Apple Now Powered by 100 Percent Renewable Energy Worldwide

[ohbrilliance]

You didn’t answer my question. Where are watts and watt hours used to reference anything but electricity? You’ve got nothing and are now resorting to contributing a slab of nonsense in some last ditched effort.

I’ll spell it out to you: this is only about electricity. Nothing in Apple or the Fast Company article suggests otherwise. You are either obstinate, slow or both to keep harping on in the contrary.

You can’t even grasp that quantities of gas are typically stated in joules and electricity in watts and watt hours. And you think you somehow have the intellect to patronise me? Joker.

The units used for electricity generated from nuclear and fossil fuels is completely irrelevant to Apple sourcing 100% of its electricity from renewable sources. Likewise, HVAC is irrelevant if powered by 100% renewable electricity Have you somehow lumped this into a category of electricity usage that Apple can’t or doesn’t power with renewable-sourced electricity? If you’re referring to gas heating then again, irrelevant, since this whole discussion is only about electricity.

 

[Bacillus]

You didn’t answer my question. Where are watts and watt hours used to reference anything but electricity?

All over the world. Take a look at your car manual kW (next to Horse Power) https://goo.gl/yhoRFP or https://goo.gl/i1xjc4
Look at your heating manual: kW. https://goo.gl/Saumer
Look at any HVAC installation: kW. In engine specs for cars, trucks, ships: kW. https://goo.gl/xm28vN
Get involved in industry. Start studying engineering. Power plants (fossil/nuclear): MW. https://goo.gl/VdPwxn
Energy conservation in your house, incl. gas: kWh https://goo.gl/77UMuY
I am not seeing Joules anywhere.

Nothing in Apple or the Fast Company article suggests otherwise.

Article mentions the term "energy" 82 times. Nothing stated about "electricity only".
Never stated it excluded HVAC. Instead HVAC and Airco are referenced in ApplePark picture.
You introduce restrictions only to achieve a goal.

You can’t even grasp that quantities of gas are typically stated in joules and electricity in watts and watt hours.

Usage can't even be stated in joules (whether gas or anything) because it is a capacity, not a quantity.
You must have missed some elementary grade education.
That's why every (car, ship, truck, heating, nuclear plant whatever) spec now is in kW, MW, TW. Not in joules.

There is too much electricity in your brains. Cool down a little, and start getting real.
Airco is integral part of the E-grid and isn't measured or generated separately, can't be excluded
Apple is not 100% green as long as it uses gas, drives ordinary cars and serves meat in its restaurants. It's doing its best but it just isn't there.
And the claims in this topic heading and Fast article are misleading or false.

 

[ohbrilliance]

Car performance obtained by a combustion engine is also measured in kWh

Oh really? Shows what little you know when you get power and energy confused. See how that works?

 

[Bacillus]

Oh really? Shows what little you know when you get power and energy confused. See how that works?

Ah, so these are electric cars, in your assessment:
https://goo.gl/yhoRFP
https://goo.gl/i1xjc4
https://goo.gl/YTWJnq
https://goo.gl/MrLL61
(reserve them for Apple, they'll sorely need them to meet their objectives...)

 

[alexhardaker]

You hardly get anything for them. Especially if they’ve been used a lot over 2 years!

Who throws out their phone when you get trade credit?

[doublepost=1523524545][/doublepost]

You know, in civilised countries that is a criminal offence. Not to mention that its also rather dumb thing to do especially since your already paid a recycling fee. Besides, I find it funny that you would blame Apple for people being idiots and not properly disposing of their old hardware.

It’s the whole idea of the society encouraging throw-away devices. People don’t know how to fix things themselves these days because of it.
[doublepost=1523524645][/doublepost]

Ok, I'll bite:

Show me a tech OEM that DOESN'T "encourage people to keep buying new stuff every few years".

I'll wait.

Oh, and no one MAKES people upgrade.

All OEM’s do it. It’s not good. We are ruining the planet because of the way we are living right now.

They encourage people to upgrade

 

[ohbrilliance]

All over the world. Take a look at your car manual kW (next to Horse Power) https://goo.gl/yhoRFP or https://goo.gl/i1xjc4
Look at your heating manual: kW. https://goo.gl/Saumer
Look at any HVAC installation: kW. In engine specs for cars, trucks, ships: kW. https://goo.gl/xm28vN
Get involved in industry. Start studying engineering. Power plants (fossil/nuclear): MW. https://goo.gl/VdPwxn
Energy conservation in your house, incl. gas: kWh https://goo.gl/77UMuY
I am not seeing Joules anywhere.

Article mentions the term "energy" 82 times. Nothing stated about "electricity only".
Never stated it excluded HVAC. Instead HVAC and Airco are referenced in ApplePark picture.
You introduce restrictions only to achieve a goal.

Usage can't even be stated in joules (whether gas or anything) because it is a capacity, not a quantity.
You must have missed some elementary grade education.
That's why every (car, ship, truck, heating, nuclear plant whatever) spec now is in kW, MW, TW. Not in joules.

There is too much electricity in your brains. Cool down a little, and start getting real.
Airco is integral part of the E-grid and isn't measured or generated separately, can't be excluded
Apple is not 100% green as long as it uses gas, drives ordinary cars and serves meat in its restaurants. It's doing its best but it just isn't there.
And the claims in this topic heading and Fast article are misleading or false.

Oh really? Shows what little you know when you get power and energy confused. See how that works?

Let's get some definitions out of the way. My usage of the term 'usage' is an amount of energy. A quantity. It seems that this term is sometimes used to measure power as well, but for this discussion I'm using it to mean a quantity. Common units for electricity are watt-hours (and kWh, MWh, etc.). These are directly converted to joules with the formula of 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ. Power is the rate of energy being used, such as joules-per-second, otherwise known as a watt.

kW can be used to express other forms of power, such as that from a combustion engine, or the heat output of a heat-pump system. Electrical power is expressed in watts, regardless of the source of power. That may from PV, wind turbines, coal generators. That may also include electrical power produced by a gas-fueled power station. But not for the measurement of the gas fuel going into that station, or gas piped as a fuel. Gas as a fuel is measured in other units, such as cubic feet, BTU, therms and MJ.

So for gas, we can describe it's usage (that is a quantity used) in units such as cubic feet, BTU, therms and MJ. MJ can readily be converted to kWh (note, *kWh*, not kW) as needed to compare and apply arithmetic between quantities of gas and electricity used.
What does *not* work is using watts to measure the rate of gas. A pipeline would use other units over time, such as MJ/day or cubic feet/day.

It follows that any mention of power and usage in Apple's article only pertains to electrical energy. References to watts, kilowatts and megawatts are not applicable to gas capacity or usage. Apple's persistence of usage 'energy' in an electrical-only context creates ambiguity, but it is clear from every example given that their statements only apply to electricity:

"32 megawatts of solar panels"
"626 megawatts of generation capacity, with 286 megawatts of solar PV generation coming online in 2017"
"17-megawatt onsite rooftop solar installation and four megawatts of biogas fuel cells"
"485 megawatts of wind and solar projects"
"200-megawatt power purchase agreement for an Oregon wind farm"
"320 megawatts of solar PV generation"
"300 rooftop solar systems that will generate 18,000 megawatt-hours of clean energy every year"
"Apple’s data center in Maiden, North Carolina, is supported by projects that generate 244 million kilowatt-hours of renewable energy per year" (the context of data center implies that kWh in this case can only mean electricity)

Nothing in that article can be construed to mean that Apple is claiming their gas usage is renewable, or offset by renewables, or being produced in any way from any of their fuel-generating projects. Or that this story has anything to do with their gas usage whatsoever.

On terminology for power from cars, you said "Car performance obtained by a combustion engine is also measured in kWh", then after I pointed out that only kW is applicable to power from an engine, you came back with battery capacities for electrical cars. That's completely nonsensical.

 

[Bacillus]

Let's get some definitions out of the way. My usage of the term 'usage' is an amount of energy. A quantity. It seems that this term is sometimes used to measure power as well, but for this discussion I'm using it to mean a quantity. Common units for electricity are watt-hours (and kWh, MWh, etc.). These are directly converted to joules with the formula of 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ. Power is the rate of energy being used, such as joules-per-second, otherwise known as a watt.

kW can be used to express other forms of power, such as that from a combustion engine, or the heat output of a heat-pump system. Electrical power is expressed in watts, regardless of the source of power. That may from PV, wind turbines, coal generators. That may also include electrical power produced by a gas-fueled power station. But not for the measurement of the gas fuel going into that station, or gas piped as a fuel. Gas as a fuel is measured in other units, such as cubic feet, BTU, therms and MJ.

So for gas, we can describe it's usage (that is a quantity used) in units such as cubic feet, BTU, therms and MJ. MJ can readily be converted to kWh (note, *kWh*, not kW) as needed to compare and apply arithmetic between quantities of gas and electricity used.
What does *not* work is using watts to measure the rate of gas. A pipeline would use other units over time, such as MJ/day or cubic feet/day.

It follows that any mention of power and usage in Apple's article only pertains to electrical energy. References to watts, kilowatts and megawatts are not applicable to gas capacity or usage. Apple's persistence of usage 'energy' in an electrical-only context creates ambiguity, but it is clear from every example given that their statements only apply to electricity:

"32 megawatts of solar panels"
"626 megawatts of generation capacity, with 286 megawatts of solar PV generation coming online in 2017"
"17-megawatt onsite rooftop solar installation and four megawatts of biogas fuel cells"
"485 megawatts of wind and solar projects"
"200-megawatt power purchase agreement for an Oregon wind farm"
"320 megawatts of solar PV generation"
"300 rooftop solar systems that will generate 18,000 megawatt-hours of clean energy every year"
"Apple’s data center in Maiden, North Carolina, is supported by projects that generate 244 million kilowatt-hours of renewable energy per year" (the context of data center implies that kWh in this case can only mean electricity)

Nothing in that article can be construed to mean that Apple is claiming their gas usage is renewable, or offset by renewables, or being produced in any way from any of their fuel-generating projects. Or that this story has anything to do with their gas usage whatsoever.

On terminology for power from cars, you said "Car performance obtained by a combustion engine is also measured in kWh", then after I pointed out that only kW is applicable to power from an engine, you came back with battery capacities for electrical cars. That's completely nonsensical.

Your obsession for electricity is running in nonsensical circles and getting short-circuited
Read the full environmental report: https://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Responsibility_Report_2017.pdf
to see how much more comprehensive this matter is than just electrical energy.
I don’t want to sound arrogant but your assumptions and reasoning are just wrong and ludicrous.
Seek help at understanding documents (instead of denial) at some local energy agency or university.
I can’t help you any further

 

[ohbrilliance]

Your obsession for electricity is running in nonsensical circles and getting short-circuited
Read the full environmental report: https://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Responsibility_Report_2017.pdf
to see how much more comprehensive this matter is than just electrical energy.
I don’t want to sound arrogant but your assumptions and reasoning are just wrong and ludicrous.
Seek help for understanding documents at a local energy agency or university

The only relevant piece is as linked from the original post: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/04/apple-now-globally-powered-by-100-percent-renewable-energy/ That is what this entire discussion is focussed on.

It is you who is insisting that the above article is about something other than electricity. I'm trying to explain to you that that is not the case. I am obsessively trying to explain this to you as you are obsessively trying to deflect from that point.

Having said that, is there anything specifically in that 57 page PDF you'd like to draw my attention to?

 

[Bacillus]

Having said that, is there anything specifically in that 57 page PDF you'd like to draw my attention to?

For instance, downside Page 11:
“Worldwide corporate, data centers, and Apple Stores
700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000
0
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015 FY 2016

Since 2011, Apple has reduced emissions from our offices, data centers, and retail stores worldwide by 60 percent. Without renewable energy and energy efficiency measures, these emissions would have increased over 200 percent since 2011.
In fiscal year 2016, we added colocation facilities and distribution centers to our electricity footprint, contributing to the increase in default emissions. More detailed emissions data is provided in Appendix A.
metric tons CO2 equivalent”

This demonstrates that emissions are not nullified, that the electrical footprint is impacted, while measuring CO2 equivalent demonstrates that the CERt accounting principles are being used to compensate brown with green energy (aka greenwashing)

 

[ohbrilliance]

For instance, downside Page 11:
“Worldwide corporate, data centers, and Apple Stores
700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000
0
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015 FY 2016

Since 2011, Apple has reduced emissions from our offices, data centers, and retail stores worldwide by 60 percent. Without renewable energy and energy efficiency measures, these emissions would have increased over 200 percent since 2011.
In fiscal year 2016, we added colocation facilities and distribution centers to our electricity footprint, contributing to the increase in default emissions. More detailed emissions data is provided in Appendix A.
metric tons CO2 equivalent”

This demonstrates that emissions are not nullified, that the electrical footprint is impacted, while measuring CO2 equivalent demonstrates that the CERt accounting principles are being used to compensate brown with green energy (aka greenwashing)

Ah, but where is Apple claiming their emissions are nullified? Certainly not in the main article of discussion in this topic.
Since we are only talking about electricity, which is the topic of this main article, you'll find that your linked report for FY 2016 has 95% coverage of renewables. Presumably, this is now at 100% coverage for *electricity*. Where does Apple claim 100% coverage of all emissions?

I bet you haven't even worked out the maths. 60% reduction of usage while increasing demand by over 200% equates to a reduction of 88% of rate of the 2012 baseline, which already included a renewable component. Of that remaining 10% or so, much has been filled since 2016, and of the remainder of that, Apple is not claiming to have covered with renewables (remember, the main article is only about electricity. I will keep repeating that, because the essence here is that you're asserting dishonesty that has as of yet not been shown to exist).

 

[ctdonath]

Ah. So all the electricity flows into the gas heating in their (european, worldwide) classical 100 years old real estate ? ... (so why don’t we solve a million worldwide bushfires with a single giant solar farm..?)

Obviously the discussion is about electricity. This is a casual discussion on a forum necessitating brief comments, not a peer-reviewed journal of encyclopedic depth. Apple produces products which run on electricity. Apple's offices & factories run mostly on electricity. Apple's retail stores run on electricity. Don't try to obfuscate with non-sequiturs.

The electrical grid distributes a fungible product. Put electricity (of any source in), get electricity out. Putting Apple's solar-generated electricity into the grid at large & taking out an equal amount used by Apple's retail stores, is functionally equivalent to routing directly from solar panels into stores. This is precisely how people can & do buy "green power service" for their homes.

Yes, there is discussion of building massive solar farms in high-sun low-population areas. Elon Musk recently proposed such a solar farm that could power the entire US electrical grid. As I noted in an earlier post, this is a straightforward calculation of power limits per area: figure 10 watts per square meter, identify how much power you want to generate, compute how many square meters you need to do it.

And yes, solar power is a potential boon for remote dirt-poor areas, bringing low-maintenance electricity to areas which just cannot be viably serviced by power lines or other supply-chain-based energy sources (and thus otherwise have to resort to "bush fires" for mundane power needs).

And if you're seriously going to keep on this inane banter about "but what about fossil fuels?" then yes, the premise still applies: Apple can produce enough solar-generated electricity and pump it into the electrical grid to decrease the need for fossil-fuel-generated electricity such that the net energy-in / energy-out benefits from the additional "green" power.

 

[Bacillus]

Obviously the discussion is about electricity. This is a casual discussion on a forum necessitating brief comments, not a peer-reviewed journal of encyclopedic depth. Apple produces products which run on electricity. Apple's offices & factories run mostly on electricity. Apple's retail stores run on electricity. Don't try to obfuscate with non-sequiturs.
The electrical grid distributes a fungible product. Put electricity (of any source in), get electricity out. Putting Apple's solar-generated electricity into the grid at large & taking out an equal amount used by Apple's retail stores, is functionally equivalent to routing directly from solar panels into stores. This is precisely how people can & do buy "green power service" for their homes.
Yes, there is discussion of building massive solar farms in high-sun low-population areas. Elon Musk recently proposed such a solar farm that could power the entire US electrical grid. As I noted in an earlier post, this is a straightforward calculation of power limits per area: figure 10 watts per square meter, identify how much power you want to generate, compute how many square meters you need to do it.
And yes, solar power is a potential boon for remote dirt-poor areas, bringing low-maintenance electricity to areas which just cannot be viably serviced by power lines or other supply-chain-based energy sources (and thus otherwise have to resort to "bush fires" for mundane power needs).
And if you're seriously going to keep on this inane banter about "but what about fossil fuels?" then yes, the premise still applies: Apple can produce enough solar-generated electricity and pump it into the electrical grid to decrease the need for fossil-fuel-generated electricity such that the net energy-in / energy-out benefits from the additional "green" power.

Fair enough and I follow that.
I respect Apple’s efforts and fully understand that with their choice of geographic and architectural diversity, some (rented heritage) buildings (in shopping malls) remain dependent on brown energy.
And they drive ordinary cars, because not everyone owns a Tesla. And they serve meat at restaurants, as most lunchrooms do.
So the best they can do, is exactly as you say “pump into the electrical grid to decrease the need for fossil-fuel-generated electricity“ => also known as greenwashing, at some scale.
As they do under full (CERt value) authorisation which is OK, regard it as the best possible compromise. It is documented in: https://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Responsibility_Report_2017.pdf
For the same reason, we have to conclude that they haven’t completed the full green energy transition as the headline here suggests. As no other company of its size has.
So the 100% clean energy claim is not justified (as of yet) as that is in contradiction with the above and responsibility report.
I can’t help that either as I can’t deny facts.

(Note that a 100% clean electricity discussion is pretty ludicrous, as so many non-production companies already have that: office-only ops like accountancies, consultants, ngo, government etc.
reserve that discussion for @hobrilliance !)

 

[fmalloy]

What a load of nonsense...
[doublepost=1523355989][/doublepost]
So are you saying it would be better if Apple just said F it, let's just use fossil fuels to power all of our buildings???
[doublepost=1523356045][/doublepost]
You got any numbers on all those iPhones in landfills? hahahahaha
[doublepost=1523356312][/doublepost]
I guess we'll never know for sure, but what evidence would be sufficient for you to believe them?

It's a load of nonsense? All sounds plausible to me...

Maybe you can explain to me then where all the millions of iPhones go every two years when they're replaced? Yes, some of the get re-sold. Some of the owners go thru the huge hassle of trudging to the Apple Store and waiting for an expensive battery replacement. Many, many of them are trashed:

https://www.ecowatch.com/ever-wonde...an-570-million-iphones-sold-s-1882178171.html

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, only 12.5 percent of electronic waste, or e-waste, is recycled in the U.S.

There are numbers in the article above, or a simple search will show a lot more info.

Apple has sold more than 1 billion phones.

 

[Bacillus]

It's a load of nonsense? All sounds plausible to me...

Maybe you can explain to me then where all the millions of iPhones go every two years when they're replaced? Yes, some of the get re-sold. Some of the owners go thru the huge hassle of trudging to the Apple Store and waiting for an expensive battery replacement. Many, many of them are trashed:

https://www.ecowatch.com/ever-wonde...an-570-million-iphones-sold-s-1882178171.html

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, only 12.5 percent of electronic waste, or e-waste, is recycled in the U.S.

There are numbers in the article above, or a simple search will show a lot more info.

Apple has sold more than 1 billion phones.

This is a huge, huge problem worldwide. iPhones have the advantage of a 2nd, 3rd, sometimes 4th life but finally they end up in huge piles of waste. Apple could play a role in that if it were to start a large scale recollection program, pay serious deposit money, and start organizing bulk recycling.
Currently, LIAM is only a PR instrument/gadget that processes less than 0.1% percent of the crop, if anything.

 

[Bacillus]

I’ll spell it out to you: this is only about electricity. Nothing in Apple or the Fast Company article suggests otherwise. You are either obstinate, slow or both to keep harping on in the contrary.

I have checked the claim that Apple is now powered with 100% green energy at the National Energy Conservation Agency (ECN) in the Netherlands.
That claim certainly doesn’t hold and Tim Cook - who is a frequent flyer - should be aware of that.
The Auditor dept. qualifies it as either misleading or a falsification.
And it doesn’t matter whether the Fast article is about electricity (or hungarian soup, or mosquito repellant, for that matter) - which is up to you

 

[ohbrilliance]

I have checked the claim that Apple is now powered with 100% green energy at the National Energy Conservation Agency (ECN) in the Netherlands.
That claim certainly doesn’t hold and Tim Cook - who is a frequent flyer - should be aware of that.
The Auditor dept. qualifies it as either misleading or a falsification.
And it doesn’t matter whether the Fast article is about electricity (or hungarian soup, or mosquito repellant, for that matter) - which is up to you

Link or correspondence? Fast article *and the very article that this entire discussion is about in the lead story* are both only about electricity. I have yet to see any claim by Apple that they are 100% renewable across all energy sources.

 

[Bacillus]

Link or correspondence? Fast article *and the very article that this entire discussion is about in the lead story* are both only about electricity. I have yet to see any claim by Apple that they are 100% renewable across all energy sources.

It doesn’t matter whether the Fast article is about electricity or hungarian soup or whatever, saving me a lot of bee and whacking with you.
The claim in the title is inconsistent with remaining brown energy use: hence misleading or false

 

[diipii]

"We're committed to leaving the world better than we found it"
So when's he leaving ?

 

[Bacillus]

"We're committed to leaving the world better than we found it"
So when's he leaving ?

That indeed is a ludicrous statement for a production company depleting the earth from rare metals (berillium, molybdenium, europium, lithium, tin) before it even implemented a global mass recycling program to collect all the e-waste.
Lots of pilots & PR but nothing substantial.
Still making irrepairable designs.
Still using glue and extra shatterprone glass iPhone backsides with 1000's of more durable materials available.
Indeed, fire those clowns who seem to interprete "a better world" apparently to their own advantage first before solving these issues.
Oh wait, they made Apple 100% green....
(nope)
No more lectures about a better world from those that redefine their own failure as a success via their PR agencies.
It is ridiculous that I can buy a $5 keyboard that performs better than that in a $3000 MacBook. This economic exploitation clearly is not a sustainable model and hopefully these giant rip-off companies will cease to exist.
May Chinese selling power wipe them off the chart soon (which will offer new challenges btw...)

 

[ohbrilliance]

It doesn’t matter whether the Fast article is about electricity or hungarian soup or whatever, saving me a lot of bee and whacking with you.
The claim in the title is inconsistent with remaining brown energy use: hence misleading or false

So this whole squabble is on a headline from a third party website, and that somehow implies Apple makes that claim? Talk about misrepresentation and pointlessness. The only relevant headline is Apple’s:
Apple now globally powered by 100 percent renewable energy

Powered.

 

[Bacillus]

So this whole squabble is on a headline from a third party website, and that somehow implies Apple makes that claim? Talk about misrepresentation and pointlessness. The only relevant headline is Apple’s:
Apple now globally powered by 100 percent renewable energy

Powered.

...equivalent (as partly greenwashed)

 

[ohbrilliance]

...equivalent (as partly greenwashed)

All electricity used is either directly from their own generation or from RECs of protects that Apple has a direct hand in management. From The Fast Company article:

"Apple prefers to buy power from renewable energy projects where the company played some role–by either investing capital up front or committing to buying the power produced there for a long time, sometimes decades.". See also the reference to additionality.

The closest to greenwashing I can find is the statement "Apple is now offsetting the brown power used by that office with RECs from one of its green-power projects in Brazil.". So, even that is offset by one of Apple's own green-power projects. It just happens to be in a different region. Not ideal, but not greenwashing either.

Unless I've missed something I can't find a single example of Apple buying offsets without the generation having come from a direct investment or ownership by Apple. At this point in this tiresome conversation, I'd be happy to find out it's otherwise.

 

[BigMcGuire]

Not sure if it means much but thanks @ohbrilliance and @Bacillus - had a lot of fun reading all the effort you two put into this. Nice work. (And will continue to if continued) .

 

[Bacillus]

All electricity used is either directly from their own generation or from RECs of protects that Apple has a direct hand in management. From The Fast Company article:
"Apple prefers to buy power from renewable energy projects where the company played some role–by either investing capital up front or committing to buying the power produced there for a long time, sometimes decades.". See also the reference to additionality.
The closest to greenwashing I can find is the statement "Apple is now offsetting the brown power used by that office with RECs from one of its green-power projects in Brazil.". So, even that is offset by one of Apple's own green-power projects. It just happens to be in a different region. Not ideal, but not greenwashing either.
Unless I've missed something I can't find a single example of Apple buying offsets without the generation having come from a direct investment or ownership by Apple. At this point in this tiresome conversation, I'd be happy to find out it's otherwise.

By using the phrases global and 100% in a single sentence, the author commits himself to assessment on a worldwide scale. In that respect, singular attention for brown power in a particular single office in Brazil is micro assessment. Nice but incomplete.
And misleading, as thousands of premises in classical buildings and shopping malls all over the World all consume to brown energy for heating, so a true global assessment shouldn’t be Brazil-only.
Apple employees in cars worldwide also use brown energy, employees flying across the world use brown energy (T. Cook as a frequent flyer should know that...), employees eating meat for lunch do.
Apple compensates that, which is the best they can do, but the fact that they trade those brown energy units for solar in another part of the world implies that they practice compensation (which does NOT have a negative connotation for me, because I couldn’t figure how to do that any different)
On the other hand, when denying that compensation as it happens in the single headline, this becomes greenwashing which is misleading.
Adding the word “equivalence” could repair that - which is just as elementary as necessary as an addition in such a comprehensive statement.
This is not my personal assessment, this is how the ECN in the Netherlands and int’l energy agencies consider it.

 

[Bacillus]

Not sure if it means much but thanks @ohbrilliance and @Bacillus - had a lot of fun reading all the effort you two put into this. Nice work. (And will continue to if continued) .

Thx for yr support.
Be welcome to participate...