I've actually been a little closer than that, my friend. As in I've ridden a bicycle across Iowa. And relatively speaking you have very little heavy manufacturing.
And FYI, corn isn't that beautiful. Until it's inside the pig... ;-)
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 Tops Greenpeace Clean Energy Index Based on Renewable Energy Initiatives
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've actually been a little closer than that, my friend. As in I've ridden a bicycle across Iowa. And relatively speaking you have very little heavy manufacturing.
And FYI, corn isn't that beautiful. Until it's inside the pig... ;-)
Wow and imagine the impact all these manufacturers of Android phones have on the environment considering their main goal is to produce a cheap throw away phone and come out with a new one every few months. So you are right we should only be ranting about how evil Apple is.
EDIT: And according to Strategy Analytics over 1090.3 Million non-iOS phones were produced in 2014. That's 1 Billion 90 Million non-iOS phones. And what are these manufacturers of non-iOS phones doing to be environmentally responsible. Last I checked most if not all are being assembled and shipped from China.
These sure don't look like mere lipstick on a pig items to me. At least they are a good start:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102666244
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/04/17/apple-grows-its-own-solar-farms-in-china/
http://www.i4u.com/2015/05/91108/apple-plants-trees-china
Last edited:
I guess people won't copy something that is not directly increase their profit ($$$). When will Google learn?
Fans loyalty do comes from positive awareness.First, this article specifically references server farms, not manufacturing, although there are talks of Apple making strides in that respect as well.
Next, 25 million plus people are not simply throwing their devices away when they upgrade. I, like many, sell the older device to someone who likely dropped theirs in the toilet or some other unfortunate event, for more than I purchase my new (apparently not worth it purchase) iPhone on contract. Apple also has a recycling program for older devices you wish to discard. They seem to be covering the whole manufacturing to distribution in terms of energy. I'm sure the extra specs on your phone is worth the pollution created by the company that doesn't even care to consider being more eco friendly.
Let me guess... Conservative ? In the U.S., republican with Fox on all the time?
Nuclear power is more risky than unclean. It's clean as long as there isn't a screwup. Coal pollutes for sure, and it does leave problems for future generations, especially if its emissions affect the climate (which is undetermined for now). Sure, wind and solar are probably nicer than nuclear, but I don't think it's fair or neutral to put nuclear in the "dirty" energy list.
----------
For a huge company, 300 acres isn't that bad. Any farming company must take way more.
----------
His political position would give him a motive for this, but how to look at it depends on how cynical you are. Either way, I'm sure the Democratic and Green parties are frustrated with the oil price war (U.S. fracking vs Saudi production) making oil super cheap all of a sudden.
This is why I continue to support Apple. This is much the same as why I support Chipotle and their 'Food with Integrity'.
Its about time companies become more Ethically responsible.
Its about time companies become more Ethically responsible.
Yes, and France is a thorn in the thigh of all the others (Russia too)
They are building one plant right now and have 58 active ones.
Germany will probably never have another one approved. After spending 4 billion dollars to build it, the "fast breeder" in Kalkar never got the permission to go on line. That was actually a joint project of Germany, Holland and Belgium.
It is until today the defining moment of Germany against nuclear power.
After apr. 40 years of a single farmers fight (Being supported by the public) that last nuclear project was scrapped. Being from Germany I followed the fight and was happy that it never got permission.
Drove by there plenty of times.
Every time somebody talks about nuclear energy in Germany, they don't get past submitting plans.
The designers/builders never have deposits covered and the French cores being transported by train secretively in concrete caskets always cause a major action by environmentalists.
In general nuclear may be efficient, but is not safe.
Statistically one can manipulate that number, except one accident and it all goes out the window.
In Europe the continent would be finished.
I just don't see how one can build nuclear reactors in densely populated areas.
As for the US they'll most likely be closing 13 reactors and are building 4 at the moment
ready by apr. 2020.
Same time as the apple car
Unfortunately, this is laced with highly biased lack of real fact. The US currently has 99 operational commercial reactors in 61 operating plants. All have operated without incident for over 30 years.
At one point, before the oldest technologies were shut down, there were nearly 120 reactors that had operated for 30 consecutive years without incident. Even 3 Mile Island did not result in the radiation leak feared and it was ancient technology (even for the 70's) and grossly mismanaged.
Fukishima is now held up as the poster child of "why we shouldn't do this" and it's an even worse example. Why? Because it was a 1960's design that withstood 3 times the tectonic movement it was ever designed for. it also withstood a bigger tsunami than it was designed for. The reactor safety systems did their jobs and sealed the cells to the outside world. All that was required was for the circulation pumps to keep cool water running through the heat exchangers so the facility could sit in the scrammed condition. The generators kept that going for quite a while, but ran out of fuel before the crews could get there to refuel them.
Don't make this out like nuclear energy is dangerous and Europe would be doomed. Chernobyl is the worst man made disaster in history after the two nuclear bombs, and it's not like thousands of square miles are now unusable.
At the end of the day, the carbon footprint per Terawatt of energy generated will always be exponentially in nuclear's favor.
One of the things I hope comes out of Apple doing this is that it sets the standard for other companies to follow. Climate change is not debatable, but the degree to which human activity is. Regardless of which side you are on, is it really that bad of a thing to find way to minimize the amount of damage we cause to our only home?
That's how it probably works. It depends on the setup. Tesla unveiled those consumer batteries that can store energy and power your house when needed. So in theory you would set up enough solar panels to charge that battery during the day and use the battery when they aren't producing.
It could also just be an offset provided to the power grid. If Apple uses 1.21 gigawatts of power for its datacenter, then it builds enough solar farms to put that back into the grid. If you're using a lot of power from the local power grid but putting the same amount or more back in from a renewable source, the fact that your own electricity probably came from coal or methane plants is really just semantics.
It's a shame more of these companies don't do better, especially if they're based in areas where solar panels are more effective. Hard to blame someone in the Pacific Northwest for not using solar.
Climate change skeptics are weird people to me. I can totally see how you can find all kinds of scientific-looking plots on the internet supposedly contradicting the idea that it's getting warmer pretty quickly. I used to spend a lot of time trying to sort out these plots and looking for more reliable sources of information when at some point I just stopped caring about the truth. To me, it's not really about the truth. The truth is, we have actually no idea what's going to happen next. This planet is undoubtedly one of the most complex systems known to man.
Use clean, non-fossil energy, be conscious about the finite nature of things, respect the environment etc. I don't know, but sometimes I have the feeling these are beautiful things to do, like completely independent of Climate Change. Those things will make this planet a better place to live, undoubtedly. I really would love to live on a planet with less dirty industry, cars etc. I would love to see people being a little more conscious about the food they are stuffing in themselves every day. Really, even if this whole thing is a scam, I'm alright with it. If scientists all over the world got together to plot this, then it's probably one of the best things scientists plotted to do, let's face it.
I mean, yeah, Climate Change skeptics might see themselves as some sort of fighters for truth or something, but all I can see is people who really don't want something good to happen to this planet for a change. We have much more than we need in first world countries and if there is a reason to mobilize all this to create a better environment to live in for our children, than I'd say we better do that. Who knows, maybe it won't be as easy for generations to come.
Use clean, non-fossil energy, be conscious about the finite nature of things, respect the environment etc. I don't know, but sometimes I have the feeling these are beautiful things to do, like completely independent of Climate Change. Those things will make this planet a better place to live, undoubtedly. I really would love to live on a planet with less dirty industry, cars etc. I would love to see people being a little more conscious about the food they are stuffing in themselves every day. Really, even if this whole thing is a scam, I'm alright with it. If scientists all over the world got together to plot this, then it's probably one of the best things scientists plotted to do, let's face it.
I mean, yeah, Climate Change skeptics might see themselves as some sort of fighters for truth or something, but all I can see is people who really don't want something good to happen to this planet for a change. We have much more than we need in first world countries and if there is a reason to mobilize all this to create a better environment to live in for our children, than I'd say we better do that. Who knows, maybe it won't be as easy for generations to come.
It's also dirty, because it produces dangerous wastes we currently have no idea what to do with. So, we just burry them in the ground, hoping the future generations will find a solution.
Also, first generation nuclear power plants are still in use. When they're too old to keep working safely, we have absolutely no idea of how we will dispose of the tons of radioactive stuff at their cores. What's even worse is that there is no budget to handle that, it will be done, if it is possible, only on taxpayers money.
I would not call that a clean energy. Like if you burry your wastes in your garden, it doesn't make them clear. It's merely an energy that is uncleaned in a deferred manner, but ultimately, it is unclean.
----------
It's also a sensible thing to do from an economic point of view...
Like the US car industry kept making cars that were not energy efficient. As a result, they lost exports. Then, they lost their local market to Japan or Germany. And now, Detroit is a ghost town.
Likewise, oil, coal and all fossil energies are limited. One day or another, they will be exhausted. The countries which will have learnt to work without them will have no problem, but the others will face rising prices and loss of capacity to produce.
Moreover, there is a lot of business opportunities. Energy is cost. For instance, datacenters pay twice the cost of energy : first to power their computers, then to cool them. Energy efficiency is a huge selling point when you do business with datacenters.
Likewise, energy is a cost for corporations. But some architects are able to build positive energy buildings - buildings that produce more energy than they consume. This is also a significant selling point.
The same applies to households : with energy efficient lights or heating, with good isolations, you can cut your bills significantly - I have a friend who divided his energy bills by two. And this makes business specializing in that profitable.
This is why we need Thorium reactors, which is what we would have now if the research had not stopped in the 1970's as is not weaponisable. It's way safer. Abundant, and did I mention can't be weaponised!
----------
Then you clearly have zero idea what is happening in the world. Perhaps when your Energy bills quadruple you may take notice.
and now let's look at their manufacturing...
Technically, it's not their manufacturing, as Apple doesn't own Foxconn or any of their suppliers.
And it's the safest energy source the world has ever known.
----------
Ah, the ol' twisteroo. So in your fantasy scenario, Apple makes all the devices and people copy them, making Apple the bad guy? What about all the unupgradeable Android trash phones that are sold each year?
This is huge for Apple, and shines a light on every other company to improve. Don't try to twist this into a negative thing.
Apple's solar plants and managed forests are lipstick for dummies to try to hide their business model based on planned obsolescence that the rest of the industry has copied.
Apple is certainly not going in my preferred direction lately, but, the ol' 3GS is still working, as are the 2007 MBP and white plastic macbook.
Back OT, I'm quite glad that Apple has avoided using coal-generated electricity for their data centers. Everyone in the world should copy Apple this time.
And you talk mostly about old products from before the current "100% throwaway" era.
