Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Launches New Environmental Publicity Initiative
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nice. This is way beyond "the classroom." This is real-life. This is a make-or-break issue for many small businesses (especially when we start talking about Cap and Trade). The real issues here are more complex than MBA theories.
The problem with the environmental movement is that there is an ever-changing moving target. There is no such thing as "expensive upfront" costs. The reality is "expensive upfront costs plus expensive retrofits downstream to maintain compliance plus expensive litigation costs for noncompliance or late compliance plus expensive PR for dealing with the greenpeace activists parading outside my door."
In the 1970s, our greatest scientists wanted to put black soot on the polar icecaps to increase the Earth's temperature. In 2009, our greatest scientists want to paint every road and roof white to reflect sunlight back to space. This is madness! When will we realize that we don't understand the data?!?
This is not an excuse to do nothing though. I'm all for cleaning up the environment. But continual regulations by government and pressure from environmentalist groups WILL drive up the costs of products because what is considered "green" will change every 18 months. In fact, I think I'll dub this "Gore's Law".
This is why the green movement is a joke:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120882720657033391.html
The green movement is a left-wing agenda. Left-wingers learned green rhetoric to coerce companies into doing things they think is right, as they distrust free market capitalism and prefer a top-down style of economics.
If you look at the data, our generation is the cleanest. People tend to forget that a hundred years ago, residents had to waddle through horse excrement on the streets (which is why the high-heel shoe was originally invented!), among other revolting conditions.
The problem is that once these green organizations are created, and they improve our conditions, they can't go away because there's too much money to be had, so they devise and machinate scare stories in order to self-perpetuate and make more money. Currently, "green" has less to do with the environment, and more to do with advocating left-wing political beliefs.
As always, I think people need to be skeptical, ruminate, and put things into perspective before being indoctrinated.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120882720657033391.html
The green movement is a left-wing agenda. Left-wingers learned green rhetoric to coerce companies into doing things they think is right, as they distrust free market capitalism and prefer a top-down style of economics.
If you look at the data, our generation is the cleanest. People tend to forget that a hundred years ago, residents had to waddle through horse excrement on the streets (which is why the high-heel shoe was originally invented!), among other revolting conditions.
The problem is that once these green organizations are created, and they improve our conditions, they can't go away because there's too much money to be had, so they devise and machinate scare stories in order to self-perpetuate and make more money. Currently, "green" has less to do with the environment, and more to do with advocating left-wing political beliefs.
As always, I think people need to be skeptical, ruminate, and put things into perspective before being indoctrinated.
7 PC. Well, I guessed by that sentence, you meant the number inside the triangle meainng recycle on the back of my iPod nano case. Hope this helps.
Yes the number inside the recycling symbol which indicates the resin identification code.7 PC. Well, I guessed by that sentence, you meant the number inside the triangle meainng recycle on the back of my iPod nano case. Hope this helps.
Yes the number inside the recycling symbol which indicates the resin identification code.
And? does this means that I can take my case and recycle it? Does it means it is highly recyclable? Sorry for all the questions but I'm new to the whole recycling thing. Better my case be recyclable!
Around here they only take 1 and 2.
I get plenty of 4 and 5 stuff with RECYCLEABLE labeled all of over the product but I don't know where to take it.
So, let me get this straight. Because a few scientists saw data that indicated a cooling trend back in the 70's, today's data is obviously suspect?. Seriously, scientists have been building ever more elaborate and extensive computer models of the climate for forty years, and with the help of planetary exploration, determined that there is a climatic "greenhouse effect" that is measurable and man caused.
Satellite imaging, and anecdotal evidence shows rising seas and shrinking glaciers, and weather data analysis demonstrates a warming trend even including variation of solar output. The scientific consensus is that we could be very near tipping points in the poles, and solar albedo could effectively decrease rapidly with an additive feedback to the warming trend.
Loss of glaciers will be especially felt downstream of the Himalayas by a billion people, with probability of massive loss of life from starvation. In Europe and the lower 48 of North America, glaciers that feed streams and rivers will almost certainly disappear, and snowpacks may be reduced to the point that agriculture in the West will only continue at much reduced levels, a blow especially for produce production in California.
With regard to environmental regulation in the United States, we can be proud that we have advanced clean water and air, food and drug safety, and have made attempts internalizing the cost of pollution to the source rather than externalizing it to the public. But there is still much to do, and industry still has powerful friends in congress (and the last administration) that fight any and all legislation, including real CO2 regulation.
I'm an engineer and a small business person, and the best thing that could happen to our economy is a full on greening, with the technology that implies. The will be losers true, but there will be many more winners and we may find that externalized cost of energy in the form of a $750 billion defense and security outlay will be reduced substantially by a green economy.
So, I take it you are giving credit to the "left wing" for better stewardship of our nation than Conservatives (What exactly do Conservatives stand for anyway; mostly disaffected white folks I suppose)? Because in that I agree. As for distrust of the free market by the "left wing", naturally, regulation doesn't happen in a vacuum. Something egregious has to take place for an industry friendly Congress to create any legislation. It has always been that way, and probably always will.
BTW, we call ourselves Liberals and Progressives, and you are living a better life for those efforts.
Apple TV uses under 20W when in use, so it's not bad. By contrast a PS3 Slim [the more energy efficient kind], uses 80W when playing a Blu Ray movie.
The problem with the Apple TV is standby power, which isn't good even in standby mode. It's nearly the same as if you were actively using the Apple TV.
I do hope that's something that improves with the next software/hardware update, but until then the easy solution is using a power strip and turning it off (so the Apple TV draws near 0W when not in use). For my part I have a Belkin Conserve, so the power strip is operated by a remote switch which sits next to my couch. It's quite easy.
glad to see apple really embracing this subject, and winning over those who gave apple a hard time just a couple of years ago.
No, I'm not saying today's DATA is suspect. I'm saying that today's ANALYSIS of that data is suspect. We have incomplete data. Too many times in history, scientists and governments have good intentions and take action that they feel is appropriate, but has unintended consequences that can make the problem worse. I'm saying that we're basing a lot of time, talent, lives, and treasure on incomplete data and incomplete analysis of that data.
Also, I am a computer scientist for a large R&D organization. I can say in full honesty that computer models are often bunk. Models are generalizations that are always being enhanced, fixed, thrown away, and refined. They help us in our understanding of a problem, but we're literally betting our lives, economy, and national security on the work of people feeding from the teet of the federal government's "green" grants. If their models invalidate man-made global climate shift, their funding is gone. Therefore, there is an inherent bias in their work.
I'm not saying that these researchers are necessarily disingenuous or dishonest. I'm saying that the metrics are incomplete and flawed. If you follow the Goal --> metric mapping, you can ALWAYS find a set of measures that satisfy the goal.
I'm not denying global climate change. That's a fact. It's nature. I am doubting man-made climate shift. More recent research is showing that sun spots have a higher likelihood of affecting our climate than driving a Prius. Again, more data -- but we have an incomplete picture. And I don't want to sacrifice our nation's economy on a rushed analysis from incomplete data.
Now, I know everyone will say, "Data is never complete." That's absolutely true. But the data is so widely disputed these days (yes it is) that it is still too premature to act drastically. If we destroy the economy of the US, all of the upheaval, destruction, death, famine, and pestilence that the environmentalists predict from climate change will STILL happen if we tank the largest economy on the planet (which keeps most other nations afloat too). Either way, it's a bad set of choices we have as a society.
Perhaps off-topic, but the racism isn't necessary, even if you think it isn't racism by some sort of odd logic.
Hmmm. "Liberal" versus "Conservative". Both sides are equally blind as perhaps elucidated above, and as sick as it may seem apparently both extremes are needed to maintain some middle ground as evidenced by the healthcare debate. If it weren't for the "Conservatives" perhaps we would be more forward thinking in some regards and if it weren't for the "Liberals" perhaps our personal freedoms wouldn't be so encroached by the notion that everyone has a right to have their hands in everyone else's pockets, and their thoughts in everyone else's minds. It goes both ways.
Back to the topic at hand, I love Apple. Realistically Apple is a public company whose greatest obligation is to create value to the shareholders. Sure the company has some personal motives/agenda/ideology which contribute to its identity and in part its brand, but make no mistake no public company does anything "green" for the sake of being "green" if it puts an imbalanced burden on its ability to make more dollars.
This is not to slight Apple as all public companies are essentially equal in this regard, so whoever wants to pat themselves on the back may, but it returns to the only truly differentiating factor of Apple versus other companies; their products.
All the best,
Jesse Widener
Art and Structure
I would say 99% of your post is based on espousing the virtues of the left, while disparaging the right. I'm not a conservative if that's what you're saying, and this is not the topic to debate liberalism versus conservatism.
My post was about the founder of Greenpeace explaining why he left the organization he helped create.
Chevron?!
Okay, I'm happy if environmental groups are more pleased with Apple's environmental policies and practices. That said, I wonder how much the ratings system mentioned is worth as they list with a score of 88 (?!) Chevron. And they call them a "leader" in their field too.
Yeah, take a look.
I'm just browsing through it quickly, so can someone explain that?
Okay, I'm happy if environmental groups are more pleased with Apple's environmental policies and practices. That said, I wonder how much the ratings system mentioned is worth as they list with a score of 88 (?!) Chevron. And they call them a "leader" in their field too.
Yeah, take a look.
I'm just browsing through it quickly, so can someone explain that?
One thing comes to mind, that I guess most of you here find non-important, but I will mention it anyways; Apple's rotten support for Windows in Boot Camp. They provide no power management drivers, thus a lot of waste of energy. They have had a couple of years to fix it, or at least provide an explanation to the higher power consumption in Windows, and why they can't fix it. But no. Their priority to 'make Windows look bad' is higher.
That's one reason why I can't have any respect for a CEO talking about 'becoming greener' and reducing power consumption in their products.
http://www.realclimate.org/
There are people as yourself that don't want to accept the scientific consensus that global warming is man caused for a variety of reasons, but especially for business and economic reasons. It will be hard to convince that group to initiate any action. It has taken a decade to even get to the to get to the point that a majority of people accept that Climate Change is even occurring.
Meanwhile, the anecdotal evidence mounts of climate change mounts, and governments continue along a cautious path of action that attempts to protect the economy as the primary objective.
Ironically, yours is the consensus view of action in the United States, and maybe that's the best we can do.
(selected for my comment at the end). FWIW, you don't have an exclusive on having professional experience in R&D and M&S.
The bad news is that there's always going to be incomplete data, as well as confusion caused by noise (eg, daily weather vs climate) and localized effects. However, the field has now gotten a lot more scientific study over the past decade in particular, which significantly improves the quality of the models, plus the nature of the topic has resulted in extensive peer reviews.
Sure, holes in assumptions are being identified (and plugged), but the correlation to manmade activities is now significantly more compelling than the data with which we concluded 30+ years ago that cigarettes cause lung cancer.
And there is also a huge difference between "go slow & careful...but make progress" than refusing to budge. One critical element that the general public fails to appreciate with the global warming issue is one of inertia: the feedback loop for seeing change from actions taken is effectively generational. Another critical element is the susceptible fragility of human endeavors: there's plenty of case studies in the history books for crop failures causing wars and falls of civilizations, and the human world is extensively reliant on agriculture ... and Jarrod Diamond's "Guns, Germs & Steel" provides a basis for regionalism-based susceptibility factors. While some of climate change is obviously not manmade, the question is how are we going to cope with it at any level, when it is considered that the 6-7 billion inhabitants of this planet already have the majority of the effectively arable land in use? While some people would suggest that a 50% death rate due to famine would be good for the human race long term, it would be catastrophically disruptive to society (just like last time), so there's probably better ways accomplish the same...which ultimately means to use our intellect to plan ahead and choose to take action before the problem has grown to a runaway crisis.
-hh
First of all, thank you Apple for trying though I'm nowhere near letting you off the marketing hook yet.
So, you are afraid to 'sacrifice money' to find out if there's 'some truth' in climate changes because we're all going to hell anyway?! Having less of a profit does not equal 'destroying the economy'.
Also, please tell me you're not one of those people who believes 'undisputed proof' and time for action is when the earth cracks open to swallow your lexus, your Mac and your house, all in one fiery gulp.
And US keeping other nations afloat? What? Are you serious? You actually think the world is finanically dependant on US? There's an impact of course but dependant? Really?
Whoah, that's like saying the rest of the world is worthless!!
Besides, bad set of choices? If things are like you claim then who put us there? If so, then the best thing for the world would be to become independant from the US, no?
I have a third suggestion, how about we all co-operate? Start by leaving your car and take the bicycle or walk. May be a small step but a great start. Move away from oil to other sources of energy like solar panels. And so on.
We have at least one good choice but it implies for us all change our ways, to think (and approach) matters differently. For some it may be radical depending on how far up the ladder of superfluous living you are but that's hardly something for you to blame the rest of the world for. Actually it could be one of the greatest tests mankind ever have to take on, to see reasons beyond the short-term gratification of money.
So, you are afraid to 'sacrifice money' to find out if there's 'some truth' in climate changes because we're all going to hell anyway?! Having less of a profit does not equal 'destroying the economy'.
Also, please tell me you're not one of those people who believes 'undisputed proof' and time for action is when the earth cracks open to swallow your lexus, your Mac and your house, all in one fiery gulp.
And US keeping other nations afloat? What? Are you serious? You actually think the world is finanically dependant on US? There's an impact of course but dependant? Really?
Whoah, that's like saying the rest of the world is worthless!!
Besides, bad set of choices? If things are like you claim then who put us there? If so, then the best thing for the world would be to become independant from the US, no?
I have a third suggestion, how about we all co-operate? Start by leaving your car and take the bicycle or walk. May be a small step but a great start. Move away from oil to other sources of energy like solar panels. And so on.
We have at least one good choice but it implies for us all change our ways, to think (and approach) matters differently. For some it may be radical depending on how far up the ladder of superfluous living you are but that's hardly something for you to blame the rest of the world for. Actually it could be one of the greatest tests mankind ever have to take on, to see reasons beyond the short-term gratification of money.
I agree. Nothing against being green, it's just some people go overboard with going green, however it Apple is not going overboard with it.
Because all this green nonsense represents a cost that I am not willing to pay for. I am not even talking about higher prices, I am talking about a quality and experience cost.
Instead of Apple shipping all of their DVDs in solid, beautiful boxes they are now using plain clear plastic sleeves.
It also limits the materials that can be used to make a product because they're not recyclable. I want a carbon fiber Macbook Pro, and couldn't care less if it's recyclable or not. Think of all the awesome materials Jonathan Ive could work with if he didn't have these arbitrary restrictions.
The green mentality is holding back innovation and product design.
at the end of the day, the consumer is the one that will pay for this or not, regardless of the environmental impact. Its not like we didn't know as a whole some of the practices in place by all manufacturers was suspect, all that mattered was that safari was snappier. At the end of the day, there are other things that are brought to light too, like outsourcing labor that should be american.