Apple's Recycling Initiatives Recover $40 Million in Gold

[JustThinkin']

It probably cost them significantly more than the value of the materials they recovered - otherwise everyone would be doing it.

But I don't think they did this only for the publicity. They're probably hoping that it will eventually become a cost-effective, worthwhile practice for them and others. I commend them for taking the risk and pioneering the effort on a significant scale.


However, I generally hate the concept of the "carbon footprint," because it may spur thinking that's completely backwards. I realize I'm more sensitive because my natural inclinations come very close to this warped way of thinking already. It's good that I conserve resources, and I love to buy used. But my problem is that in the process of conserving I can become passive, failing to fully leverage the resources I have (or am able to attain) to create more new resources for positive change.

So while the carbon footprint idea has good intentions, it also has a warped side. That warped side is the concept that I'm just a bother on the earth, and my main objective is to spoil it as little as possible before I leave. But the reality is that the earth was made for us to do things in it and with it and for each other. Each of us can add to the environment - and here the environment is not just air, land and water. The environment is also people and societies and how we make their lives better. We can help a grandmother by assisting her across the street, but we can also help by designing mobile phones or applications that allow she and her grandchildren to better share their lives with each other.


Often the good we do profits us as well. I think this is where people get confused - attributing the work we do to selfishness or survival alone.


I believe our main objective is to make sure we leave a big footprint on this earth.

 

[appledefenceforce]

It's not that, but the lack of reflexivity on Apple's part. Sure, they're a tech company and perhaps are doing more than others in regards to recycling, etc. However, you would have thought they'd expect a bit of criticism for claiming that purchasing an app is going to save the world, particularly when they can't claim to be a sustainable company. It's about acknowledgement, just like I have to realise that in buying my next iPhone, I'm not exactly doing wonders for the environment (yet, I'll still buy it). =P

Not sure if really missing the text or just being obtuse. They don't claim as you state; they simply state that the proceeds will go to WWF.

 

[carlvsampson]

As long as they don't use dangerous chemicals to recover the gold otherwise it's not that green at all.

It isn't the use of the chemicals that is the problem - it is how they are maintained, recycled, and when they are "used up," how are they are neutralized and disposed of that one has to worry about.

 

[jlc1978]

Designing for recycling also needs to be part of the solution. If your original design takes into account the recycling process you can make design decisions that make recycling easier. For example, you can limit the different types of materials used to make separating theme easier, as well as incorporate recyclable materials whenever possible; as well as design the product to work well with the technology yo use to recycle it. Since Apple is taking a cradle to grave approach to product life they may be better able to incorporate recyclable design since they control all aspects of the process.

 

[osaga]

90 million lbs of material is the approximate weight of 320,000,000 iPhones. If the value of that material is $50 million, that's just 16 cents per iPhone. Assuming they had to disassemble them by hand, they would have lost plenty of money recycling them. But as others have said they were probably able to turn a lot of the components into refurbished models.

 

[SuperCachetes]

Included in that total is 2,204 pounds of gold, which is well over a ton.

Cheers. Thanks for the reminder on how many pounds are in a ton. /s

If you happen to find a blood diamond on the street without paying a penny for it, you are not financing wars.

I love this quote. Great way of putting it.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

... But the reality is that the earth was made for us to do things in it and with it and for each other. Each of us can add to the environment - and here the environment is not just air, land and water. The environment is also people and societies and how we make their lives better. We can help a grandmother by assisting her across the street, but we can also help by designing mobile phones or applications that allow she and her grandchildren to better share their lives with each other.


Often the good we do profits us as well. I think this is where people get confused - attributing the work we do to selfishness or survival alone.


I believe our main objective is to make sure we leave a big footprint on this earth.

That first part is the rub. Was the earth made for us? If it was, then naturally (so to speak), it's our's to do with as we please. Some deity or other granted us dominion over the rest. We're told to do unto fellow humans as we would have done to us, but that message does not have to be applied to the rest of creation. Now, that particular "grant" is specific to certain religions, a fair number of others take a different view about our place in the order of things, and our responsibility to the rest of life on Earth.

Then again, if we're here by accident of evolution, then the only right we have is might - our position at the top of the food chain. We have certain skills that no other species has possessed, and it has allowed us to do things to the Earth that no other has been able to manage. We compete for food, resources, and territory, and nearly always win.

How do we add to the environment? It seems you're describing additions to the human environment, not the planet as a whole.

We cannot help but impact the environment - every species has its impact. Our particular skill set gives us a fairly unique capability - we can assess and contemplate that impact and modify our behavior.

The question is not whether the good we do profits us (whether individually, or as a species), but whether the the earth as a whole profits as well. Is it "winner take all?" Is poisoning the air, water, and land anything but the selfish act of a child who refuses to clean up after himself, or of a brigand who invades a neighbor's home, murders that neighbor, and takes the contents for his own?

If we are to leave a big footprint, do we crush all else beneath our feet?

 

[bruinsrme]

Economists have equations for that. Will more energy and resources be saved by replacing an incandescent prior to failure, or by using it until it fails? There are many inputs to that equation, many possible outcomes.

If the LED retrofits into the existing lamp socket, then you're not wasting the resources that went into making the lamp assembly. The only "waste" is the unexpended life of a short-lived incandescent bulb, which is offset to some degree by energy savings. If the bulb costs $2 and was just installed last week, will you save more than $2 in energy by immediately replacing it with an LED?

If, however, the entire lamp assembly needs to be replaced (wiring, reflector/shade, fluorescent ballast, socket, etc.), then the waste generated by that replacement becomes a significant mitigating factor.

The last company I worked replaced ALL cfls with LEDs in one sweep.

 

[Zaqfalcon]

What percentage recovery vs consumption is this I wonder?

Not bothered reading the report...

 

[gnasher729]

Business Insider notes that Apple was able to recover over 61 million pounds of steel, aluminum, glass, and other materials from its computers and iPhones. Included in that total is 2,204 pounds of gold, which is well over a ton.

Seems that nobody noticed yet that the site has taken numbers in metric tons and converted them to pounds, for some reason. 2,204 is not "well over a ton", it is _exactly_ one metric ton. For example, 39,672 pounds of nickel is _exactly_ 18 metric tons. All these numbers will be rounded, so don't try to calculate the value of the gold from it.

 

[Terrinb]

Most of these devices are buy backs as part of the upgrade programs. Also don't forget it costs apple to recycle too, so its not all profit.

I doubt that. Most buy backs are used as warranty replacements or for secondary markets.

Most people don't realize Apple sponsors recycling programs. A big one is in partnership with the university of Michigan. People can drop off most electronic items including things Apple doesn't sell and competitor products. Apple doesn't advertise its sponcership.

People drop off tons of old electronic items including monstourous old tvs. Last year 17 semi-trucks were filled.

Volunteers help load the stuff. The university organizes the volunteers and gets the word out. Apple pays for the trucks and to have the stuff responsibly recycled.

 

[LCPepper]

Ka-ching!

Makes you suspicious as to why they're actually doing this recycling programme. For the good of the earth? Or to same money on rare earths and whatnot?

 

[jlc1978]

Makes you suspicious as to why they're actually doing this recycling programme. For the good of the earth? Or to same money on rare earths and whatnot?

What difference does it make as long as there is a positive result. Economic incentives are a powerful force that van drive desirable outcomes.

 

[LCPepper]

What difference does it make as long as there is a positive result. Economic incentives are a powerful force that van drive desirable outcomes.

As long as Apple keeps on making me Macs and iOS devices, then I really couldn't care less haha!

 

[robertcoogan]

I wonder if rare earth metals are part of this, I know that they figure into electronics manufacturing to some degree.

 

[chrismail627]

Use that gold to make gold iPhones, Macs, and iPads plated with real gold!

 

[shiekh]

Agree BUT.
Should working lights be replaced?

Absolutely, as it is MUCH more expensive to run a working Edison bulb than replace it.

 

[bruinsrme]

Absolutely, as it is MUCH more expensive to run a working Edison bulb than replace it.

The lights being replaced were CFLs.
I would imagine a bean counter figured out they would save enough to hire another VP

 

[JustThinkin']

That first part is the rub. Was the earth made for us? If it was, then naturally (so to speak), it's our's to do with as we please. Some deity or other granted us dominion over the rest. We're told to do unto fellow humans as we would have done to us, but that message does not have to be applied to the rest of creation. Now, that particular "grant" is specific to certain religions, a fair number of others take a different view about our place in the order of things, and our responsibility to the rest of life on Earth.

Then again, if we're here by accident of evolution, then the only right we have is might - our position at the top of the food chain. We have certain skills that no other species has possessed, and it has allowed us to do things to the Earth that no other has been able to manage. We compete for food, resources, and territory, and nearly always win.

How do we add to the environment? It seems you're describing additions to the human environment, not the planet as a whole.

We cannot help but impact the environment - every species has its impact. Our particular skill set gives us a fairly unique capability - we can assess and contemplate that impact and modify our behavior.

The question is not whether the good we do profits us (whether individually, or as a species), but whether the the earth as a whole profits as well. Is it "winner take all?" Is poisoning the air, water, and land anything but the selfish act of a child who refuses to clean up after himself, or of a brigand who invades a neighbor's home, murders that neighbor, and takes the contents for his own?

If we are to leave a big footprint, do we crush all else beneath our feet?

Yes.

No.

Both.

Duh!

It's our shared home. We need to take care of it while taking full advantage of its resources.

No (but you already knew that).

 

[C DM]

Absolutely, as it is MUCH more expensive to run a working Edison bulb than replace it.

And then there's this (although certainly not a regular incandescent bulb, nor something in production at this point): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...nt-light-bulbs-as-mit-makes-them-more-effici/

 

[unplugme71]

Agree BUT.
Should working lights be replaced?

Yes, because in less than 1 year, the cost, impact, and reduction in pollution would become a gain.
[doublepost=1461120713][/doublepost]

Recycling (and I mean recycling the aluminum, plastics and some metals, not the insane amounts of energy and raw materials that went into making the chips, which are the dominant term) is still a worse option, environmentally speaking, than active usage for a machine that is still viable.

The definition of "viable" varies, holding on to a "web browsing" machine - or any use case where the CPU is usually idle - makes far more sense than holding on to a rendering machine, where instructions per watt do actually matter in the equation.

The rest of your post is obviously spot on, especially the last paragraph.
It's too easy to buy grocery from local farmers, hang Vandana Shiva posters and then, I don't know, [insert any energy and waste-intensive activity that hipsters do].

[doublepost=1460746444][/doublepost]

That remains to be seen.

1. The energy went into making a product, from the mines to the factories to the WalMart shelf, usually overshadows the energy that the device uses over its lifetime
2. Interestingly, more efficient bulbs can result in... well, many more bulbs turned on at a given time, which leads to this paradox.

I agree that whatever you do as an individual, it isn't really effective if it's not part of an institution-, neighbourhood or state-wide plan.

However, things are more complicated than just "let's just ban incandescent bulbs".

Of course, but the impact will only happen once. If we continue to replace with older technology, we are still using more energy than just making the switch to LEDs.