Apple to Invest in Mangrove Forest Restoration Project in Colombia

[CarlJ]

It’s in the article. They say they want to cancel out the carbon damage from the mapping. Or do I thought when I read it this morning with the preorder “hangover”. Groggy.

Ah, I see it now, somehow glossed over it the first time. Thanks.

 

[tennisproha]

Climate change is being used a distraction from the real issue that is the pollution of land, water and air from industrial waste, human activities, dead zones in the oceans, deforestation etc.

Livestock is responsible for the biggest contributions to toxic emissions and degradation of land but the supposedly “caring-sensitive” likes of Tim Cook and progressive politicians cry about climate change and are capitalizing and profiting on speeches about climate change, but few of them would be willing to go full plant based diet or do jntitatoves against meat industry. What a joke.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at. All these types of pollution ARE the contributing factors to climate change. It’s not a distraction from because they are what’s causing it. No one is denying that expect conservative bible thumping politicians. And many climate change activists DO advocate plant-based diets. You’re right about livestock.

 

[AlexGraphicD]

I live in an agricultural reserve. Growing crops is bad for the environment, too. Agricultural runoff is causing unhealthy conditions for our oceans and other bodies of water.

I have tried going to a vegetarian diet because I love animals and have been involved in animal rescue for over 20 years. I got sick as heck because I already have many dietary restrictions from autoimmune disease. And the soy in the meat substitutes was aggravating a seizure disorder. Heck there were things like oxalates in too many vegetables and gluten in grains that were causing me issues.

It would be lovely if vegans would stop assuming that what works for them can be applied to everyone and even nicer if they would stop getting in my face about it. Not that you are, but I know people in my life who do.

The best I can do is cut down meat consumption. That leaves me very little I can eat. Perhaps if industry stopped overloading fish with toxins I could make a go of it as a pescatarian, but we aren’t there yet.

I can’t go vegan, but I do pick up trash when I go out on my walks. I clean up quite an impressive amount and see interesting things while I’m at it. It’s a good feeling knowing at least what I picked up won’t end up in the storm water system and go out to sea.

Growing crops needs less land and water enormously less than meat products. Soy is just a plant, just like beans, greens etc. Vegans don’t have to consume soy products daily to survive or to enjoy food, it’s just an option that’s there.
By the way a large percentage of GMO soy is produced to feed livestock.

I would suggest you try go fully vegan and stay completely out of animal protein and I’m sure you will see major difference in your health.
A lot of autoimmune diseases are actually caused by animal protein food. That’s why these kind of diseases are abundant in the western world where animal products are accessed easily and consumed daily compared to the undeveloped world. I might post some link of studies later.

Absolutely. This week we had Beyond Meat burgers with Daiya cheddar and you honestly couldn’t tell any difference. I agree full vegan would be better but you can’t expect Joe Sixpack in Ohio who has been eating steaks twice a week his whole life to make a complete switch the plant based over night. My wife and I are lucky in that we live in NYC where there are lots of world class vegan options for restaurants as well as grocery stores that carry a wide variety of groceries.

Our issue is most of the meat we consume is seafood and there is no substitute that comes close to a good piece of salmon or shrimp, for instance.

You’re better off seafood actually. In most cases seafood is even worse than land animal meat. The level of mercury and PCB and others, found in sea animals is terrifying.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at. All these types of pollution ARE the contributing factors to climate change. It’s not a distraction from because they are what’s causing it. No one is denying that expect conservative bible thumping politicians. And many climate change activists DO advocate plant-based diets. You’re right about livestock.

I’m not trying to get anywhere. I’m just pointing out some facts. I don’t see any serious initiative to eradicate pollution in land and water, beyond talks about climate change and goals of reducing emissions. Even the recycling laws in cities are a joke. There is no serious or proper recycling process and in the end we pollute more than we are recycling big time.
By the way I’m a conservative and I’m not sure that many climate change activists do advocate plant-based diet. But I acknowledge that many conservatives also unfortunately oppose it out of lack of education on the subject and love for hunting.

 

[mikethemartian]

Climate change is being used a distraction from the real issue that is the pollution of land, water and air from industrial waste, human activities, dead zones in the oceans, deforestation etc.

Livestock is responsible for the biggest contributions to toxic emissions and degradation of land but the supposedly “caring-sensitive” likes of Tim Cook and progressive politicians cry about climate change and are capitalizing and profiting on speeches about climate change, but few of them would be willing to go full plant based diet or do jntitatoves against meat industry. What a joke.

By 2050, the oceans could have more plastic than fish. A garbage patch off the coast of Hawaii. By 2050, plastic in the oceans will outweigh fish, predicts a report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, in partnership with the World Economic Forum.
Here are some stats that back my statement above.

https://www.pressconnects.com/story...riculture-dairy-farms-clean-water/1031631002/

“Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation. ”
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

“Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”

https://gelr.org/2015/10/23/a-leadi...ve-on-it-georgetown-environmental-law-review/
«
Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years.»

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_nitrous.cfm

«Emissions for agriculture projected to increase 80% by 2050.»
http://academic.regis.edu/MFRANCO/Seminar in Biology research Literature/Papers/GobalDiets.pdf

For more stats
http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

One day in the future cultured meat will become more economically efficient than traditional farm raised meat and will probably have a smaller impact on the environment.

 

[supercoolmanchu]

Or you could, you know, just skip over the articles that aren't on topics that interest you. You are going out of your way to read a site that dedicated to reporting every story they can find about Apple.

Please stop actively trying to be a horrible person. You look awfully petulant and childish throwing your toys out of the pram. Not everything in the world is about whether your phone/computer has this button or that button. Apple is focused on making good products. As a minuscule side project they're doing a tiny bit to help the planet. Stop trying to hold the planet hostage until you get your new shiny toy.

If you’re wound that tight about the environment, you might be framing the whole subject in emotional superstitious terms, rather than a logical one.

I was interested in the article because I am concerned Apple has become unhealthy and bloated.

A big symptom of that seems to be ever increasing focus on symbolic gestures and the decreasing focus on tangible product output.

Apple isn’t going to save the planet buying a few of Columbia’s trees. It’s a purely symbolic gesture, while Apple is neglecting tangible work and mismanaging Mac/software/peripheral product lines.

BTW, home trash sorting into recycling containers accomplished nothing more than maximizing landfill company profits. They sort thru all the trash anyways, and separate out anything that can be sold off like metal and paper. I’d rather they pay someone to do that job, than myself working for them for free. Also, I’m already paying them to do this job.

You appreciate symbolism, so my disobeying the ‘rules’ of recycling morality, is my little gesture to educate humanity about their psychological addiction to death cults and apocryphal religions.

 

[AlexGraphicD]

One day in the future cultured meat will become more economically efficient than traditional farm raised meat and will probably have a smaller impact on the environment.

I don’t think we have the luxury of time to wait for an “ideal” solution. We have to take action now and settle with what we have.
Things are very critical with the pollution of the planet that’s going on.

 

[tennisproha]

I’m not trying to get anywhere. I’m just pointing out some facts. I don’t see any serious initiative to eradicate pollution in land and water, beyond talks about climate change and goals of reducing emissions. Even the recycling laws in cities are a joke. There is no serious or proper recycling process and in the end we pollute more than we are recycling big time.
By the way I’m a conservative and I’m not sure that many climate change activists do advocate plant-based diet. But I acknowledge that many conservatives also unfortunately oppose it out of lack of education on the subject and love for hunting.

I commend your effort in attempting to educate the public. I already knew that cattle and livestock are a huge contributor so I think I assumed other did too in my last post. Honestly I’m all for the push to create beef-like food. Americans aren’t giving up beef nearly as fast as we need to. And beef take absurd multiples of more land and resources to raise than agriculture. It’s ridiculous how pressing the issue is and no one seems to care.

I’ve read somewhere that the reason people don’t care more is because it’s a relatively long term issue. Humans are more inclined to care about the immediate or short term concerns than anything that they can’t see the clear evidence for, like an immediate hurricane or earthquake, as opposed to long term drought. Which is where regulation and political will have to play a major role. It’s been shown time and again that regulations work because people don’t know what’s good for them. Yet the GOP is beholden to the money of the very industries that will lose out if people change their habits. So the status quo remains as we march to our demise.

Elect better politicians. Go vote.

 

[mrow]

You’re better off seafood actually. In most cases seafood is even worse than land animal meat. The level of mercury and PCB and others, found in sea animals is terrifying.

I know, I know. But **** if I don’t love some damn seafood.

We are off red meat almost entirely anyway. We literally never have it at home, and if something calls for ground beef we use Beyond Meat beef crumbles, ground turkey or a mixture of both. The only time I still have red meat are when I get a hotdog at Costco (can’t resist...the memories...and the price) or once maybe every other month when I’m craving a burger from Shake Shack and I have to go down to Madison Square Park and get a burger and a beer and sit in the park.

 

[AlexGraphicD]

I know, I know. But **** if I don’t love some damn seafood.

We are off red meat almost entirely anyway. We literally never have it at home, and if something calls for ground beef we use Beyond Meat beef crumbles, ground turkey or a mixture of both. The only time I still have red meat are when I get a hotdog at Costco (can’t resist...the memories...and the price) or once maybe every other month when I’m craving a burger from Shake Shack and I have to go down to Madison Square Park and get a burger and a beer and sit in the park.

Now you can enjoy vegan hot dog at Costco.

https://vegnews.com/2018/7/costco-ditches-hot-dogs-to-make-room-for-vegan-options
[doublepost=1537018701][/doublepost]

Livestock has the world’s largest land footprintand is growing fast, with close to 80% of the planet’s agricultural land now used for grazing and animal feed production, even though meat delivers just 18% of our calories.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-dairy-production-2050-expert-warns?CMP=fb_gu

 

[BuddyTronic]

It is a great thing to do for rich individuals I think.

All the rich CEO's can donate a huge portion of their personal wealth to simply BUY THE RAINFOREST.

Money Talks. Buying up all the land and dedicating it to -----NOTHING but nature, is the best gift to the world.

As far as a publicly trading company doing this? Well, I guess it is fine to a point - We can all be proud of Apple and it's corporate policies to be "green". It is a great example for other companies to follow.}

Next time some Apple hater tries to tell us their Android is better - just point out the goodness of Apple as a corporate citizen.

BUT - Apple needs to serve the shareholders and make profits. So I still think it is best if Tim Cook and Bezos and other elite rich CEO's donate their personal money more.

BUY THE RAINFOREST - awesome idea. Buy it and hold it forever for humanity!

 

[Kabeyun]

Climate change is being used a distraction from the real issue [etc.]

Please. I’m almost as annoyed by militant ultra-leftists, who believe that any good thing is irrelevant unless it recognizes their pet cause, as I am with the ultra-right (almost). So a tech corporation taking the unusual step of helping rebuild a forest is bad because it isn’t your vegan cause. Wonderful. My thing or nothing, right? Imma go have a steak.

And btw, large type, boldface italics is called yelling in discussion forums and is considered rude. If you want to be persuasive, recognize that Apple is doing a good thing and then point out that there are also other good things that individuals might consider, like eating less meat. And do it in normal typeface.

 

[laurim]

Climate change is being used a distraction from the real issue that is the pollution of land, water and air from industrial waste, human activities, dead zones in the oceans, deforestation etc.

Livestock is responsible for the biggest contributions to toxic emissions and degradation of land but the supposedly “caring-sensitive” likes of Tim Cook and progressive politicians cry about climate change and are capitalizing and profiting on speeches about climate change, but few of them would be willing to go full plant based diet or do jntitatoves against meat industry. What a joke.

By 2050, the oceans could have more plastic than fish. A garbage patch off the coast of Hawaii. By 2050, plastic in the oceans will outweigh fish, predicts a report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, in partnership with the World Economic Forum.
Here are some stats that back my statement above.

https://www.pressconnects.com/story...riculture-dairy-farms-clean-water/1031631002/

“Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation. ”
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

“Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”

https://gelr.org/2015/10/23/a-leadi...ve-on-it-georgetown-environmental-law-review/
«
Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years.»

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_nitrous.cfm

«Emissions for agriculture projected to increase 80% by 2050.»
http://academic.regis.edu/MFRANCO/Seminar in Biology research Literature/Papers/GobalDiets.pdf

For more stats
http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

Ah, the soft bigotry of first world people. Vegans are less than 1% of the world population but they have 99% of the superiority. There’s an 85% failure rate to being vegetarian/vegan but sure, everyone will give up their favorite foods and cultural identity. We will have to raze all the protected lands to make enough farmland to feed a world of vegans but hey, woods, prairies and homes for wild animals to live freely is overrated. Oh and eff you, people who live in areas like Alaska where vegetables have to be imported at huge expense. Maybe you can find a couple veggies you can grow year round and eat those every meal day in, day out.

 

[az431]

More eco distractions for the company that’s having trouble focusing on its own announced products.

Hint to Tim Cook: Maybe you should have hired more Mac hardware engineers before the ecology and political mystics?

FYI to Tim Cook: I’m wearing my Apple Watch to throw all my recylcables in the regular trash, and the regular trash in the recycling. Feels great and does wonders after with the Breathe app.

In protest we should all pledge to hinder the green movement, until Apple patches the gaping holes in the Mac product line. It’s time to set our tuna nets to 11 and clear cut our way back to real desktop computers.

That Apple Leadership page is also starting to get that middle age spread. Time to put the company on a diet and get rid of the extra fat the executive layer has gained in the last couple years.

It was just a matter of time before some tool smeared a project dedicated to preserving the environment.
[doublepost=1537052967][/doublepost]

It is a great thing to do for rich individuals I think.

All the rich CEO's can donate a huge portion of their personal wealth to simply BUY THE RAINFOREST.

Money Talks. Buying up all the land and dedicating it to -----NOTHING but nature, is the best gift to the world.

As far as a publicly trading company doing this? Well, I guess it is fine to a point - We can all be proud of Apple and it's corporate policies to be "green". It is a great example for other companies to follow.}

Next time some Apple hater tries to tell us their Android is better - just point out the goodness of Apple as a corporate citizen.

BUT - Apple needs to serve the shareholders and make profits. So I still think it is best if Tim Cook and Bezos and other elite rich CEO's donate their personal money more.

BUY THE RAINFOREST - awesome idea. Buy it and hold it forever for humanity!

The rainforest doesn’t belong to someone who can sell it. The majority of it belongs to sovereign nations.

Plus it’s 3 million square miles. Are you proposing to build a fence around the whole thing and post armed guards to keep people out?

 

[AlexGraphicD]

Please. I’m almost as annoyed by militant ultra-leftists, who believe that any good thing is irrelevant unless it recognizes their pet cause, as I am with the ultra-right (almost). So a tech corporation taking the unusual step of helping rebuild a forest is bad because it isn’t your vegan cause. Wonderful. My thing or nothing, right? Imma go have a steak.

And btw, large type, boldface italics is called yelling in discussion forums and is considered rude. If you want to be persuasive, recognize that Apple is doing a good thing and then point out that there are also other good things that individuals might consider, like eating less meat. And do it in normal typeface.

I never stated that Apple helping rebuild a forest is bad because it isn't my vegan cause. I was just referring to the Climate Change subject and offering my thoughts and some facts.
You clearly misread my comments.
And veganism is not a matter of being a personal cause. It is based on subjectivity and facts and it is a necessity if we truly want to take care of this planet.
Thanks for the lesson about the large type, boldface italics but I was typing from my phone and it was difficult to edit my post.
I don't have to be persuasive about anything. I'm talking about facts. I applaud Apple's decision to rebuild the forest, again I was only criticizing the misleading and distracting Climate Change Initiative.

Ah, the soft bigotry of first world people. Vegans are less than 1% of the world population but they have 99% of the superiority. There’s an 85% failure rate to being vegetarian/vegan but sure, everyone will give up their favorite foods and cultural identity. We will have to raze all the protected lands to make enough farmland to feed a world of vegans but hey, woods, prairies and homes for wild animals to live freely is overrated. Oh and eff you, people who live in areas like Alaska where vegetables have to be imported at huge expense. Maybe you can find a couple veggies you can grow year round and eat those every meal day in, day out.

"Bigotry"? "Superiority"? That's how you perceive things when you are prejudiced against new information.
The funny part is that you post these percentage numbers that have no basis in reality, but whatever.
You don't have the slightest clue I see about real statistics and real numbers like the ones for example that I posted on previous page.

 

[BuddyTronic]

It was just a matter of time before some tool smeared a project dedicated to preserving the environment.
[doublepost=1537052967][/doublepost]

The rainforest doesn’t belong to someone who can sell it. The majority of it belongs to sovereign nations.

Plus it’s 3 million square miles. Are you proposing to build a fence around the whole thing and post armed guards to keep people out?

Well, some of these nations could be "encouraged" to turn them into national parks or natural preserves - off limits to any interference or development activities.

Ducks Unlimited does preservation of wetlands - sometimes dollars are involved I am pretty sure.

If you gift 500 Billion to Brazil or wherever, you could probably have a chunk of the amazon made into a natural preserve and even name it after the donor - does that make sense?

As for a "fence" - I don't know. If it is posted at the last "road" leading to the area, people will know what kind of activity is allowed and what is prohibited by the law. Simple.

I can't think of anything more useful than MONEY to accomplish this - can you?

 

[CarlJ]

As for a "fence" - I don't know. If it is posted at the last "road" leading to the area, people will know what kind of activity is allowed and what is prohibited by the law. Simple.

Simple, and almost entirely ineffective. Unless you commit substantial resources to policing the area (keeping in mind that the entire Amazon rainforest covers over two million square miles, though the purchase almost certainly wouldn't be the entire thing), then you'll have plenty of people crossing the line, going in, clearing sections of it, and planting crops. Because they need money to survive and that is a comparatively easy path to money (need/want for money is why parts of it are currently getting burned/leveled - it's not like people are cutting it down for fun). You'd either need substantial enforcement around the perimeter, or, more usefully, work to improve the opportunities to make a living for everyone surrounding this purchased area, so they don't feel the need to go burn down parts of it.

 

[BuddyTronic]

Simple, and almost entirely ineffective. Unless you commit substantial resources to policing the area (keeping in mind that the entire Amazon rainforest covers over two million square miles, though the purchase almost certainly wouldn't be the entire thing), then you'll have plenty of people crossing the line, going in, clearing sections of it, and planting crops. Because they need money to survive and that is a comparatively easy path to money (need/want for money is why parts of it are currently getting burned/leveled - it's not like people are cutting it down for fun). You'd either need substantial enforcement around the perimeter, or, more usefully, work to improve the opportunities to make a living for everyone surrounding this purchased area, so they don't feel the need to go burn down parts of it.

Well, planting crops would be against the law. They take that risk. That's about as far as it goes I guess. If someone breaks the law, they are at risk to pay the price. What penalties there are could be decided according to however and who-ever. Strong penalties might be more cost effective than a "fence" as you were questioning about.

People who would otherwise be breaking the law by burning and planting crops could instead be hired as custodians of the land, and "deputized" to enforce the laws. Again - the solution is money I think. We raped the land, and now it is time to protect what's left.

It's not like the poor farmers want to destroy nature I realize that - they do it for money, and the food and things that money buys. Pay them to protect it. The money comes maybe from benevolent Apple Shareholders maybe? Certainly Tim Cook and Bezos and Gates should consider such things. Hope this helps inspire some thought!

Kudo's to Apple for doing good things in Colombia!

 

[laurim]

I never stated that Apple helping rebuild a forest is bad because it isn't my vegan cause. I was just referring to the Climate Change subject and offering my thoughts and some facts.
You clearly misread my comments.
And veganism is not a matter of being a personal cause. It is based on subjectivity and facts and it is a necessity if we truly want to take care of this planet.
Thanks for the lesson about the large type, boldface italics but I was typing from my phone and it was difficult to edit my post.
I don't have to be persuasive about anything. I'm talking about facts. I applaud Apple's decision to rebuild the forest, again I was only criticizing the misleading and distracting Climate Change Initiative.



"Bigotry"? "Superiority"? That's how you perceive things when you are prejudiced against new information.
The funny part is that you post these percentage numbers that have no basis in reality, but whatever.
You don't have the slightest clue I see about real statistics and real numbers like the ones for example that I posted on previous page.

So you think I made these numbers up? Here ya go:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...412/84-vegetarians-and-vegans-return-meat-why

Vegan diet not most sustainable
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/going-vegan-isnt-actually-th/

 

[boast]

Well, hopefully the rest of the world can go Vegan so America can still continue to enjoy meat and it all balances out

 

[hexor]

Didn't Apple clearcut a large swath of forest when they built their data center in North Carolina?

 

[ChrisA]

What damage? Please explain.

Apple drives many cars over as many roads as they can all over the world collecting data. In the process they burn large amounts of fossil fuels and release large amounts of fossil carbon back into atmosphere. Apple is trying to plant enough trees that the new trees will remove as much carbon as their vehicles are releasing.

We can argue if they are planting enough trees but the "damage" they do is part of their normal operations.


Yes Apple does other things that are worse and does not compensate. The #1 thing they could fix is making short lived products that are hard to upgrade and repair