The quicker and more widespread the move to renewable energy the better. This is an area Apple can genuinely help change the world for the better.
And I think it's both ethically and economically the right direction to go in, those things do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Generally yes, so long as the associated environmental expenduratures and to some degree financial costs with the project don't substantially ruin the percieved value.
Most of the world's solar panels come from China (which sucks because it doesn't support our industry- but whatever) where there are little to no regulations on handling the substantial amount of energy that goes into handling toxic waste. Not to mention to the energy expendurature required for building the panels and the environmental impact they have.
There is of course, still the issue of effectively storing power in an affordable, efficient and ecologically friendly way. We have yet to figure that out.
Anyone ever wonder what the temperature is above one of these solar fields? Does it cook birds that fly overhead? Heat the atmosphere at all?
I doubt solar panels have much effect on passing bird in terms of frying them. The desert is already hot. There is however a problem with birds thinking the glare from many acres large solar panels are ponds/lakes and confusing them, wasting their energy looking for water and supposedly then dying as a result. It can also be problematic when birds fly into the panels thinking they are water.
A relative of mine works in the energy industry. His engineering company was involved with the large solar boiler in Nevada I believe (boiler suspended in the air in the middle of the desert with hundreds-thousands of mirrors focused on boiler). The project was sponsored by the government and a number of big companies including Google.
Basically the project was very difficult to get off the ground. There were environemental concerns about frying birds out of the sky, which ended up being a major issue (in the first year thousands of birds were killed). There was also some concern about turtle migration so a bunch of turtles had to be relocated and accommodations made.
These investors (google, govt, etc) invested over $2B cumulatively, only for the plant to produce something like 1/3 of the maximum output... Which was a raised concern beforehand but ignored. Google ended up demanding they get money back from the government. Overall a disasterous project for those who were financially invested.
Anyways, TLDR, I'm all for making our best efforts to minimize destruction of our environment and progress technology to acheive that goal. I'm not suggesting some dead birds is the worst thing to happen on earth. But I do think there needs to be a lot more consideration as to the realistic intended and unintended effects of some of the things we invest in. Just look at carbon offsets, it's a shell game with little oversight, no definite requirement of offset viability, and very little (<30%) of the money spent goes to the offset project (most goes to administrative costs, insurance, investors). And some carbon offset programs strangely have the unintended consequence of promoting environmentally damaging industries driven buy an economic benefit).
Anyways, food for thought. That's my blindly pushing renewable energy rant. Again, not saying it's a bad thing, there just needs to be adequate recognition of issues.