mikethemartian

cincytee said:

This attitude goes back even farther than "Windows isn't done till Lotus won't run."

Wesley Hilliard said:

While I understand skepticism and it is warranted, I don't think there's any deception here. If carbon offsets were all it took to go carbon neutral, why not just reach the 2030 goal tomorrow by paying some billions for credits?

Apple is doing some real work here. Using more recycled materials, refining processes to reduce waste, and relying on renewable energy. Apple has also worked to reduce the impact of its supply chain.

Sure, a carbon footprint will exist no matter what. But that's what it's "carbon neutral" versus "carbon zero." Apple is building more renewable energy, planting forests, and innovating in more systems that reduce carbon used in all of its systems. Even if buying carbon credits is involved, it's only part of the strategy.

Besides, I'd love to see what the sources are on these studies around carbon credits being fraudulent. Maybe it's true. But just as likely these sources want people to lose faith in green energy efforts and are sowing misinformation. Why? Because there are people that believe green energy and carbon neutrality is a scam because they don't believe in climate change.

The people that know what they are talking about say this is how it gets done. So, unless anyone has a better idea, I think Apple is doing the best it can and is likely doing more than its competitors.

I doubt the lawsuit will go anywhere.

gwmac said:

What Trump will likely do is ban any federal contracts with companies that still have strong DEI programs in place. I am not sure how much business Apple does with the federal government, but that would likely be a very good reason for Apple to significantly curtail if not eliminate DEI which in my opinion is a good thing.