Well done Apple? I think they've done a good thing right? With all the negative comments on here it's hard to tell lol.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Launches $200 Million 'Restore Fund' to Remove Carbon From Atmosphere
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The saying, "You can't please everybody," always applies to everything and anything Apple does. Keyboard warriors are always at the ready.
I, for one, am happy that Apple is doing this!
I do know arguing with climate change denialists is futile, but nevertheless....
The computer generated models have become more and more accurate, but you are right. Most IPCC climate change models have underestimated the warming rate. They have become better, though.
Major banks all around the world are quite careful with climate change. Many banks and large institutional investors take carbon footprint into account in their investments.
There is one well-known group of tree huggers who have been doing a lot of research on climate change and take its strategic implications very seriously: US Navy. They cannot afford being political, as their property (docks, airstrips) may be in danger, and as melting ice sheets in the Arctic may tip the geopolitical balance.
You are right. But if they claim they try to make an impact (vs. just polish their brand), that money should be spent as well as possible. And if they do not, it is my decision and right to criticise them.
I am saying this as someone who occasionally is making these decisions on donations (in smaller but not insignificant scale) in the corporate world.
No, a forest full of undergrowth and dead trees is a MASSIVE fire hazard. Remember the 2019 Camp Fire in California?
I want Apple to help pay for efforts to make sure the forest is full of healthy trees; a healthy forest also means much more CO2 absorption.
I don’t have a retirement fund or pension or own any shares. I don’t care if your Apple shares fall into a black hole and become worthless. I don’t care if Apple is financially successful or not. I don’t work for Apple and so I don’t care about them or their employees. They’re just another greedy money grabbing corporation. If they didn’t exist I would just buy something else instead.
So which models am I supposed to believe if the IPCC is apparently the end all be all when it comes to climate science? I know science is never "settled", despite the rhetoric of politicians from a certain side of the aisle... there's also studies going back to the 70's where climate scientists said the exact opposite of what climate scientists are saying now. If we're to collectively throw trillions at a solution, it probably needs to be based on accurate data.
Your second point doesn't answer the question... there's no evidence that they are being careful, unless you're referring to investment opportunity & financial benefit in promoting an agenda.
The US Navy is another arm of the military, which is a branch of the government. They are not unbiased. If we are to trust the military, then we haven't learned anything from the past 20 years.
Where's China in all of this? are they not a naval super power? why do they not appear to be concerned with their own carbon emissions if it will effect their docks, airstrips, and naval fleets?
I'm not a denialist, I'm looking objectively at what has been presented in the media - hysteria with very little transparency regarding the organizations that are pushing the narrative that Co2 emissions are the sole contributor in climate change.
So do you want a healthy forest or a safe for human forest? Those aren’t the same thing.
Forest fires are part of the ecosystem. Removing all that dead stuff has a negative impact on the health and biodiversity of the forest.
Also what do you want Apple to do with all the stuff? Like where do you want it to go? In Australia it is typically burnt in a controlled way, that means it burnt and CO2 is put in to the atmosphere.
O
It’s a simple point, but am not surprised you did not get it.
I don’t own any Apple stock too, but am not that self centered to say that I don’t care if the retirement funds of poor people fail.
Off course you don’t care. I was giving an example that it’s not just rich people who own’s shares. I was just trying to point out that the poor will be more affected by failing companies than rich people.
It’s a simple point, but am not surprised you did not get it.
I don’t own any Apple stock too, but am not that self centered to say that I don’t care if the retirement funds of poor people fail.
Last edited:
Well, it may indirectly affect you if Apple were to fail as a company, seeing that Apple is not a 2T company. Apple failing may cause a recession as many people will be out of a job (as it has a domino effect througout it's supply chain), causing less spending power in the economy, which is the backbone of modern economy. Once in a recession, jobs becomes scarce, and many will be out of a job, further reducing spending power. Most everybody suffers in a recession.
It's never good to have big multi-national companies go bust, unless it's operation is causing more harm than good to the economy.
Also, think about your neighbours or fellow countrymen we may have a vested interested in Apple's success. Surely you would wish them well?
Widespread forest fires actually PERMIT regeneration to occur.
But in places where people live, we need to remove that underbrush so that they don't die in an inferno.
You actually do need some dead matter, yes. But the key is to not let it build up to dangerous fire-hazard levels in areas where that could threaten lives. Governments do a terrible job of managing this. I suggest we remove governments from the "doing". Why would you let the incompetent guy do your heart surgery, or fill your cavities? This is what you are doing when you ask the government to do something.
It is their decision, yes. But as an investor, you DO have a say, or at least you should, by way of your proxy vote. But what Apple and so many other companies are doing is "throwing good money after bad".
There are better investments Apple can be making, such as maybe researching how to use fewer heavy/precious metals so that maybe big polluters in China and elsewhere will maybe pollute a bit less?
Everything you said after the above statement is evidence of anger, jealousy, or SOMETHING that is not coming from a good place in your soul. Wishing bad upon others rarely makes you happier or better off in life. So why do it?
You're absolutely right. Apple thinks right now it's on top, but in EVERY case in history, a new upstart has always overtaken the so-called "current king".
Coca Cola, General Motors, Chrysler, Edison Electric, IBM, Standard Oil, Sears, McDonalds, Alcoa Aluminum, General Electric; these are just a few names of the companies that were once on top of the world, but who eventually lost their focus on the real battle in business. These and more companies were long ago knocked off the top rung of the ladder. Now they are but mere shadows of their former selves, and several of them have gone through bankruptcies and buy-outs, only to STILL struggle to stay alive today.
Losing focus is one of the common threads. Just donating money offers only a one-time impact; not unlike giving a man a fish. Apple has just given a $200 million fish, but has not improved the climate in any long term way. And it costed them $200 million to do that. That's a very high price for a benefit that is, by any objective measurement, only temporary. If you ask me, it's an inefficient use of resources and yes, an inefficient use of stakeholder resources.
I think you’re missing my point the OP was talking about a healthy forest. There’s a difference between a healthy forest and what’s good for people. If you want to remove this stuff that’s fine but don’t imply the forest isn’t healthy if it’s left there. Mother Nature planned this all out long before we were swinging between the trees.
Also removing this stuff is code for burning, which releases CO2 and is totally counter productive for what Apple is trying to achieve.
finally removing this stuff doesn’t always prevent dangerous forest fires. NSW RFS were pretty clear in their message that the Australian Bush fires were caused by serious drought conditions thought to be caused by climate change. Many of the worst affected areas had had controlled burns in the previous years and it did nothing to change the outcome in those weather conditions. if you are in drought conditions you can’t even conduct controlled burns in many cases as you’re just introducing fire to a tinderbox.
Last edited:
Replanting forest is too little, too late. It takes at least 50 years for a tree to grow, we don't have that time. Sorry, but game is actually over.
If the next 2-3 pandemics won't kill us off, the weather will. Just wait until the Gulf Stream (and other weather "engines") slows down due to the heating of the oceans. New York will be just as warm and nice as inland Canada. And all the southern states will be inhabitable due to extreme heat that regularly reaches 130.
There is no use debating this. Let's just come back to this thread in 2041 and see what the world is like...
If the next 2-3 pandemics won't kill us off, the weather will. Just wait until the Gulf Stream (and other weather "engines") slows down due to the heating of the oceans. New York will be just as warm and nice as inland Canada. And all the southern states will be inhabitable due to extreme heat that regularly reaches 130.
There is no use debating this. Let's just come back to this thread in 2041 and see what the world is like...
As far as I know, the most successful global carbon reduction achiever in recorded history was Genghis Khan. Unfortunately his methods, while astoundingly effective, are also morally reprehensible...
we’re only a couple of generations out of world war 2, there’s potentially a lot more people here now without Khan.
the entire premise is a little silly to be honest though.
While it is a laudable action and an essential step towards limiting climate change, I don’t understand what’s so “first of a kind” about this apart from Apple using investor money instead of their own money.
Lots of companies are already investing heavily in forest conversation and expansion and also in funding renewable power sources, as those measures generate emissions certificates according to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol rules. Volkswagen for example already has a million hectares of forest in Indonesia alone. Google has been carbon neutral since 2007 by offsetting more than 20 million metric tonnes by now, so more than the 1mio per year that Apple plans.
So Apple’s initiative certainly is very good, but also seems a little like hyperbole PR.
Lots of companies are already investing heavily in forest conversation and expansion and also in funding renewable power sources, as those measures generate emissions certificates according to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol rules. Volkswagen for example already has a million hectares of forest in Indonesia alone. Google has been carbon neutral since 2007 by offsetting more than 20 million metric tonnes by now, so more than the 1mio per year that Apple plans.
So Apple’s initiative certainly is very good, but also seems a little like hyperbole PR.
If Apple died tomorrow nothing bad would happen. Someone else would step in and take their place. Plenty of tech companies have failed over the years and the world keeps turning.
1. Didn't think there was a distinction between "their" money and investor money.
2. other companies are doing the investing
3. apple is doing the same thing
4. the initiative from apple is hyperbole
5. the initatives from other companies aren't
This is the old "apple did this" but "they should also be doing that" thinking that's fairly pervasive here on MR.