4 ms·
They're bold enough to say they're carbon neutral. "Today, Apple is carbon neutral for global corporate operations, and by 2030, plans to be carbon neutral acr
by gorwell 2y ago
They're bold enough to say they're carbon neutral.
"Today, Apple is carbon neutral for global corporate operations, and by 2030, plans to be carbon neutral across the entire manufacturing supply chain and life cycle of every product."
- coldtea 2y agoCarbon neutral never really meant anything anyway. And Apple's "Green" talk is just theater (well, just like everybody elses in tech, fashion, cars, etc). Their whole business lies in making and selling more stuff, and getting people to replace them often with shiny new ones.
- nozzlegear 2y agoWhat’s the opposite of carbon neutral? That is to say, how much more damage could Apple be doing to the environment if they ended all of their current “Green talk” practices? They’re a business and they’re going to sell things no matter what, would you rather have them do nothing to mitigate the environmental damage, or have them do something?
- coldtea 2y ago[flagged]
- nozzlegear 2y agoYou and I both know that would never happen. You can moralize and blame consumerism all you want, but the reality is people want these devices and that’s why they buy them. Apple would be hurting the environment further by eliminating their green practices, because nobody who is concerned about the environment buys an iPhone and thinks “yes, this is enough what I have done, I will do no further.”
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lancesells 2y agoThey don't care. You don't think Apple with their trillions of dollars maybe could make a version of the iPhone version that's upgradable? The worst thing is the industry follows their lead so everything they don't do, the industry does as well. Apple comes out with 4 versions of the iPhone every year right? How about a fifth version that is 2mm thicker with the ability to upgrade. This is the wealthiest company on the planet in history and they are doing almost nothing.
- nozzlegear 2y agoI'll quote myself from elsewhere in this thread: > Personally I think it’s better to do some good for the environment than no good for the environment. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. They should absolutely let us repair every device, but I’m glad they make the environmental efforts they currently do as well.
- coldtea 2y ago>> Personally I think it’s better to do some good for the environment than no good for the environment. "Some good for the environment" is 0.1% better in some marginal areas (packaging , recycled X material, bundled cables, the stickers in the box it announced it will stop this year, and so on) combined with 20% worse in other areas (tens of millions of devices) for a net 19.9% worse. And, yes, 19.9% worse is technically better than 20% worse. Like "technically" removing a bucket of water from a flooding river is less flood than leaving it all. Practically it's worse. It does nothing to stop the catastrophe, and even worse, this greenwashing is giving false assurances, which help maintain and compound the 19.9% worse year over year (as opposed to people demanding they do something real). And of the course the hypocrisy, encouraged this way, doesn't stop with Apple.
- nozzlegear 2y agoI won’t argue with these because I assume these percentages are 19.9% made up.
- 2y ago
- yencabulator 2y agoThe point is that becoming "carbon neutral" by buying carbon offsets while encouraging rampant consumerism is not good for environment. Carbon offsets are about as credible as the oil industry giants saying they don't really pollute very much at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offsets_and_credits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offsets_and_credits