Apple Progressing Towards 2030 Goal of Having Carbon Neutral Supply Chain

[tubomac]

LOL Big Deal. They release new models every year and push you to replace on a yearly cycle. Who cares if they rEcYcLe them. They make huge quantities and push people to buy them every year despite the fact there is no real reason to. Ewaste kings.

Exactly!
few decades ago, when I was young, people was smart enought to understand a little bit that concept called "conflict of interests". If you are a company you have the right, of course, to make as much money you want but.... but you can't be the "inspector" of yourself. This is why, if you really want to know the truth about things, you should know the simplest rules of all times that once was known as "follow the money". If you do that you understand why che carbon impact, the climate change and so on are b***s**ts to made the companies richer and able control better the people. Because the truth is that there are a lot of things more damaging for the environment but unfortunately they are not b***s**ts so you can't transmute them in "stocks" and then make "trafficking" with other companies or other countries. Apple is the company (althoug I love their products) that makes laptops where if you have a keyboard, a battery or a display problem, you probably need to buy another laptop. But as I said, it's not Apple' s fault, it's our fault because we let Apple do the inspector and the supervised of itself. And reading many of comments I see that people are happy that Apple is the inspector of itself.

 

[Vref]

Exactly!
few decades ago, when I was young, people was smart enought to understand a little bit that concept called "conflict of interests". If you are a company you have the right, of course, to make as much money you want but.... but you can't be the "inspector" of yourself. This is why, if you really want to know the truth about things, you should know the simplest rules of all times that once was known as "follow the money". If you do that you understand why che carbon impact, the climate change and so on are b***s**ts to made the companies richer and able control better the people. Because the truth is that there are a lot of things more damaging for the environment but unfortunately they are not b***s**ts so you can't transmute them in "stocks" and then make "trafficking" with other companies or other countries. Apple is the company (althoug I love their products) that makes laptops where if you have a keyboard, a battery or a display problem, you probably need to buy another laptop. But as I said, it's not Apple' s fault, it's our fault because we let Apple do the inspector and the supervised of itself. And reading many of comments I see that people are happy that Apple is the inspector of itself.

I agree to a point, ultimately the customer is the inspector, if enough people don’t like their product and they don’t buy it, well

 

[goobot]

So dumb. Companies treating plant food like it's some sort of toxic and hazardous substance.

Manure is plant food, feel free to eat some and tell us how it goes

 

[Vref]

Manure is plant food, feel free to eat some and tell us how it goes

Or folks are like something is “all natural”

Yeah so is asbestos and arsenic

 

[lepidotós]

To all the skeptics. If Apple were lying about this don't you think Greenpeace and all the environmental activists would be all over them like stink on poop?​

You say that like Greenpeace has any idea of what they're talking about and don't just throw around buzzwords to make themselves seem competent when they're the PETA of environmentalism. I wouldn't say they're lying so much as they're saying "we did it reddit" in response to asking their suppliers nicely to use less fossil fuels. I mean, I doubt it's very environmentally friendly to do the massive curtailing of Mac models they did with Ventura when a genuine cutoff based on any real technical purpose would be just now restricting new macOS versions to Haswell Macs, or to solder on the storage making every new Mac a piece of e-waste straight from the factory. This also means that """refurbished""" Macs are just new Macs that they could skimp out on making a new chassis for, which isn't especially green either. I got it the wrong way around, which is good. But it does mean you get pre-used NANDs.
If they really wanted to be green, they'd de-emphasize recycling and focus their efforts on getting the lifespan of a Mac up to 12 or more years. Even if it's no longer some workhorse, it can still be used as a school machine for a kid, a web scroller, a cookbook, a server... my PowerBook G4 is probably still slightly more powerful in general purpose use than any random Chromebook you can pick out of a crowd, if for no other reason than it can (and does) run Linux and thus any arbitrary Linux software that's compiled for ppc32, which is more than you'd think -- ~99% of Debian's sid repo is built for ppc32.​

 

[Ronlap]

So they will be building product in factories run by waterwheels and shipping on 4-masted schooners? That's the only way I can think of them being carbon neutral. Anything else is smoke and mirrors.

 

[DarkOcean]

Thanks, this thread reminded me why I don't visit the forums here. While I know it isn't helpful to call people dumbasses, unproductive, etc, etc - it sure would be nice if people stopped acting like them. One of the biggest hurdles we have with climate action is ignorance.

 

[Razorpit]

In case you forgot your high school biology course, plants like CO2, but humans breathe out CO2 because it is toxic to our cells. It’s literally a waste product. So of course the CO2 should be pumped to organisms that can use it. They remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and produce food as a result, so it’s a win-win. This is done so we have a tomorrow.

I assume you’re playing the fool to cast doubt on the science of climate change. How about a little experiment. Fill up that greenhouse completely with CO2 from an emissions source of your choice and see what happens to the temperature and to the plants inside.

CO2 makes up .04% of the atmosphere and water vapor is ~ 1%. Water vapor is by far a bigger influencer of temperature, contributing ~97%. By your example let’s fill the greenhouses up with water and see what happens! What’s that? Doesn’t make sense you say? Well….

Manure is plant food, feel free to eat some and tell us how it goes

Oh man, so many pithy responses that I’m not allowed to make. 🙊

 

[gund1234]

a


riiiiiight

If you believe that, I’d have loved to have met you back in my sales days

I used data, you stated your opinion.