I guess as a $1 trillion company, people feel Apple should be doing A LOT more is all.
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 Touts Progress of $4.7 Billion Clean Energy Investment
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Research how solar panels, batteries, etc that are part of this green equation are produced/made and you will get the answer you seek.
That’s how the game is played, invest in both sides that are in the game. Sway public opinion like a pendulum to balance out profits, public eats it up due to constant reminders from paid entities claiming the sky is falling.
Cannot speak for the area you reside, but in other places many people recycle only to find out that the government on every level will recycle a fraction of it and landfill the rest along with shipping it to another country to landfill, burn, etc.
I guess it depends on which studies you believe. Just like people making the argument about electric vehicles being powered by coal....if you are seeking perfection than none of these systems will measure up. However, if you are gauging this things by taking a massive step in the right direction, then they are successful. Even considering other impacts that these greener solutions cause, they are still massively better than the current processes. So I will take a 70%....50%....heck even a 30% gain to the health of our planet TODAY instead of waiting an undetermined amount of time for some "better" solution while the planet continues to progress towards human inhabitability.
Wireless charging is bad. The efficiency of the new M1 processors more than makes up for it.
Research how oil, gas and coal are mined and refined. Then solar will not look so bad to you.
Not sure I understand what a green bond is...
As an FYI, NO ONE perusing this site is carbon neutral. NO ONE...
If one were truly, "Following the science" one would discover that it's impossible to maintain the modern the lifestyle and be carbon neutral....
Folks that consume Apple products are by nature HIGH INCOME. And HIGH INCOME folks have a WAY LARGER footprint than low income folks. I get a kick out of folks who live in mansions, jet all over the world, and have an electric car in one bay of their 5 bay garage espousing how they are, "Doing more than their fair share" to combat climate change.
As an FYI, NO ONE perusing this site is carbon neutral. NO ONE...
If one were truly, "Following the science" one would discover that it's impossible to maintain the modern the lifestyle and be carbon neutral....
Folks that consume Apple products are by nature HIGH INCOME. And HIGH INCOME folks have a WAY LARGER footprint than low income folks. I get a kick out of folks who live in mansions, jet all over the world, and have an electric car in one bay of their 5 bay garage espousing how they are, "Doing more than their fair share" to combat climate change.
Apple is essentially providing a financial incentive to invest in sustainable energy generation. They issued bonds to the market and in return, anyone buying those bonds will receive interest. Meanwhile, Apple will use the funds they receive to invest in projects that generate sustainable energy.
Yep, I’m pretty sure the demographics of typical apple customers are:
- are high income
-live in a mansion
- jet all over the world
- have a electric car in one bay of their 5 bay garage
- espouse how they are doing “more than their fair share” to combat climate change
Last edited:
Yet has it's products built in China that have some of the worst environmental practices in the world. Seems legit..
I get your point and agree at a VERY base level with the idea you are trying to get across. But exaggerating often puts people on the defensive and you loose your impact. High income people are people who have mansions, but they are also middle income people who also are not very carbon neutral.
While I am not certain my total carbon footprint (and therefore you are probably correct about me not being neutral), I do feel like you are using a very broad brush here as well. Maybe you could at least narrow it down to people perusing this site from America? As an example, all of my home's energy is offset, my food supply is both self-procured and where not, self-sustaining. I do own a non-electric vehicle but I also pay for offsets at least for that so I know I am neutral there. I am sure I am missing a lot of things, but I am not high income nor am I an extremist.
I think there is a bit more middle ground than you seem to indicate on both points.
Is there ever a point where we also consider the destruction of sheer beauty in the landscape with all the wind and solar crap that people are putting everywhere? What's the point in 'saving the earth' if all we're going to do is make some of the most beautiful places ugly???
Why so many people think wireless charging consumes more energy that the charging through a cable? Right, if you look at the charging process, wireless charging seems to be a waste of energy. But why no one calculate how many cables are omitted? Can that part of energy using to make cables counterpart or surpass the energy wasted during wireless charging? Anyone points me to such a report or research?
We haven't progressed to wireless charging through the air so a MagSafe charger still needs wires. It also needs additional magnets in both the device and every single cable. Then the actual charging loses 10-15% of power to heat generation compared to a direct cable.
how many cables are omitted?
Surely making a charging pad which still needs a cable consumes a lot more energy than a lightening cable.
that’s before we even get to the energy losses.
COVID combating in 2020 makes me wonder if we can ever get out of climate change and make the only planet more habitable again. Apple’s action make people think they are doing good for the planet but things are often more complicated than that. Maybe they should invest into planting trees as well? Sahara green Great Wall is still building and the progress is way behind. Maybe invest into those?
Apple surely will be asked to do more as they have thousands of billions of cash lying around they can use to do literally everything they want.
Apple surely will be asked to do more as they have thousands of billions of cash lying around they can use to do literally everything they want.
This does not make sense. A generated volume of energy is specified in (giga)watt-hours/years/whatever.
As far as I understand the original press release, Apple has installed 1.2GW (peak?) of photovoltaic power.
Why you will never see an Apple Electric Car except rumors to pump stock prices. Apple looked at the microchip and saw the future and has made the world better. They will look at the electric cars future (falling off a cliff when reality hits) and not do it. I hope. On the other hand they fell for this solar panel hype.
We should keep in the back of our minds Apple doesn't have to do anything. They have a track record of lending a helping hand where needed, even though Apple doesn't get into all of the areas MacRumors posters would like them to get into. (however one can always make a donation)
Should Apple do more? Maybe. Are they obligated to do anything? No. They are a for profit company that has helped various causes and issues with time, materials and money. They didn't have to do any of that.
So let's not fall into the trap of telling a for profit company what their philanthropic goals should be.
Every technology has its limitations, I am not pro or con any one technology. As one will see that most mining equipment runs off fossil fuels, some fossil fuel equipment may utilize solar panels for auxiliary equipment as an example.
What I would like to see is “green” technology produced with more “green” options and not this carbon credit/swap slight of hand nonsense.
What we are seeing with these particular technologies that call themselves a solution is “offsetting”.
As an example: I would like to see “green” mining equipment, mining the raw materials in a less impactful environmental devastating way to produce a solar panel for example with minimal or no fossil fuel in the equation (transportation, factories, etc). When we get to independence to solely produce then we can have a look into keeping these online constantly.
Apple at times is a contradiction with their wireless future dream. Remove headphone jack, now one has to purchase expensive Lightening wired headphones or Bluetooth headphones that uses a battery and one more thing to be re/charged thus limiting its lifespan. Contrary to a device such as an iPhone which maybe supported for 5 years or more and the technology changes a lot, in contrast the technology in a headphone does not change as frequent but by utilizing a battery for each component and requiring more equipment to have the same benefit as its wired counterpart is contradictory environmental mindset. The one benefit of wireless neglects the majority disadvantages associated with its solution.
To me a compromised solution would be to have wireless headphones with the option of using it with a wire that way the battery can be prolonged and there is less waste.