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 Announces Major Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I had not seen this before. Very well described. Thank you for posting this.
I’d prefer having the option to buy a $50 cheaper iPhone without the ‘clean’ materials. And I believe this will help the world in a much bigger way.
Look a little farther back than 1940. Try several hundred thousand years. Look at the global temperatures at the time of Jesus, they were significantly higher than they are today. I never read that Jesus complained about global warming.
It was at 59.97%, but Apple likes clean easy marketing, so they enforced "Clean Charging" on all their store demo devices to reach their target of an even 60%. A middle manager now gets a bonus.
You are either misinformed or you just don’t understand data. Per the NOAA, the level of CO2 never exceeded 300ppm for the last 800,000 years until the Industrial Revolution. Today the rate is 420ppm.
Phil Schiller still works at Apple, I don’t know where you are getting your information.
Was just from last year…
Apple's Phil Schiller Works 80 Hours a Week Overseeing App Store
With the App Store and app ecosystem undergoing major changes in the European Union, The Wall Street Journal today shared a profile on App Store...
www.macrumors.com
You know we're discussing CO2 levels and not temperatures, right? I know climate deniers (and I'm not saying you are one, I don't know you) are fond of trying to change the topic and hope people don't notice, though. Trying to drag temperature swings related to ice ages into discussions of atmospheric CO2, for example.
For pre-1940 CO2 levels, this handy chart goes back a thousand years and it appears to show that the rise in CO2 oddly happens to coincide with the Industrial Revolution, and since.
Good to know about Apple's efforts and the progress taken towards reaching 2030 goals.
Yeah, but he's not leading Apple's PR/marketing any longer (Schiller transitioned to an Apple Fellow in 2020), Joz is. And Joz hasn't (YET) said things as stupid, and as often, as The Schill had.Phil Schiller still works at Apple, I don’t know where you are getting your information.
Was just from last year…
He was also in the WWDC 2024 opening video.Apple's Phil Schiller Works 80 Hours a Week Overseeing App Store
With the App Store and app ecosystem undergoing major changes in the European Union, The Wall Street Journal today shared a profile on App Store...
And just to add a data point: since EVERYONE agrees that the App Store is JUST FANTASTIC, and no one EVER complains about it… Phil The Schill is obviously doing a great job.
Your history starts at ... 1940? Literally proving my point. You don't know what you're talking about.
Yeah look at that chart and think about how it disproves your point. How can we be "at historically low levels" (your words) when even a chart that only goes back to 1940 shows there were lower levels then? Kinda can't be historically low levels now if we've been going up even in that one chart, can we?
Also, this chart goes back more than 1,000 years. It shows exactly what you'd think it would, if you knew the data.
Your data is incomplete. You've picked a time period to prove your point but that's disingenuous.
We are most certainly at historic lows. It is now at 400+ppm. It had gotten dangerously low at around high 200's ppm pre-industrial. At approximately 150-180 ppm most plant life stops living. That is where we were headed. In the past, during massive glacial periods, the ppm has been in the 180 range with correspondingly little plant life. Over the past several decades, the Earth's plant life has been thriving and thus greening the Earth. This is very good. Only going back several hundred thousand years does not tell the whole or true story. Even the level today is far, far lower than the huge majority of the Earth's history.
Your linked source, "No Tricks Zone," is ironically named, since they are a small blog known for promoting climate-denying pseudoscience. It's like they're not even trying. The kind of "source" that no one interested in a good faith discussion about climate would rely on.
There may have been less plant life during ice ages for other reasons besides CO2, of course. Such as the massive ice sheets that were covering parts of the planet, a condition that does not exist now but that would have certainly contributed to the "correspondingly little plant life" that you mentioned.
The natural world is a much more complex system than climate deniers would have you believe. More CO2 doesn't just mean more plant food, and that's better. Because of rising temperatures (due to climate change), many plants - including food crops - might struggle to survive. A "more CO2 is better" argument exists in a vacuum, and it isn't the real world.
Likewise, not all plants do well under too-high CO2. Food crops can lose vital nutrients, making them less valuable as a food source.
I can't even believe anyone reads, let alone believes, anything from "NoTricksZone" ...
That site has been torched and debunked so many times all the way back to when Brietbart was talking about it like 8 years ago.
“NoTricks” feels awfully similar to “Truth”Social
When the name is a little too on the nose, it’s awfully suspicious
That site has been torched and debunked so many times all the way back to when Brietbart was talking about it like 8 years ago.
“NoTricks” feels awfully similar to “Truth”Social
When the name is a little too on the nose, it’s awfully suspicious
Last edited:
Okay, say you're right. What decade exactly does your "science" (totally not propaganda) suggest that we'll have a climate catastrophe? The deadline has passed, at least four times as far as I'm aware, but probably more. You're propagandized, easily influenced by media that is paid to parrot talking points for people who are aimed to profit off of fear from concerned citizens such as yourself. You clearly have no idea how "PR" and "making your own luck" works.
When "global warming" stopped working and people started pulling up headlines from the 1970's warning of "global cooling," they newspeaked it to "global climate change," which is completely ambiguous and could by applied to any number of scenarios.
You also apparently don't realize how dirty funding in science and academia is.
I'm telling you to ZOOM OUT and look at the bigger picture. 1000 years is nothing on the scale of this planet, you're looking at only one factor without taking into account solar cycles or anything else. You simply have a fear of carbon, and that's why no one takes you seriously. You also need to learn a little about how the world works, about systems of power. This should be your wake up call, but I'm almost certain you don't have it in you to actually unplug, challenge your own beliefs and accept the ugly truths.
First, it might help if you don't presume to know about me, what I know, my education, what I may "realize," what I may "have a fear of," etc. It totally blows your arguments if you think you know these things about me and then base your characterizations on ad hominem statements like this. If you think it supports your arguments to assume that I (or anyone else) have a different opinion than you simply because we're uneducated, "propagandized," "clearly have no idea" or "easily influenced" then that may be an easy way to write off the opinions of others. But it's a pretty weak way of presenting an argument.
The phrase "global warming" never stopped working. But several things happened. For one thing, climate is a complex system that has been seeing warming temperatures in some instances and more severe and unusual cold weather in other instances. Also, climate deniers would jump on certain cable channels every time it snowed in January and say "where's your global warming now, it's cold outside!" (speaking of media propaganda - that's weather, not climate!), so most started referring to the overall issue as "climate change."
To answer your first question, scientists don't know "what decade exactly..." there would be "a climate catastrophe." Because it's a moving target. Are the CO2 trends and related number of catastrophic weather events increasing? Yes. Anyone can see that. Can scientists predict when there will be "a climate catastrophe" as you ask? No, because we are already living through localized catastrophes, with more violent storms, drought, melting ice caps and rising sea levels, etc. Asking about one singular catastrophe, like from an action movie, is completely missing the point.
More importantly, since CO2 levels are increasing rapidly due to human activity such as burning fossil fuels, and human activity can change, then no scientist who is actually basing their studies on data is going to be able to say "this is the date in the future when X will happen." So your question is a fallacious one.
Leave that to the propagandists and climate deniers and politicians, people who want to twist or ignore science for their own ends. Scientists can look at trends and say things are heading in the wrong direction, but asking them to pick a date when there will be "a climate catastrophe" is best left to palm readers.
You want to talk about "dirty funding?" Check the oil companies and their supporters that pay for climate denialism studies and web sites that push the same pseudoscience. That's "dirty funding" indeed.
EDIT: typo
Last edited:
We should also mention the Exxon’s own internal reporting knew all about the greenhouse effect and the impact on climate in 1980s
People on the "climate change exists" side of the argument do this ALL THE TIME to anyone who questions any aspect of the popularized narrative. Thanks for validating that we should continue to write off anything they're saying. Additionally, you at no point had any respect for my (or anyone else's) contrarian arguments, so don't try the high-road.
You also chose to not address the solar activity argument at all, doubling down on anthropic changes as the exclusive factor, even while admitting that it's a "complex" system (see next quote/below).
I understand the history of that well. Again, the problem is that you can't just come up with broad stroke labels that could mean any number of things, and then start applying it to any number of situations, and expect everyone to just fall in line. The boundaries and intent are not clearly defined, it becomes a liability for becoming a mechanism of control and thus a political conversation. Which is why the political class loves it so much. They can blame any catastrophe they want on "climate change" and create policy that forces the population to change their behavior, including to profit off of it outside of public office. Control and profits.
I stress, again, that this line of thinking is known as "making your own luck" and "inventing the future."
If scientists can't exhaustively define it, then scientists have zero authority to create fear or influence policy based upon it.
I also really get a kick out of how "correlation does not equal causation" for everything except carbon line go up graphs, even in an understanding where you admit that climate is "complex" and not understandable. You've taken one fact (behavior of greenhouse gasses) and extrapolated it out. The inconsistencies continue to build.
Then what on earth were the scientists and politicians thinking when they generated studies and headlines with dated claims doom in several instances in the past? That's fear mongering, and it's unethical. But yes, let's blindly trust both those classes of public figures now and into the future. They've totally proven and earned that credibility.
Ya proving my points even more by acknowledging that "dirty funding" is practiced at all. Do you really think it's limited to one side or the other? I certainly don't. Please learn how public relations is done - hint: with money.
Science, universities are funded by grants provided by both individuals and industry. The people doing this research are often underpaid and reliant on securing more grant money, part of that dance comes down to publishing reports and findings that are favorable to whoever is funding their research.
Bottom line: It's one thing if we want to say, "As a society, we should be mindful and produce less waste and less pollution." You'd get large participation in that from probably most of all sides of the political spectrum. But that's not what's happening here. I'd love to return to a world where we can return a glass milk container instead of putting single-use plastic into the trash.
And btw, big oil can go fk themselves.