[HN Gopher] Apple calls on global supply chain to decarbonize by...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Apple calls on global supply chain to decarbonize by 2030
        
       Author : mfiguiere
       Score  : 20 points
       Date   : 2022-10-25 22:09 UTC (50 minutes ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.apple.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com)
        
       | lizardactivist wrote:
       | Apple letting people know how they're championing environmental
       | initiatives, all while their high horse is shitting out earpods
       | and other disposable electronics at inflated prices like there's
       | no tomorrow unless the billions roll in.
        
         | adamwk wrote:
         | Are you talking about AirPods? Everyone I know (myself
         | included) keeps theirs longer than most people keep phones
        
           | CivBase wrote:
           | Most pairs of cheap earbuds I own are older than the AirPods
           | have been around.
        
             | JaggerJo wrote:
             | Have my first pair still in use.
        
           | amelius wrote:
           | How long you keep them is only one side of the story. The
           | other side is how often you buy stuff. You could make an
           | argument that the average person buys more electronics
           | because Apple started pushing it to the market.
        
       | bamboozled wrote:
       | Too little too late.
        
       | it_citizen wrote:
       | Slightly unrelated: In your opinion, is Apple part of the most
       | ethical large tech companies? Which other company do you put up
       | there?
       | 
       | (And yes, I know the bar is probably pretty low)
        
         | cercatrova wrote:
         | Ethical in what areas? They're pretty good with their
         | environmental reforms after Tim Cook took the helm (I'm not
         | talking about removing the headphone jack or lack of chargers
         | in boxes, but having mostly paper packaging which he needed to
         | convince Jobs to adopt, the book Tim Cook is a great
         | introduction), but the way they take 30% off every transaction
         | and generally act like an artifical gatekeeper when IMO they
         | should be more intercompatible with other companies, is
         | unethical to me.
        
         | ben_w wrote:
         | I would say yes; the other big names on my list would be
         | Netflix, Google, Microsoft, and Tesla/SpaceX.
         | 
         | And yes, that's despite the controversies; none of them seem to
         | me to be _actively_ evil, merely giants who tread incautiously.
        
       | 1-6 wrote:
       | When future earnings become problematic, shift the topic to clean
       | energy initiatives to artificially limit production.
        
         | smoldesu wrote:
         | Very convenient, considering the company with the most money
         | can buy the most carbon credits!
        
         | ben_w wrote:
         | They've been saying this kind of thing since before they were a
         | mere single trillion dollar market capitalisation. (Currently
         | $2.4 trillion, IIRC).
        
       | gjsman-1000 wrote:
       | OK then. Put your money where your mouth is, Apple, and send some
       | checks to UPS, FedEx, DHL, Foxconn, TSMC, Samsung, 3M, BOE,
       | Flextronics, Hitachi, LG, Micron, Molex, Nidec, NXP, Panasonic,
       | Pegatron, Qualcomm, Skyworks, Sony, STMicroelectronics, Texas
       | Instruments, and all of your other hundreds of suppliers and get
       | them carbon neutral. Otherwise it's just a "we call on" when you
       | are fully capable of "we funded everybody to the point where."
       | 
       | If this is truly a climate emergency, that cash (what was it,
       | $200B in reserves?) is a small price to pay, and would help a
       | long way for companies that can't afford it like you can.
       | Otherwise keep your mouth shut - it's nothing more than a "we
       | really think you should spend your money on..." at best and a
       | "spend your profits on this or else" at worst.
        
       | mensetmanusman wrote:
       | This is easier to say when you design how things should be built
       | versus actually building things, but it is a great goal.
       | 
       | Apple could do so much more for the environment, but it would
       | hurt their profits.
        
         | esskay wrote:
         | That last part could be said of most corporations. The
         | difference is Apple has so far backed it up with concrete proof
         | that they genuinely have at very least done something, even if
         | its not as much as we'd all like.
        
       | kieranmaine wrote:
       | To offer an alternative view to those bashing Apple it appears
       | they have made solid progress on reducing emissions over the last
       | 5 years. Some concrete stats on their emissions reductions can be
       | found on page 84 on this report
       | https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Pr...
       | 
       | Total gross carbon footprint (without offsets)10 (metric tons
       | CO2e):
       | 
       | Fiscal Year 2017: 23,200,000
       | 
       | Fiscal Year 2021: 27,500,000
       | 
       | This include Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions so AFAIK includes things
       | like transportation of goods.
       | 
       | For scope definitions see
       | https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/what-a...
        
       | stormbrew wrote:
       | Disappointing there's no explicit mention of shipping here, which
       | is almost certainly a huge part of things and an area where a big
       | mover could make a big difference for an entire industry.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-10-25 23:00 UTC)