4 ms·
What’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 ta
by nozzlegear 3y ago
What’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 3y ago[flagged]
- nozzlegear 3y 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 3y ago[deleted]
- lancesells 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y agoI won’t argue with these because I assume these percentages are 19.9% made up.
- coldtea 3y agoThey're clearly meant to be illustrative, not specific... except if you thought the argument was that Apple's damage to the environment is precisely 19.9% of some yet unspecified unit wooooosh
- servus45678981 3y agoThe wealthiest is Microsoft and can you provide sources for your “knowledge“?
- yencabulator 3y 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