred1 Posts: 985member

    If Apple wanted to build their campus in New York, they most likely could not since they are now talking about banning the use of glass in building structures due the energy needed to make glass and the fact it not a great insulator of heat transfer
    Banning the use of glass in buildings???  Uh, could you please refer the rest of us to a reliable source of this information?  Personally I don’t see a future with buildings that have no natural light or visibility. 
    JWSClolliver
  • Reply 8 of 10
    mknelson said:
    maestro64 said:
    Oh look Apple is doing the right thing without massive government regulations and interventions and they make good products which cost more and people are willing to pay for it. The real problem is all those consumers who rather buy the cheep stuff which does not make enough profits for a company to do the right thing like Apple. People need to look in the mirror each day and ask themselves are they doing everything they can to help the environment or they too selfish and expect everyone else to do what they should be doing.

    I always bought Apple, first because they make great production which do what I need second because they last so long. Unlike all my environmental friends who use PC's and Android product's and replace them every few years where my Mac on average lasted me 8 yrs before needing replace. Individuals need to weight their personal purchasing decisions on what is right for the environment.

    Yes Apple buildings are on solar, wind and fuel cells, which is good they are also planning to help their supply chain, but there are two major parts in Apple product which Apple can not help with, that is Aluminum and Glass, the amount of big power to run the furnaces can not be supply by wind, solar or fuel cells. 

    If Apple wanted to build their campus in New York, they most likely could not since they are now talking about banning the use of glass in building structures due the energy needed to make glass and the fact it not a great insulator of heat transfer
    Yes!

    I drive a 60mpg car, replaced my incandescent bulbs with CF and LED. New high efficiency furnace and water tank. Digital Thermostat in 1997. Condo Board replaced the windows and doors, all before the rebates became available, and I'm OK with the Carbon Tax.

    And, as for your aluminum comment: Apple is a major investor in a pilot smelter in Quebec. The new process vastly reduces the carbon produced (equivalent of removing over a million cars from the road) by the new smelting process and the electricity is all coming from Hydro.
    You do know the entire power grid in the US and Canada is connects so the powered comes from all sources, there is no way to say it only comes from one source. 

    Now I lived in Pittsburg during the times when they had lots of steel plants and before they all shut down in the 70's and 80's. Pittsburgh is also the home of the very first nuclear power plant which was put in since the Steel Mills which used lots of electricity to melt iron ore. The nuclear plan was almost 100% dedicated to Steel production since the mills ran 24/7. Back in the 60's and 70's Steel from Pittsburgh did not used carbon based energy to be made. This is not true today. Most steel is made in China and India all using coal fired power plants to generate electricity. We heading in the wrong direction.
    cat52
  • Reply 9 of 10
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    Yay Apple!!! Listen to Greta, and be very afraid of climate disaster.
    (There, does that better fit forum rules? Maybe this thread won't disappear, now.... like the others.)
    cat52
  • Reply 10 of 10
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,186member
    maestro64 said:
    Now I lived in Pittsburg during the times when they had lots of steel plants ...
    Hmmmm.   I’m pretty sure Pittsburg has never had any steel plants.  Now, if you’re talking about Pittsburgh that’s something else.
Sign In or Register to comment.