Apple Urges Suppliers to Address Environmental Impact Ahead of 2030 Carbon Neutral Goal

[MacRumors]

Apple today called on its suppliers to take new steps to decarbonize and address their greenhouse gas emissions.

In a press release, Apple said that it will evaluate the work of its manufacturing partners on a regular basis to encourage them to decarbonize their Apple-related operations and use 100 percent renewable energy, tracking and auditing progress annually. It added that Apple will specifically partner with suppliers that are "working with urgency and making measurable progress toward decarbonization," and is encouraging manufacturers to address their greenhouse gas emissions beyond their Apple production, offering suppliers a suite of free e-learning resources and live training courses through the Clean Energy Program.

Apple itself has been carbon neutral across its corporate operations since 2020, but has the long term goal of being carbon neutral across its entire global supply chain and the life cycle of every product by 2030. Apple has reduced its emissions by 40 percent since 2015, primarily thanks to improvements in energy efficiency, low-carbon design, carbon neutrality for corporate operations, and transitioning its supply chain to renewable electricity.

More than 200 suppliers representing more than 70 percent of Apple's manufacturing spend have already committed to using renewable energy like wind or solar for all Apple production, including Corning Incorporated, Nitto Denko Corporation, SK hynix, STMicroelectronics, TSMC, and Yuto.

Apple also announced new initiatives designed to help decarbonize the global economy and promote new climate-focused solutions, including investments to construct large-scale solar and wind facilities in Europe, partnerships to support businesses moving to clean energy, and Restore Fund projects to advance natural carbon removal and help carbon removal generate a financial return. For more information about Apple's latest environmental efforts, see the full press release.

Article Link: Apple Urges Suppliers to Address Environmental Impact Ahead of 2030 Carbon Neutral Goal

 

[WiiDSmoker]

The irony in releasing new dongles, plastic stickers in nearly every package, and apparently certain executives investing in bitcoin (not sure if true).

 

[H2SO4]

The irony in releasing new dongles, plastic stickers in nearly every package, and apparently certain executives investing in bitcoin (not sure if true).

I don’t know how but I was thinking almost exactly what you just said.

 

[mrochester]

I truly don’t understand this mentality that we should do nothing just because we don’t do everything.

it’s such a backwards way of looking at things.

 

[SoldOnApple]

There's a big financial incentive to do this and do it early. One day we'll start taxing big businesses for carbon at any stage of what they sell, even minerals at the supplier level, and Apple will have the advantage of already having made the transition while other technology suppliers are scrambling at the deadline to avoid the tax on dirty parts and processes.

 

[alFR]

The irony in releasing new dongles, plastic stickers in nearly every package, and apparently certain executives investing in bitcoin (not sure if true).

Ah, MacRumors never fails: a story that has literally no downside for anyone and the first post is a complaint. Bravo.

 

[femike]

I honestly don't know where to start on totally ridiculing this press release from Apple - it will so long that I feel don't like starting it right now.

 

[SoldOnApple]

The irony in releasing new dongles, plastic stickers in nearly every package, and apparently certain executives investing in bitcoin (not sure if true).

Apple should make those stickers biodegradable, so they dissolve in just a few years even if you leave it in the box, so having new looking stickers is a status symbol and helps sell more devices.

 

[Bokito]

If Apple wants it’s suppliers to speed up in becoming green they should pay them more. Foxconn is only receiving a few $ for every iPhone they make. If you see their margins compared to Apple’s just installing a single solar panel will require them to make hundreds of iPhones. And then they’re green, but in some factories the working conditions still look like modern slavery.

 

[andrewxgx]

Ah, MacRumors never fails: a story that has literally no downside for anyone and the first post is a complaint. Bravo.

oh, but it has a downside: green energy is simply more expensive
which means suppliers need to raise prices
which means higher price for end customers
ecology is expensive (at least for now)

 

[laptech]

There's a big financial incentive to do this and do it early. One day we'll start taxing big businesses for carbon at any stage of what they sell, even minerals at the supplier level, and Apple will have the advantage of already having made the transition while other technology suppliers are scrambling at the deadline to avoid the tax on dirty parts and processes.

Manufacturers will not care about being carbon taxed because they know they can pass all costs on to the customer and if it's a product or material that the customer needs then the manufacturer knows the customer will pay the costs. It happens all the time, companies get fined or taxed for something and the company just increases their prices to compensate for the fine or tax.

 

[zzmd]

Apple needs more innovation not ESG monitoring.

 

[willyx]

Requiring suppliers to decarbonize, potentially incurring in huge costs, while Apple squeezes their margins, awesome!

 

[mrochester]

oh, but it has a downside: green energy is simply more expensive
which means suppliers need to raise prices
which means higher price for end customers
ecology is expensive (at least for now)

So we shouldn’t do anything then?

 

[mrochester]

Apple needs more innovation not ESG monitoring.

Why not both?

 

[robd003]

I'd rather have cheaper products than any of this "feel good" environmentalism.

 

[d5aqoëp]

Apple's hypocrisy makes me angrier day by day.... to the point of no return where I refuse to buy their products one day.

 

[SoldOnApple]

Manufacturers will not care about being carbon taxed because they know they can pass all costs on to the customer and if it's a product or material that the customer needs then the manufacturer knows the customer will pay the costs. It happens all the time, companies get fined or taxed for something and the company just increases their prices to compensate for the fine or tax.

Right, but what if the time came to pass on those costs to customers and only Apple has already done it? What if Samsung suddenly had to charge $400 extra for their devices and Apple didn't. That would cost Samsung valuable marketshare, otherwise Samsung would already be charging $400 more for their devices.

 

[mrochester]

Apple's hypocrisy makes me angrier day by day.... to the point of no return where I refuse to buy their products one day.

Sadly the reality is you won’t be able to buy products from any manufacturer if that is your yard stick. Saying that, not buying products is absolutely the best thing you can do for the environment.

 

[ProfessionalFan]

And then Tim Cook hopped on his private plane.

 

[ProfessionalFan]

Ah, MacRumors never fails: a story that has literally no downside for anyone and the first post is a complaint. Bravo.

Because it is empty virtual signaling if Apple and the celebrities who preach about this stuff continue to fly on private planes everywhere. Those flights hurt the environment a hell of a lot more than including a USB-C cable with my upcoming new Apple TV remote would.

 

[Leon Ze Professional]

"offering suppliers a suite of free e-learning resources and live training courses through the Clean Energy Program."

Sorry, but I could not stop smirking when I saw the words free e-learning resources. It just sounds so ironic to me.

 

[steve09090]

And then Tim Cook hopped on his private plane.

Are you saying he’s not carbon neutral?

 

[steve09090]

oh, but it has a downside: green energy is simply more expensive
which means suppliers need to raise prices
which means higher price for end customers
ecology is expensive (at least for now)

That’s not actually true any more. Sure, some things are more expensive, like EV's. But energy like Coal and Gas are becoming more expensive than Renewables.

 

[andrewxgx]

So we shouldn’t do anything then?

not really
but maybe they should chill a little bit while world deals with bigger issues