Apple Suppliers Donate to Restore Fund for Sustainable Forests and Other Carbon Removal Projects

[DeverillRP]

I'm both an Economics and Linguistics researcher and I've been puzzled since last year's announcement. See, I live in Brazil, and there's no specificity to exactly what forests Apple is rebuilding/replanting or whatever.

Furthermore, there is a very well-known trend of using land that is already protected (or was supposed to be) for "carbon credits" initiatives. In the Amazon rainforest, several portions of land that were already supposed to be protected reserves or assigned to the ownership of indigenous peoples (who also keep them protected just by living there) were ilegally taken away by private companies or people (we call them "grileiros") and then used for these carbon neutral initiatives.

This "BTG Pactual" is a Brazilian conglomerate already involved in several fraud controversies regarding sustainability and deforestation.


The aggravating fact, for me, is that this Restore Fund is just a buzzword. Yes, it is an investment fund. It is a private investment fund, with no detailed information about its initiatives, how they use their funds and what their profit is.

 

[robd003]

I wish Apple wouldn't waste money on pure idiot projects like this. Give the shareholders a bigger dividend or cut prices.

If you care about pollution, then target the places that matter: China & India

 

[CarAnalogy]

I suspect a mixture of the two... sometimes it is hard to see where the money goes... actually seeing what they are doing etc... its easy to make announcements and throw a little bit of cash... much harder to implement it.

Just once I want some corporation to just say "We hired these guys right here to plant a bunch of trees. Look at these trees. Here are the receipts."

Maybe I'm just far too unsophisticated with these things but I don't see a lot of that part of it. Maybe it's buried in the corporate filing. Now I want to dig up documents on this fund.

Please someone who really believes this is a worthwhile project come and throw me some links.

letsomeonegooglethatforme.com

 

[coffeemilktea]

Apple could do a LOT to stop e-waste by making the components of their products easier to replace or upgrade, but that's probably asking too much of them.

They'll make more money by doing what they're already doing, even if that means that a lot of their laptops sold in 2024 will wind up in a landfill by 2032 when they stop getting OS updates (or if the individual components break down when the device is out of warranty, or the person using it realizes they can't upgrade their RAM so they have enough memory to run current software, or.....). 😔

Much easier to get money from people with planned obsolescence and upselling people to get better hardware, and then donating a small percentage of it to some environmental causes. ($200 million may seem like a lot, but Apple did just light $10 billion dollars on fire for the Apple Car project before flushing it all down the drain).

 

[eifelbube]

Which supercomputer did you use to figure all this out? It's amazing. No matter what Apple does, there will always be a MR poster to find fault with it.

You do not need a super computer to figure this out, just common sense. Apple is not the only environmental hypocrite among the tech giants.

 

[burgman]

It is for birds.
In one country in one year.
"The American Bird Conservancy has utilized data from the U.S. Wind Turbine Database to determine that approximately 538,000 wind turbine-caused bird deaths occur each year."

Wind industry faces questions about turbines killing birds

Editor’s Note: This is the second in a series of articles the Abilene Reflector-Chronicle will publish over the next several weeks, which will address the pros and cons, the opposition

www.abilene-rc.com

That’s a drop in the bucket compared to over two billion birds killed by house and feral cats. Not the mention the number that are close to extinction because of cats.

How Many Birds Do Cats Kill Every Year? Statistics to Know in 2025 | PangoVet

If you own an outdoor cat or have seen one hunt down a bird before, you might not think it's a big deal but with so many cats now available, the statistics will surprise you.

petkeen.com

 

[Harry Haller]

That’s a drop in the bucket compared to over two billion birds killed by house and feral cats. Not the mention the number that are close to extinction because of cats.

How Many Birds Do Cats Kill Every Year? Statistics to Know in 2025 | PangoVet

If you own an outdoor cat or have seen one hunt down a bird before, you might not think it's a big deal but with so many cats now available, the statistics will surprise you.

petkeen.com

Ah, the two wrongs make a right.
Gotcha.

 

[coolfactor]

It’s true that windmills kill $Bignum birds.

But CO2 pollution kills $MegaHugeInsaneBignum birds, which means that switching from mining hydrocarbons to windmills would mean a $HugeInsaneBignum reduction in bird deaths.

Also worth noting is that wind energy is indirect solar energy. In certain geographic locations, it’s highly concentrated and so especially economically effective; however, simply covering a significant fraction of existing rooftops globally with solar panels would provide significantly more energy than hydrocarbon mining currently does — and 100% rooftop coverage would far outstrip even the most outlandish intense-energy-usage future dreams (outside of science fiction).

Of course, that kind of solar coverage wouldn’t be cheap … but we’re all out of cheap options. We literally dug up the cheapest options and set them on fire.

Then again, within rounding, solar panels are just glass, and their prices are in freefall. They’re already the cheapest utility-scale new installations. It won’t be all that long before it’ll literally be cheaper to decommission existing power plants and replace them with solar — storage and long-distance transmission included.

b&

LOCAL power generation is where we need to get to. Wind, solar, geothermal... at the point of need. Reduce the waste involved with transmission lines.

Apple is already contributing tremendously to lowering power needs of individual devices.

The wording of this is so confusing.

They're donating to restore a fund...for renewable project and trees.

I guess in a way they are.

I want to avoid my usual cynicism here and assume that this is all exactly as it seems at face value and hope they really are tangibly restoring land and not just getting tax write-offs.

"Restore Fund" is the name of the fund.

 

[CarAnalogy]

LOCAL power generation is where we need to get to. Wind, solar, geothermal... at the point of need. Reduce the waste involved with transmission lines.

Apple is already contributing tremendously to lowering power needs of individual devices.



"Restore Fund" is the name of the fund.

Yeah I understood that after reading a bit of the article and taking an extra moment to parse the sentence. Was just one of those that was kind of baffling on first glance.

And yeah I agree the future is local power generation and storage. We can do a lot by eliminating inefficiencies. Batteries still kind of a problem though.

 

[Maz39]

They can do all of that, but they can’t put a damn charger in the box?!!

 

[szw-mapple fan]

It is for birds.
In one country in one year.
"The American Bird Conservancy has utilized data from the U.S. Wind Turbine Database to determine that approximately 538,000 wind turbine-caused bird deaths occur each year."

Wind industry faces questions about turbines killing birds

Editor’s Note: This is the second in a series of articles the Abilene Reflector-Chronicle will publish over the next several weeks, which will address the pros and cons, the opposition

www.abilene-rc.com

Yes, half a million is a sizable number of birds that shouldn’t be overlooked. However, if you put it in context of other things harming the bird population, it’s a relatively minuscule problem. Feral/stray cats are an invasive species and kill 2.4 billion birds a year. When it comes to human causes high-rise buildings alone can kill around 500 million -1 billion birds a year and vehicle collisions account for another 200 million or so. When it comes to fossil fuel production, oil pits can kill another 500k - 1 million.

For example, if we take just 10 percent of cars off the road and replace it with wind-powered public transit you’d likely save dramatically more birds than you’d kill with even a ten fold increase in wind turbines. Or, if we’re serious about saving birds, investing in catch, neuter, and release programs for feral cats is a far better investment by orders of magnitudes than campaigning against wind power.

 

[wikiverse]

It won’t be all that long before it’ll literally be cheaper to decommission existing power plants and replace them with solar — storage and long-distance transmission included.

This will never happen. For every MWh of solar or wind you install, you need to match it with a MWh of oil/gas/coal/nuclear. Because intermittent sources of power are intermittent and you need to ensure that you can spin up a reliable source of energy that can produce power for several weeks if you lack sunshine, have heavy snow or storms, etc. Batteries can provide a few hours of buffer, perhaps a couple days, but even Texas had snow storms lasting weeks.

This is why Germany is now re-commissioning their nuclear and coal plants. Australia routinely has issues with non-recyclable solar panel waste after large hail storms. Solar is not currently, and will never be, a replacement for stable, reliable forms of power generation and if people care about carbon emissions, then nuclear is the only viable solution.

 

[oldwatery]

Ironic to the max! A company that jams landfills every year with discarded phones wants to save the planet. Is this what is referred to as virtue signalling….or is it what is more like another nice Apple tax break? Utter hypocracy!

 

[Harry Haller]

Ironic to the max! A company that jams landfills every year with discarded phones wants to save the planet. Is this what is referred to as virtue signalling….or is it what is more like another nice Apple tax break? Utter hypocracy!

Yes, on all three counts.

Oopsie...

 

[steve09090]

I wish Apple wouldn't waste money on pure idiot projects like this. Give the shareholders a bigger dividend or cut prices.

If you care about pollution, then target the places that matter: China & India

Wow. 🤦🏻‍♂️

This will never happen. For every MWh of solar or wind you install, you need to match it with a MWh of oil/gas/coal/nuclear. Because intermittent sources of power are intermittent and you need to ensure that you can spin up a reliable source of energy that can produce power for several weeks if you lack sunshine, have heavy snow or storms, etc. Batteries can provider a few hours of buffer, perhaps a couple days, but even Texas had snow storms lasting weeks.

This is why Germany is now re-commissioning their nuclear and coal plants. Australia routinely has issues with non-recyclable solar panel waste after large hail storms. Solar is not currently, and will never be, a replacement for stable, reliable forms of power generation and if people care about carbon emissions, then nuclear is the only viable solution.

You conveniently forgot to mention Hydro, wave, geothermal. Also, when Solar goes down, wind usually goes up. Australia has the perfect mix of hydro, wind, solar (1/3rd of all houses), geothermal and should be using wave as well.

We are probably better off reconsidering how we use energy rather than just producing more of it. I spend AU$285 per year on electricity and I am in a cold and wet State.

 

[tsialex]

I'm all for this initiative, but Eucalyptus is a plague, completely blocks the resurgence of native species, burns like gasoline when there are forest fires.

Someone at Apple is not doing his/her job correctly and this is more greenwashing that anything.

 

[picpicmac]

And it's hilarious that people have comments downvoted just because they suggest companies should be better about prolonging the lifecycles, upgradability and serviceability of their products.

Can we really read the minds of whomever?

Here's the thing about our modern life: it is not sustainable over millennia, and probably not even over another century.

And whether Apple makes an end-user reusable aluminum computer case or not, that above statement of mine remains.

Swappable motherboards are not saving much at all, because the resources to make integrated circuits far outweighs recycling aluminum.

If one lives in the US, or any petro state, or any "first world" country, then you are consuming resources far beyond what is sustainable.

So yes, condemn Apple and their supplies for greenwashing, but don't leave out the hundreds of millions of computer (including smartphone) buyers from their own responsibility.

We can go all doomer if we want, or we can get high on hopium. Regardless, the responsibility lay with the citizens of this world.

 

[Harry Haller]

"High on hopium."
I like that.

 

[rcarter3636]

I wish Apple wouldn't waste money on pure idiot projects like this. Give the shareholders a bigger dividend or cut prices.

If you care about pollution, then target the places that matter: China & India

So true!
And wasn’t carbon neutral phrase a “feature” on the latest iPhone and Apple Watch

 

[mrr]

Planting trees are a good thing regardless of the motive. Arbor Day is Fri, Apr 26, 2024.

 

[tsialex]

Planting trees are a good thing regardless of the motive. Arbor Day is Fri, Apr 26, 2024.

Planting non-native/invasive species is always commercial cultivation, not reforestation.

 

[turbineseaplane]

No matter what Apple does, there will always be a MR poster to find fault with it.

Because it’s meant as a distraction
Don’t take Apples bait

 

[turbineseaplane]

I wish Apple wouldn't waste money on pure idiot projects like this. Give the shareholders a bigger dividend or cut prices.

If you care about pollution, then target the places that matter: China & India

I agree

Stop ripping everyone off on RAM and SSD upgrades

 

[Promostyle]

Carbon neutral is a term I find increasingly worrying when its been picked up an used by so many companies... as per the 'neutral' part... it still means you're producing CO2 during manufacturing, transport, use and recycling.. and you're just offsetting that production by doing something else to counter it.

You're not really decarbonising (and making sustainable) the lifecycle of that product. Thats way, way harder to do. Requiring new technologies, processes and materials (that use less power, produce less waste, non toxic waste). Hopefully Apple can lead some aspects of this better way to sustainability.

Exactly. As ballsy as Nike who still sell only 100% hydrocarbon plastic disposable shoes made from crude oil. That’s what net zero is all about: more of the same

 

[subjonas]

And there will always be someone to defend it. Having a critical mind is a good thing my guy/gal. It’s ok to have an opposing opinion. To me this is just a little bit of greenwashing, but I agree it’s still a positive, ulterior motive or not.

There’s a difference between critical and cynical. One questions and aims to be objective, the other only makes negative assumptions and blindly tears down. MR is overrun with the latter.