Apple Sees Success With Efforts to Protect Working Forests in North Carolina

[MacRumors]

Apple's partnership with The Conservation Fund to protect working forests has begun to show returns for both Apple and the state of North Carolina, according to information the organization shared with the Triangle Business Journal.

Apple vice president of environment, policy and social initiatives Lisa Jackson shared the article covering Apple's conservation efforts on Twitter this afternoon.

Environmental protection = good for the planet & economy. Yet another example through our work with @ConservationFnd https://t.co/XUMRMybdfy - Lisa P. Jackson (@lisapjackson) March 15, 2017

Jena Thompson Meredith, vice president of business partnerships at The Conservation Fund, says Apple's purchase of forest land in North Carolina and Maine has protected 36,000 acres of sustainable forest.

In 2016, the group harvested more than 13,000 metric tons of wood between the two forests, she says, though she did not break that number down by state.

She says the collective annual production from the forests in North Carolina and Maine was equivalent to about 30 percent of the virgin fiber used in Apple's product packaging for 2015.

With survey work, site prep, and harvesting and planting, the Brunswick Forest portion of the project has employed more than 30 people in logging operations in North Carolina, resulting in more than 10 jobs per 1,000 acres.

The effort has also protected North Carolina's Green Swamp Preserve, which is home to six rare species, including the Venus flytrap. Across 300 of the the 3,600 acres Apple purchased in North Carolina, The Conservation Fund has planted an additional 185,000 trees. 40 acres of those include the native longleaf pine and the Atlantic white cedar, both of which provide a home to a rare butterfly.

Apple first partnered with The Conservation Fund in April of 2015, purchasing thousands of acres of working forest for its paper supplies.

At the time, Apple said it was aiming to use paper more efficiently by increasing recycled paper content, sourcing paper sustainably, and conserving acreage of working forests around the world equivalent to its virgin paper footprint.

More than 99 percent of Apple's product packaging in 2015 came from paper that was recycled or sourced from sustainably managed forests, according to the company's 2016 environmental report.

Article Link: Apple Sees Success With Efforts to Protect Working Forests in North Carolina

 

[JosephAW]

Of course all those cell phone batteries are killing the environment in other countries.

 

[brendu]

Of course all those cell phone batteries are killing the environment in other countries.

This is true but unavoidable in the world we currently live in. At least Apple is taking steps to do some positive things for the environment even though they don't have to. I call that a plus for the company.

 

[nwcs]

I am critical of Apple where I think they deserve it but I applaud efforts like this. There is much everyone can do to preserve and conserve. Sure, this is a small effort but at least it's been made. I hope for more worldwide. Sadly the reality is most people don't care about the natural world.

 

[jayducharme]

At this point in time, efforts like this are much needed. Apple is smart to work with individual states.

 

[Vanilla35]

I hope that one species of butterfly is happy.

To be less sarcastic though, I'm glad they make efforts to bring back x amount of forest area, for taking down y amount of forest area. I still think their conservation efforts are mostly marketing ********, but I believe in this one having real non political effects. More than the one species of butterfly will be happy here.

 

[Porco]

It's tempting to make jokes about Apple being somewhat technological butterflies themselves, but this is very positive news.

Personally I'd like to see every company that uses a large amount of natural resources to be legally compelled to do so sustainably and responsibly wherever possible, on a global basis. Apple is in the fortunate (or earned, to some degree) position that it can comfortably afford to do the right thing when it comes to environmental issues like this. Other companies with tighter profit margins have to balance the need to be profitable with their environmental responsibilities. So long as it's optional to behave responsibly, there will unfortunately always be those who feel they have no chioce other than to put their profits before things that matter to everyone.

Still, however one frames it reports like this one are a good thing, and certainly make me feel better about buying using Apple's products, not to mention enjoying their packaging as part of that experience.

 

[coolfactor]

Trees are absolutely essential to the health of our planet. Every tree that is removed for "human satisfaction or profit" destroys a part of the planet. We should all be planting one new tree a month.

 

[ateslik]

a lot to like about this article.

 

[5105973]

I'm impressed. And happy to see some good news here. Yay Apple.

 

[riverfreak]

Very little of value worth harvesting from North Carolina anyways. Might as well clear cut those forests along with all the backasswardness and make some more iPhone boxes.

 

[Menneisyys2]

Too bad their SSD's are now soldered in (and I don't even mention RAM); that is, the entire motherboard needs to be dumped if the SSD goes wrong. So much for "environment protection"...

 

[macs4nw]

Too bad their SSD's are now soldered in (and I don't even mention RAM); that is, the entire motherboard needs to be dumped if the SSD goes wrong. So much for "environment protection"...

You mean 'profit-protection'......

 

[sully54]

Too bad their SSD's are now soldered in (and I don't even mention RAM); that is, the entire motherboard needs to be dumped if the SSD goes wrong. So much for "environment protection"...

The stuff logic boards are made of are highly recyclable and valuable. Defective ones definitely don't just get "dumped."

 

[mw360]

Too bad their SSD's are now soldered in (and I don't even mention RAM); that is, the entire motherboard needs to be dumped if the SSD goes wrong. So much for "environment protection"...

Whether that's good for the environment is debatable, but Apple have certainly flubbed their eco message in that area. That video a while back showing their robot extracting gold from old iPhones was a huge PR backfire in my opinion. If unrepairable devices are better for the environment, they really need to come out and say it. And prove it.

That said, this tree business and all their renewable energy projects are great things. If they are also good PR then that's even better - it would suggest public attitudes aren't as regressive as some events would have us believe.

 

[diipii]

"Working forest" is a tree farm.
"Conservation fund" is an investment for profit.
Putting a photo of a beautiful natural forest glade dappled with sunlight is a lie.

 

[robotica]

.... but the Irish forrests must be cut down and paved over.

 

[Col4bin]

I wholeheartedly applaud Apple's efforts with protecting the environment. I can just imagine TC dressed up as Dr. Seuss' Lorax, "I'm Tim Cook and I speak for the trees..." Got get 'em Tim!

 

[Boatboy24]

Apple's partnership with The Conservation Fund to protect working forests has begun to show returns for both Apple and the state of North Carolina...

What about the retired forests? Who is protecting them?

 

[Sill]

Personally I'd like to see every company that uses a large amount of natural resources to be legally compelled to do so sustainably and responsibly wherever possible, on a global basis. Apple is in the fortunate (or earned, to some degree) position that it can comfortably afford to do the right thing when it comes to environmental issues like this. Other companies with tighter profit margins have to balance the need to be profitable with their environmental responsibilities. So long as it's optional to behave responsibly, there will unfortunately always be those who feel they have no chioce other than to put their profits before things that matter to everyone.

Your statement contradicts itself. If the margins are tighter for some companies, state compulsion of conservation efforts will lead to job loss in the short term, and possible insolvency in the long term. Of course, progressives will paint that as, "They'd rather go out of business rather than pay a living wage/take care of Mother Earth". (No, I'm not saying you're a progressive, just pointing out the most probably result of such a policy.)

Its not necessary to use statute compulsion to get the desired ends. Apple, under Steve Jobs, made conservation efforts and direction a part of their corporate culture. Those efforts are bringing conservation dividends today. A private company saw that conservation was the best thing for their business model and no one had to pass a law to do it. Other companies are already there, or playing catch-up, but it will happen. Current society is just too dialed-in to conservation issues via the information age to let anyone get away with anything.

While people were trying to "get someone to pass a law" about the use of chemicals in foods- HFCS as an example - a lot of companies saw the growing public backlash over engineered foods and chemical additives and have now made clean foods a selling point. The market determined the best course of action, no legislation necessary.
While a lot of people were crying over high gas prices 5-6 years ago, and petitioning their Congressmen to get someone to pass a law regulating those evil oil companies (that were severely restricted from new exploration and building new refineries to augment the ones nearing 100 percent production), corporations with overseas manufacturing of large goods such as home furniture took notice of their transport costs and built factories here. Which coincidentally headed off the citizens groups who were petitioning to pass a law to require companies to manufacture here. No one needed a law, the market took the signals and corrected things to compensate.

As long as we can keep government from getting involved and distorting market signals, keep them from propping up untenable positions ("too big to fail!", while those positions were failing...), and keep them from regulating markets through subsidies, purchase minimums/maximums, banal "quality experience" rules (see USDA regs on fruit and vegetable appearance), and a list of other things too long to discuss here, things will work out, and generally for the best for everyone involved.

 

[neliason]

The NC forest as noted is a swamp forest. It is good that it is being well manged and it has its own kind of beauty. But most folks would find it kind of unpleasant.

Very little of value worth harvesting from North Carolina anyways. Might as well clear cut those forests along with all the backasswardness and make some more iPhone boxes.

The home of several highly regarded universities, SAS, and Red Hat is backwards. OK.