I don't think Trumps decision hinders your scenario in any way. And I also like your scenario. The way most see it, we will move to renewables over the next 30 years or so and then sell our oil to other countries. The problem is people want us to switch off our oil TODAY when the renewable tech isn't ready. Patience.
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 Reiterates Commitment to Obama Era Climate Pledge
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is a weird comment.
Who makes a user upgradable (and now waterproof) phone? Is the iPhone really short lived?...My youngest kid has my iPhone5.
After using, do you throw yours out when you buy a new one?
Also, after purchased then reused, reused, reused, reusing, it still works...after that, it is recyclable.
A pessimist and a whiner.
Thank you, you just demonstrated that you aren't a scientist. You're an ideologue that poses as a scientist, in an attempt to convince the gullible.
If reduction of carbon dioxide emissions was indeed as important as you claim, then you would welcome a 45% reduction per energy unit, especially one that can be implemented quickly and at a comparable cost without government subsidy.
While I don't know any concrete cases (do you?), sure, it might be possible, just like in any profession in the world. But because there's one corrupt doctor, you don't go to the hospital anymore because they're all quaks?
Last edited:
There's also a party that has a huge financial interest in promoting the "science" (guess who).
Go live in a big Chinese city for a year or talk to someone who lived in New York in the 50s/60s.
Your perception will change
Go live in a big Chinese city for a year or talk to someone who lived in New York in the 50s/60s.
Your perception will change
Whoops, I clicked reply too quickly. Thankfully, I can edit.....
Particulate air pollution and "climate change" are two different problems.
Yes, air pollution was bad. But, technology is now able to scrub the pollutants from the source.
I also remember that the "green" religion tried to use air pollution as a reason to limit fossil fuel usage. Unfortunately for them, it wasn't necessary.
Last edited:
But it will take years to figure out the dynamics of this matrix.
1) Fracking does not cut CO2 emissions. That's one of those "alternative facts". In reality, a lot of methane and green house gases escape during the fracking process. Taking those into account, fracking is even worse than coal.
2) Even if fracking was C02 neutral, it would still not qualify as a green-energy source because of the local (not related to climate change) pollution it causes. Let me state this clearly: Fracking is the worst possible way to generate energy.
3) While nuclear is indeed one of the best CO2 neutral energy sources, the environment (and us with it) is exposed to huge risks if something goes wrong. So huge, we might never recover from them. So, that's why it's also not a green-energy solution. The debate on whether we should take that risk and switch entirely to nuclear to cut CO2 emission in the short term, is an interesting one. While opponents argue that it's better to leapfrog to proper green solutions, even if these are further down the horizon.
The difference between a good scientist and a ideologist? The former trusts on facts, even if those turn out to not support their claim. The latter only quotes what fits their narrow viewpoint.
Just ignore him - clearly a suppressive person. May Lord Xenu have pity on his ignorant soul.
At least Elon Musk is smart enough to realize that humans are capable of creating machines that will become our overlords.
Stupid cows... they think humans are SO smart. Clearly not as smart as the AI they're developing that will be smarter than they are at the pinnacle of all smarty-smartness for ever and ever forever more.
The next time you deny science, I hope gravity just releases you and sends you flying out into orbit where you'll like totally freeze and explode - because you probably don't even know how to make a cool suit like Iron Man, you denier of settled scientific settlement accords approved by all the nations that united in agreement about uniting over things that unite them in peace, love, and harmony the world over to save us all - for which they also give out prizes, one of which Obama totally won because he's super awesome peaceful and knows lots of stuff that you don't.
And that's why President Clinton won, before the Russians rigged the polls and interfered - and now there's a big cover-up about it because everyone knew that was happening all along. So now we have to suffer under some orange clown idiot because of the Russians who were so sneaky and underhanded, which we wouldn't have known about except she lost and the polls all said she would win and they're not wrong because she won the popular vote like they said she would where all of the smart people live.
If you deny the climate again, you're REALLY gonna trigger me to the point I'll restrict your freedom of speech and go off on an even bigger tangent on you!
You must be BLIND not to see the hypocrisy levels rising right before your very eyes!
At least Elon Musk is smart enough to realize that humans are capable of creating machines that will become our overlords.
Stupid cows... they think humans are SO smart. Clearly not as smart as the AI they're developing that will be smarter than they are at the pinnacle of all smarty-smartness for ever and ever forever more.
The next time you deny science, I hope gravity just releases you and sends you flying out into orbit where you'll like totally freeze and explode - because you probably don't even know how to make a cool suit like Iron Man, you denier of settled scientific settlement accords approved by all the nations that united in agreement about uniting over things that unite them in peace, love, and harmony the world over to save us all - for which they also give out prizes, one of which Obama totally won because he's super awesome peaceful and knows lots of stuff that you don't.
And that's why President Clinton won, before the Russians rigged the polls and interfered - and now there's a big cover-up about it because everyone knew that was happening all along. So now we have to suffer under some orange clown idiot because of the Russians who were so sneaky and underhanded, which we wouldn't have known about except she lost and the polls all said she would win and they're not wrong because she won the popular vote like they said she would where all of the smart people live.
If you deny the climate again, you're REALLY gonna trigger me to the point I'll restrict your freedom of speech and go off on an even bigger tangent on you!
You must be BLIND not to see the hypocrisy levels rising right before your very eyes!
Are we all in agreement? No. Then my point stands - we are all in dispute.
I take it you are a world renowned climate scientist to be making these claims? Because if you aren't then I will go with the thousands of scientists of who all agree C02 is affecting the climate.
Yah, nice way to twist that around for your own needs.
While I agree that Apple's "appliance" approach is disappointing in terms of upgradability, they also build highly-recyclable products, and continue to push towards simplification of their products' designs on several levels. Logic boards in portable Macs are getting so small, the amount of material used to make them is 1/100th the size of what it was 20 years ago, and yet those boards have 100x more power. There's no way to make such small boards user-upgradable. And an increasing use of lower-power components also has an impact in the grand scheme. We'll be able to do 100x the work on 1/100th the power.
Yah, these numbers are pulled out of the sky, but the point remains. And at the end of the day, it's up to the consumer to dispose of their products responsibly. Here in BC, Canada, you can take all electronics and appliances to any bottle depot for recycling, and these depots are in every community. Support for environmental protection is happening at many levels. Designing a product is just one of many.
[doublepost=1490970422][/doublepost]
Clear communication is very important.
The discussion around oil is specific to "energy".... burning it to move our clunky vehicles. THAT is going away.
What blathering nonsense from an unfathomable pinhead. Apple products have resale value, reliable pathways for recycling, and usefulness beyond their years. Apple even has a machine to disassemble devices for recycling. I recently sold my original iPad 2 to Gazelle and it was easy to do. I have been using Apple products since 1982 and not a single one wound up in a landfill.
You have it backwards. Yours is the weird comment.
Who makes a user upgradable phone? That's the whole point, no one does yet they get on their soapbox shouting about how environmentally conscience they are.
It's great your kid is using your iPhone 5, but you know what Apple has already officially obsoleted the iPhone 5. So it might work just fine with a new battery but you can't put iOS 10 on it which means a lot of apps won't work with it. So it won't be all that functional or useful to many and most people will heap them in the trash. That is what is referred to as planned obsolescence.
But Apple also makes things like computers. And those too are largely not upgradable, and yes, they use to be. You once could easily extend a laptop's life by upgrading RAM and hard drives. Some Mac Pros you could even pop in a new processor. That isn't the case anymore.
And while recycling is good, there are natural resources needed to make electronics which cannot be recycled. Mining these resources has it's own environmental consequences and these materials are not forever. Doesn't it make sense to build electronics that are meant to last more than 5 years? Why 5 years? because that is when Apple says it can stop support for it's products, by support I mean OS updates too -- ones that are needed for some software to work.
So yes, if Apple really wanted to be an eco industry leader rather than put out press releases it would actually design products with the environment first and thinnest second. I don't know anyone with an old cheese grater MP that said "hey Apple what we want is a round computer than becomes a doorstop in 4 years." "I don't know any MBP owner that said hey Apple my laptop is about .5 too thick. Please make it thinner by soldering everything together." Yes, Apple can do a lot better. Sorry.
My own needs? Why is the substantive benefit of a slightly slimmer MacBook? Or a less upgradable MP? And compared to it's net effect on the environment?
Last edited:
The bulk of carbon emissions produced by IT companies such as Apple, Google and Amazon is actually produced by powering large datacenters, which run the "cloud" you are relying on every day (as well as this very site). The emissions from datacenters are about the same as those caused by air travel already, and still growing rapidly. So yes, these companies can do a lot to reduce the damage.
Anyone who studies climate patterns knows that there is an ebb and flow to them. That's just the way it works. Is climate change real? Certainly. Is it a bad thing? Eh, the jury's still out on that.
It doesn't help your cause, though, when you are a big investor in green energy companies and then you tell everyone they have a responsibility to "go green" to save the planet. That comes across as a greedy attempt to line your own pocket disguised as benevolence. I'm looking at you, Al Gore:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...868e65d57eb_story.html?utm_term=.c290707ca21d
It doesn't help your cause, though, when you are a big investor in green energy companies and then you tell everyone they have a responsibility to "go green" to save the planet. That comes across as a greedy attempt to line your own pocket disguised as benevolence. I'm looking at you, Al Gore:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...868e65d57eb_story.html?utm_term=.c290707ca21d
There is no dispute among the people who have seriously studied the issue.