Here's Why the Apple Watch and Mac Mini Are No Longer Advertised as 'Carbon Neutral'

[ProbablyDylan]

When stories like this come out, I hope we all can realize that we're on the same side here.

It's simply, objectively, not good to have the corps controlling everything and capitulating to governments with rogue, or unseemly and illegal interests.

This goes to a whole new level beyond concerns about revenue lockdown and traditional App safety/privacy stuff we all usually debate here -- at least for me.

This is why I'm ultimately returning the Air. In a few very short weeks Apple has repeatedly shown themselves undeserving of my hard-earned dollar. Not sure where I'll go when my Mini inevitably bites the dust, but I have that thing's remaining lifetime to replace Tim's Apple.

 

[nsayer]

Deviating to far, too quickly, from the environment humans and other current animal life has adapted to and developed within absolutely does.

A great new read from Peter Brannen on the really interesting research work being done on this.

Climate Extremes Are a Hallmark of the Age of Animals | Quanta Magazine

New reconstructions of 540 million years of climate history show the planet tumbling between icehouse and hothouse states, revealing how rare and vulnerable our temperate moment is.

www.quantamagazine.org

And yes, Apple (and many megacorps) have loved to virtue signal around this also.

Everyone wants to return to nature until they get a toothache.

 

[routine_analyst]

Marketing gimmick. Nothing is truly "Carbon neutral". Sure we can calculate all sorts of things related to office power, commercial logistics and manufacturing... however, humans consume food, make waste, move around and transport goods... all of which aren't "neutral" -> all of these have some form of "footprint". Just being alive shifts carbon from carbon reservoirs from living organisms, to the oceans and the atmosphere. There's zero way for a corporation to fully understand a device's full carbon footprint. Even writing this pointless post disrupted carbon.

 

[CATiNTHESTORE]

None of what you just said makes any sense.

Tesla doesn’t have “remote engine ” ? Other was a joke

 

[gaximus]

"Higher water usage" true, yes, less Carbon in the air? also yes. Water usage has nothing to do with a claim of being carbon neutral.

 

[hagar]

It's no longer politically required for companies to care about the environment, so you'll stop seeing it advertised as a feature.

Everything, including all culture, is downstream of who the current admin is.

So true. When I read the comments here, it’s like climate change isn’t an issue anymore.

While it’s one of the biggest threats to our existence. How dystopian.

I’m not saying carbon credits aren’t deeply flawed though. But we have our current world leaders to thank for making us stop caring at all.

That will be their ultimate legacy.

 

[matthew12]

TBH, carbon neutral is a BS term anyway since companies just buy fake "carbon credits" to offset the carbon. If they really wanted to have a positive effect on the environment, they'd make their devices more repairable and look into making batteries better than lithium-ion to reduce electronic waste.

 

[Hajj.david]

So true. When I read the comments here, it’s like climate change isn’t an issue anymore.

While it’s one of the biggest threats to our existence. How dystopian.

I’m not saying carbon credits aren’t deeply flawed though. But we have our current world leaders to thank for making us stop caring at all.

That will be their ultimate legacy.

It isn't an issue, and if it truely was a concern then Obama, Gates, every media mouthpiece would stop flying private jets constantly - especially to environmental events like they are the leaders of mega churches selling climate fear. Think about it for a second, if sea level rising was an actual concern then Obama, Trump, Opera, Taylor Swift, Al Gore etc etc wouldn't have bought beach/ocean front property. Its simple logic if they believed what they spouted they would act in accordance with it, but since they don't, then why should I go out of my way to believe their words?

Not to mention Carbon, like water, is 100% cyclical every drop of oil in the ground was carbon in the air at one point and every molecule of carbon in the air returns back to the crust to become oil/gas in the future. We are not creating new carbon. A much bigger and an actually real concern (vs plant food aka CO2) is pollution that China and India dump in the atmosphere at unprecedented levels. The law of conservation of mass (note scientific law, not theory) states our planet can never become venus because we don't have anywhere near the levels of carbon in the air, water, and earth to ever get anywhere near the level of a greenhouse planet, to such an extent that you could burn every drop of oil and coal and not even hit 1% CO2 saturation in the atmosphere (vs Venus at 96.5% vs our current 0.004% CO2 concentration) (of which 0.002% CO2 concentration results in total death of the planet due to the inability for plants to survive)

 

[hagar]

It isn't an issue, and if it truely was a concern then Obama, Gates, every media mouthpiece would stop flying private jets constantly - especially to environmental events like they are the leaders of mega churches selling climate fear. …

I do believe companies like Apple actually care. Because they realise that the long term survival and prosperity of the planet aligns with their own economic wellbeing. But doing the right thing is very complex. And if most customers don’t care, why bother? That’s why most other companies keep silent or do some superficial greenwashing.

Wealthy people owning beachfront homes or flying private doesn’t disprove climate science, it just shows hypocrisy or risk-tolerance.

Sea level rise is slow but accelerating; it’s inches per decade, not overnight flooding, so many rich people are still gambling on high-value coastal property.

And CO₂ being “natural” or “cyclical” doesn’t make today’s spike harmless: humans dug up and burned in 150 years what took millions of years to store, overwhelming Earth’s slow carbon sinks.

The conservation of mass is irrelevant here. Venus isn’t the benchmark; a few degrees of warming here already means massive disruption to crops, weather, and oceans.

Pollution from China or India matters too, but per capita the U.S. and Europe still emit far more historically.

 

[WeLikeVodka]

I do believe companies like Apple actually care. Because they realise that the long term survival and prosperity of the planet aligns with their own economic wellbeing. But doing the right thing is very complex. And if most customers don’t care, why bother? That’s why most other companies keep silent or do some superficial greenwashing.

Wealthy people owning beachfront homes or flying private doesn’t disprove climate science, it just shows hypocrisy or risk-tolerance.

Sea level rise is slow but accelerating; it’s inches per decade, not overnight flooding, so many rich people are still gambling on high-value coastal property.

And CO₂ being “natural” or “cyclical” doesn’t make today’s spike harmless: humans dug up and burned in 150 years what took millions of years to store, overwhelming Earth’s slow carbon sinks.

The conservation of mass is irrelevant here. Venus isn’t the benchmark; a few degrees of warming here already means massive disruption to crops, weather, and oceans.

Pollution from China or India matters too, but per capita the U.S. and Europe still emit far more historically.

No company cares tbh, the bottom line is by far the most important and it is by design incompatible with environmental protection imo.

 

[4k78]

The only green that matters is the color of the money.

 

[chucker23n1]

Actually no, the private compute model run on servers that need electricity and this electricity doesn't come from renewable sources... lol

Apple's data centers have run entirely on renewable energy for over a decade.

 

[wonderings]

TBH, carbon neutral is a BS term anyway since companies just buy fake "carbon credits" to offset the carbon. If they really wanted to have a positive effect on the environment, they'd make their devices more repairable and look into making batteries better than lithium-ion to reduce electronic waste.

Exactly. Buy what you need to appear green. They can take it out of their marketing budget because that is all it really is.

And yes if they did care they would make their products to last longer, this does not end with just repairability but upgradability. The basics like RAM and Hard drive space should be easy things to swap out yourself and this was the case in Apple products before. Of course if you could do that yourself you would not pay 3x the price for hard drive space or RAM and that would affect the almost 4 trillion dollar companies bankbook.

 

[Astuces iOS]

Apple's data centers have run entirely on renewable energy for over a decade.

They aren’t 100% carbon neutral like Apple Watches and the Mac mini…

 

[SBlue1]

Carbon neutral would be to support products longer. Or to make them repairable instead of going to the landfill.

 

[turbineseaplane]

This popped up today and made me think of this whole topic

 

[hagar]

No company cares tbh, the bottom line is by far the most important and it is by design incompatible with environmental protection imo.

Simple. All pollution needs to be paid by the companies. Then it does affect their bottom line and they will care.

But you need a functioning government to enforce this.