4 ms·

> ECCO Leather, the first soft goods supplier to commit to 100 percent clean energy for its Apple production Animal product and clean energy? That’s an oxymoro

> ECCO Leather, the first soft goods supplier to commit to 100 percent clean energy for its Apple production Animal product and clean energy? That’s an oxymoron. Animal agriculture is one of the most inefficient systems there is and a major contributor to climate change. I’d hope the next step is to make a statement by doing without leather, if Apple is indeed trying to set forward thinking and progressive trends.

redial 9y ago
> Animal product and clean energy? That’s an oxymoron. Not when you realize that clean energy refers only to the production and consumption of electricity and has nothing whatsoever to do with supplies or with animals of any kind, unless you are using electricity produced by cows running in a circle.
- lazyman75 9y ago
  "Clean" only if you ignore all those not-clean-no-matter-how-much-you-spin-it steps in manufacturing of solar panels ..
camillomiller 9y ago
Yeah, that completely destroys anything good Apple has done to get to this result. Nothing matters if they have one supplier of a product that might not be that green. /s It’s sad that the most upvoted comment has to be as always the contrarian picking the tiniest detail to diminish a laudable achievement.
- notaspider 9y ago
  Animal agriculture is the single biggest contributor to climate change.[0] It seems to me that you are the one trying to diminish what the OP was trying to say by calling them a "contrarian" and describing it as the "tiniest detail". [0]http://www.animalagricultureclimatechange.org/animal-agriculture-truths/ http://www.animalagricultureclimatechange.org/animal-agricul...
- devmunchies 9y ago
  1) you are making assumptions. I never indicated that it diminished their (impressive) achievement. Only that they have more to do to actually be 100% renewable. 2) I i was only at the top because my comment was brand new when you opened the thread. 3) it’s not a tiny detail. Animal agriculture is worse than the entire transportation industry combined. 4) even if I am being a contrarian, it is better than sarcasm and logical fallacies.
  - camillomiller 9y ago
    1) Your comment read as diminishing 2) Ok, whatever 3) True that. I'm a vegetarian because of that, but I pretend to be a rational one. Th leather industry is mostly responsible for chemical pollution, though. You don't need to farm animals to make pouches and phone covers. It's not like Apple signed a contract with a cattle farm or something. I would consider that impact negligible, although I'm all for a ban on factory farming any day. 4) Contrarianism is exhausting.
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    >3) it’s not a tiny detail. Animal agriculture is worse than the entire transportation industry combined. Let's base arguments on facts please. US Greenhouse Emissions (specifically CO2) sources: Agriculture: 9% of emissions.[0][1] (4.2% according to UCDavis[2]) Transportation: 27% of emissions.[0][1][2] [0]https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... [1]http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/hsus-fact-sheet-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-animal-agriculture.pdf http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/hsus-fact-shee... [2]http://www.caes.ucdavis.edu/news/articles/2016/04/livestock-and-climate-change-facts-and-fiction http://www.caes.ucdavis.edu/news/articles/2016/04/livestock-... And here is a report from the UN's FAO; it's not a comparison to other GHG sources, but it's good data nonetheless: http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3671e/i3671e.pdf http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3671e/i3671e.pdf
    - devmunchies 9y ago
      strange. this source is also from the epa and conflicts with your source https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... it says agriculture is 24% and transportation is 14% confusing. And UC Davis is one of the top agriculture schools in the world (I grew up near there) so its in their interest to support the ag industry since that is where a lot of funding comes from, so I'd take that with a grain of salt.
bdcravens 9y ago
I'll step out on a limb here and say that ECCO doesn't raise animals strictly for their products, but sources leather from animals that have been used for additional purposes.
- notaspider 9y ago
  I'll step out here on a limb and say that animals that have been raised for purposes other than leather contribute to climate change.

redial 9y ago

> Animal product and clean energy? That’s an oxymoron. Not when you realize that clean energy refers only to the production and consumption of electricity and has nothing whatsoever to do with supplies or with animals of any kind, unless you are using electricity produced by cows running in a circle.

lazyman75 9y ago
"Clean" only if you ignore all those not-clean-no-matter-how-much-you-spin-it steps in manufacturing of solar panels ..

camillomiller 9y ago

Yeah, that completely destroys anything good Apple has done to get to this result. Nothing matters if they have one supplier of a product that might not be that green. /s It’s sad that the most upvoted comment has to be as always the contrarian picking the tiniest detail to diminish a laudable achievement.

notaspider 9y ago
Animal agriculture is the single biggest contributor to climate change.[0] It seems to me that you are the one trying to diminish what the OP was trying to say by calling them a "contrarian" and describing it as the "tiniest detail". [0]http://www.animalagricultureclimatechange.org/animal-agriculture-truths/ http://www.animalagricultureclimatechange.org/animal-agricul...
devmunchies 9y ago
1) you are making assumptions. I never indicated that it diminished their (impressive) achievement. Only that they have more to do to actually be 100% renewable. 2) I i was only at the top because my comment was brand new when you opened the thread. 3) it’s not a tiny detail. Animal agriculture is worse than the entire transportation industry combined. 4) even if I am being a contrarian, it is better than sarcasm and logical fallacies.
- camillomiller 9y ago
  1) Your comment read as diminishing 2) Ok, whatever 3) True that. I'm a vegetarian because of that, but I pretend to be a rational one. Th leather industry is mostly responsible for chemical pollution, though. You don't need to farm animals to make pouches and phone covers. It's not like Apple signed a contract with a cattle farm or something. I would consider that impact negligible, although I'm all for a ban on factory farming any day. 4) Contrarianism is exhausting.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  >3) it’s not a tiny detail. Animal agriculture is worse than the entire transportation industry combined. Let's base arguments on facts please. US Greenhouse Emissions (specifically CO2) sources: Agriculture: 9% of emissions.[0][1] (4.2% according to UCDavis[2]) Transportation: 27% of emissions.[0][1][2] [0]https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... [1]http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/hsus-fact-sheet-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-animal-agriculture.pdf http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/hsus-fact-shee... [2]http://www.caes.ucdavis.edu/news/articles/2016/04/livestock-and-climate-change-facts-and-fiction http://www.caes.ucdavis.edu/news/articles/2016/04/livestock-... And here is a report from the UN's FAO; it's not a comparison to other GHG sources, but it's good data nonetheless: http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3671e/i3671e.pdf http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3671e/i3671e.pdf
  - devmunchies 9y ago
    strange. this source is also from the epa and conflicts with your source https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... it says agriculture is 24% and transportation is 14% confusing. And UC Davis is one of the top agriculture schools in the world (I grew up near there) so its in their interest to support the ag industry since that is where a lot of funding comes from, so I'd take that with a grain of salt.

bdcravens 9y ago

I'll step out on a limb here and say that ECCO doesn't raise animals strictly for their products, but sources leather from animals that have been used for additional purposes.

notaspider 9y ago
I'll step out here on a limb and say that animals that have been raised for purposes other than leather contribute to climate change.