Don't forget those peddling fear of rising tides while buying up beachfront properties
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 Next Step Towards Achieving 2030 Environmental Goal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd like to see iPhones designed around easily user replaceable batteries
I want to see much more aggressive tangible action towards environmental and consumer oriented benefits.
I want to see much more aggressive tangible action towards environmental and consumer oriented benefits.
That's one perspective, but misses the point of locking — to protect you and your data.
Electronic devices should never be "thrown away", and if they are, not Apple's fault or goal. They already offer free recycling.
It's up to us users to make choices that work with the processes in place, including data recovery and device replacement, should that be needed.
Tides are rising. That's a simple fact. Do you not believe it?
Can you please stop with the endless stream of empty slogans that are so easily debunked. Yes, rich people take the risk of buying beachfront properties. Why? Because they can. And because we'll all be dead by the time it really gets to be an issue.
This doesn’t disprove climate change—it just shows that wealthy individuals and businesses can afford short-term risk while expecting governments to foot the bill for future damage.
Insurance companies are already raising rates or pulling out of high-risk coastal areas due to rising sea levels and extreme weather. Miami, Louisiana, and parts of California are seeing flooding increase, saltwater intrusion into drinking water, and erosion eating away at properties.
Building still happens because short-term profits outweigh long-term risks—but taxpayers often end up covering the costs when climate disasters hit. That doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real; it just means people gamble with risk when they think they won’t personally pay for the consequences.
Reality doesn’t change based on where the wealthy invest.
Easiest way for Apple to achieve the environmental goal is just to stop selling phones in Europe. EU is the only place in the world which cares about CO2 and other stuff. There are bigger players like China, USA and India which don’t care at all so…
Have fun with the Apple that gives you less and charges you more! Because that's been their strategy so far with all this "environmentally friendly" nonsense.
No chargers in-box anymore, but the whole phone costs more. No more leather cases or watch bands, but you get literal garbage "fine woven" ones instead.
"Environmentally friendly" = Worse customer experience.
You're just falling straight into Apple's marketing trap. You're willing to embrace inferior products, because Apple has tricked you into thinking that getting less things with the money you spend means you're saving the environment. But the reality is that Apple's just making more money by having inferior products that cost more.
Apple's whole "environmentally friendly" thing is marketing gimmick to give you worse products for more money.
You don't get chargers in box anymore. You don't get nice leather cases anymore. You literally get worse stuff AND less stuff, but for MORE money.
It's not a good thing, it's a bad thing.
If Apple continues to release unstable code, continues to fail in the introduction of new products, cannot integrate new technologies like AI when the competition can, and, loses increasing market share due to inflated pricing of component upgrades with a worsening brand image and user experience ......... they will hit or surpass all their Green and environmental impact targets in a few years without question or effort.
It is quite great Apple still has environmental goals considering dictator Donald is the anti-Christ for the environment.
Donald is an actual dictator. He is ruling by executive order. He is using Elon the Nazi to purge the US government and install puppets to head departments. By dictator executive order he is opening-up huge areas of pre-Donald protected forests to clear cutting.
Two actual dictators, Donald and Xi.
Nobody stops you from deregistering your device so you can give it away for re-use. It's locked when you register to make it harder for people to resell stolen gear. It's not Apple's fault if people don't deregister. But surely you knew this?
I live in Sweden. And despite the fact that we produce electricity from clean energy, i.e hydro, nuclear and wind power.
We have the highest environmental taxes on electric energy, and they are raised every single year now
Thanks to German energy failure.
I have dropped my electric energy use by 74% the past two months. Using oil and wood for heating instead.
Oh, and we pay 25% VAT on top of the total sum, taxes included. Being taxed on tax is BS in my view.
In February I used 237.76 kWh
I used to heat with electricity as often as possible, in the past.
And when the windpower produced to much electricity, with price dropping to negative. I would use more, like baking bread or whatever.
I can no longer do that. I pay a new fee calculated on the three top hour power use in a month.
Thus, 3 hours out of 500 hours can completely wreck my energy bill.
This fee is now 81.26 kr/kWh (VAT included)
Say I used 8 kW three random hours, from 6am to 22pm. That adds 650 kr to the bill. Despite the fact that the electricity might be negative for those specific hours.
----
So is the carbon tax for the environment, or for governments and corporations to tax the population?
By the way. Switzerland has now the largest container ship fleet in the world.
And 10 years ago, 12 of the largest container ships in the world released more CO2 than all the cars in the world.
Shipping is not included in countries environmental calculations... wonder why
And Apple also ships their products, right?
---
I wrote this to explain why some of us might be less enthusiastic with Apple's focus. And as others have mentioned.
Why not focus more on repairability, upgradeabilty and the impact from a shortened lifespan of the products?
We have the highest environmental taxes on electric energy, and they are raised every single year now
Thanks to German energy failure.
I have dropped my electric energy use by 74% the past two months. Using oil and wood for heating instead.
Oh, and we pay 25% VAT on top of the total sum, taxes included. Being taxed on tax is BS in my view.
In February I used 237.76 kWh
I used to heat with electricity as often as possible, in the past.
And when the windpower produced to much electricity, with price dropping to negative. I would use more, like baking bread or whatever.
I can no longer do that. I pay a new fee calculated on the three top hour power use in a month.
Thus, 3 hours out of 500 hours can completely wreck my energy bill.
This fee is now 81.26 kr/kWh (VAT included)
Say I used 8 kW three random hours, from 6am to 22pm. That adds 650 kr to the bill. Despite the fact that the electricity might be negative for those specific hours.
----
So is the carbon tax for the environment, or for governments and corporations to tax the population?
By the way. Switzerland has now the largest container ship fleet in the world.
And 10 years ago, 12 of the largest container ships in the world released more CO2 than all the cars in the world.
Shipping is not included in countries environmental calculations... wonder why
And Apple also ships their products, right?
---
I wrote this to explain why some of us might be less enthusiastic with Apple's focus. And as others have mentioned.
Why not focus more on repairability, upgradeabilty and the impact from a shortened lifespan of the products?
Last edited:
For human civilization concerns, I find it most relevant to drill down on more recent time periods of temp & C02 data.
Grabbed these from here
That strip of consistency we've always known is seriously at risk.
Exactly, I looked at the link.
Quote:
atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm! The average temperature wasn’t much more than 10 degrees C above today’s
So the CO2 levels have been more than 20 times higher than today. I don't see the slightest risk
And there has been large variation, but at no time did the curves go up into infinity. They have highs and dips.
People tend to think linear, and have no clue about cycles.
That is well pictured in stock markets. When all is going up, everyone is a bull. When it crashes disaster is here, and everyone turns into a bear. Because it can only go up... until it doesn't
You’re right that CO₂ levels were far higher in Earth’s distant past—3,000 to 9,000 ppm during the Cambrian and early Paleozoic eras. But you’re also right that temperatures didn’t spiral out of control—because Earth’s climate system responds to CO₂ over millions of years, not instantly, and is influenced by many balancing feedbacks like silicate weathering and ocean chemistry.
However, here’s the key difference today:We’re increasing CO₂ faster than any natural process in Earth’s history. What took nature millions of years, humans have done in just 150. That speed doesn’t allow ecosystems, oceans, or weather systems to adapt.
And yes, climate moves in cycles, not straight lines—but current warming doesn’t match any known natural cycle. We should be slowly cooling right now based on orbital patterns, but instead, we’re warming rapidly—because of fossil fuel emissions.
So CO₂ isn’t inherently dangerous—but rapid, human-driven CO₂ spikes are, because they push the system faster than it can adjust. Cycles matter—but speed matters more right now.
The fact you don’t see the slightest risk is not at all reassuring.
Why on earth would you judge my comment on a scale of assurance? That has not an iota of relevance here.
What everyone should do, if interested, use the information you see here, and go research further.
turbineseaplane gave an excellent example. And I read the source text he presented.
If you state there is no risk, then it’s only logical an evaluation on how you came to that conclusion is needed.
But I couldn’t agree more that your risk assessment is useless in this or any context.
Especially as you quote sources that completely contradict your position.