
Apple commits to be 100% carbon neutral for supply chain and products by 2030 - uptown
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/07/apple-commits-to-be-100-percent-carbon-neutral-for-its-supply-chain-and-products-by-2030/
======
lapcatsoftware
The battery in my 2014 MacBook Pro is going bad for the second time. Replacing
the battery last time was expensive and a major ordeal. It's more difficult
than replacing the battery in my car.

Replacing the battery in my 2006 MacBook Pro took all of 15 seconds.

If the lifetime of a battery powered device is expected to be much longer than
the lifetime of the battery, then the battery needs to be easily user
replaceable. Otherwise, the manufacturer has zero credibility on the
environment.

Don't even get me started on vendor OS lockdown and its effect on the
environment. They're intentionally making devices disposable.

~~~
kempbellt
It's not an easy task to make an extremely efficient and sleek design, and
still make it easy to disassemble/reassemble/upgrade/etc.

The strides Apple has made to make devices smaller, more efficient, and more
powerful are incredible. Though they come with obvious downsides. Cramming all
that tech into a small space means you don't have an easy "click to remove"
battery cell any longer - or hard drive, or memory sticks, or floppy drive
bay... ;)

Not to negate your point - battery lifetimes are quite poor compared to the
lifetimes of all other electronics in a computer and making them easily
replaceable would be ideal.

Do we want smaller, faster, more efficient computers, or do we want easily
modable computers?

Obviously both would be ideal, just not sure if that's really feasible with
the way the technology is progressing.

~~~
TYPE_FASTER
I upgraded the RAM, did two hard drive swaps, and replaced the battery in my
2009 MBP. That laptop case also had less flex to it than the 2018 MBP I'm
using today. I would much rather have a thicker but
upgradeable/maintainable/solid laptop than the current models.

Thermal management on the 2018 models is also not great. Ambient temps on my
house didn't really impact the 2009 model, but they definitely do for the 2018
version. I think most of this comes from processor improvements over those
nine years, so there's a tradeoff, but don't know for sure. Only ARM will
tell.

Totally agree that the efficiency and power management on the iPhone line is
amazing. They've done a lot of work there. So far, the batteries in my iPhones
have lasted about as long as the rest of the device, typically four years.

The possibility of a convergent device, like an iPhone I could use with an
external display and keyboard (see
[https://youtu.be/yBeza4UNOm8](https://youtu.be/yBeza4UNOm8)), is intriguing.
I would like that. And I would be more likely to accept the compromises for
that form factor, because I can get down to one computing device.

But just having a sleeker design is not enough for the tradeoffs I see with
the vintage vs. modern MBP line.

~~~
ntsplnkv2
Everyone says this because they never have to put their money where there
mouth is and daily drive a behemoth like the old MBPs. My mom uses my 2010
MBP. The thing is enormous, ridiculously heavy. Huge, hard to fit in a
backpack. Battery life is mediocre. It gets pretty hot too despite its size.

I would never go back to then, nor would most consumers. I want my laptop to
last a long time and be portable. People moan about upgrades but I doubt that
is even half a percent of Apple's consumer base now.

~~~
lapcatsoftware
I would go back to my 2006 17-inch MacBook Pro form factor in a second. Best
laptop I've ever owned. Well designed.

There used to be a distinction between Pro and non-Pro. If you valued light
and small over power, then you'd buy the non-Pro Mac. But Apple won't let us
make the tradeoff anymore. Do Pro users even want the Touch Bar? Mostly not.

~~~
ntsplnkv2
Sure you would, that's what everyone says who doesn't have to do it or can't.

~~~
lapcatsoftware
I still have the machine. The only reason I had to stop using it is that it
can't run anything later than Lion.

~~~
ntsplnkv2
This is my point. It's easy to say you'd do something you'd never be forced
into doing. It's just rose-colored glasses "back in my day...blah blah blah"

~~~
lapcatsoftware
> This is my point.

You have no point. My point is that I can literally put my 2014 and 2006
MacBook Pros next to each other and compare them, in the present, right in
front of my eyes, not wearing any glasses, much less "rose-colored".

------
CivBase
Maybe I'll take Apple's environmental efforts seriously when they stop waging
war against independent repair and stop blocking their suppliers from selling
replacement parts.

How can you claim to be environmental lt conscious when a huge part of your
business is built on suckering customers into buying new, replacement devices
when all they want is a repair or replacement for a relatively cheap
component?

~~~
judge2020
This is the 15th time this has been talked about, but the reason they starve
independent repair is because they can only guarantee a quality repair and/or
replace a bad repair when they perform it (or when someone that has gone
through their training and certifications has done it). If a customer goes to
a repair shop that uses off-brand parts and is sloppy with their repair to the
point that the issue re-surfaces in a few months, the customer is likely to
blame Apple again instead of whoever did the repair.

~~~
CivBase
> the customer is likely to blame Apple again instead of whoever did the
> repair.

Says who?

Bad repair shops are a problem, but Apple is exacerbating that problem and
they know it. They _want_ people to go the Apple store where their "geniuses"
can tell them they have to spend thousands of dollars to replace a main board
when the actual problem is a bent pin or an unplugged battery. They want
independent repair to have a bad name so they can keep getting away with that
nonsense.

How are independent repair shops supposed to use _on-brand_ parts when Apple
wont even sell them at a reasonable price without some ridiculous contract?

Apple's independent repair program is complete BS. Expensive parts, a
lackluster part selection, and frivolous certifications are one thing, but
that's not enough for Apple. Their independent repair program essentially
prevents shops from doing anything more than simple screen and battery
replacements. If they offer services beyond that, Apple revokes the shop's
"privilege" to purchase overpriced OEM components.

They _say_ they want to prevent customers from being scammed by bad repair
shops, but Apple's scam is just as bad. They want you to buy new devices,
regardless of whether you want them, and they will trick you into buying them
if they think they can get away with it.

------
Whatarethese
Good on Apple! All companies should strive for some levels of sustainability.
Upfront it might cost them but it will save them money down the road.

~~~
pera
Wouldn't be awesome if large corporations competed to reach the carbon neutral
mark with the same enthusiasm they had for the trillion dollar mark? :)

Every company should add a page with a live chart showing how well they are
doing right now and how far away they are to be carbon neutral.

~~~
lrem
Google reached carbon neutrality in 2008 I believe. What did it get out of
that? How does that motivate the others?

~~~
pera
Well, they got my business, but only because I was specifically looking for
"green" cloud computing providers (I had no idea they were carbon neutral
before doing my research).

------
ksec
This lay the ground work where Apple will not include a Charger and EarPod in
the next iPhone.

They will probably tout it from an Environmental perspective along with the
rumour of a braided USB -Lightning Cable. Apple could tout its packaging is
50% reduction in weight, and 30% reduction in total size in shipping. And less
Carbon footprint in Shipping. Which will also saves them some money.

From an environmental prospective, Apple is now so far ahead of everyone else
in the industry that no company is matching them in theses checkboxes. So far
ahead that it would be easier to get ARM to co-Design a competitive SoC
against Apple's Ax Series than to catch up these environment issues. From
Design, and Sourcing Renewables materials to providing or funding development
of renewable energy, to shipping and recycling products.

While I have criticise Apple for many of its design flaws. ( MacBook 2019
Magic Keyboard is still awful, Battery Replacement is still expensive,
TouchBar, oversized Trackpad... etc ) Their supply chain operation is second
to none and truly a marvel to behold.

------
lokl
If they're serious about reducing their pollution, they'll give more
consideration to the end of the product life cycle.

~~~
jjcon
On the other hand, if the device has no footprint then it doesn’t matter as
much. If Apple wants sustainability without compromising form/function this is
a great way to do it.

One can always do more - that’s an easy and always applying criticism. Let’s
applaud when people do something good.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
> On the other hand, if the device has no footprint then it doesn’t matter as
> much.

Agreed. The problem is, I'm sure "carbon neutral" means they're using carbon
offsets to a significant degree. Offsets are _good_ , and I certainly wouldn't
want to discourage any company from using them. But, they're also not a
panacea—certainly not to the point where there's zero harm in buying a new
phone versus fixing an existing one.

~~~
Despegar
>The problem is, I'm sure "carbon neutral" means they're using carbon offsets
to a significant degree.

They aren't. See page 18.

[https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Pr...](https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Progress_Report_2020.pdf)

~~~
monocasa
That page only accounts for electricity used at Apple-owned facilities.
There's a lot more to the carbon footprint than that.

~~~
Despegar
Keep reading from page 18. The good news is that they're using the same
strategy for all their suppliers, which is putting renewable energy onto the
grid.

~~~
monocasa
First off, the way they're describing the suppliers sounds different, and
sounds like offsets.

Secondly, electricity used in facilities is not the whole of their carbon
footprint. You've got all the shipping across the supply chain for one
example.

~~~
Despegar
>We launched the Supplier Clean Energy Program in October 2015 to advance
those goals through our manufacturing supply chain. Since then, we have made
strong progress toward our initial goal of bringing online 4 gigawatts of new
clean energy by 2020. Building on that momentum, we recently set a new, even
more ambitious goal: to transition our entire manufacturing supply chain to
100 percent renewable electricity by 2030.

>We’re proud of the progress our suppliers have made so far. As of June 2020,
71 manufacturing partners in 17 different countries have committed to 100
percent renewable energy for Apple production. And Apple itself has continued
to invest directly in renewable energy projects to cover a portion of upstream
emissions. The Supplier Clean Energy Program now has 7.8 gigawatts of clean
energy commitments, of which 2.7 gigawatts was operational in 2019.

They're funding new renewable energy projects all over the world, including in
China [1].

>Secondly, electricity used in facilities is not the whole of their carbon
footprint.

It's just the vast majority of their carbon footprint.

>Since 2018, we’ve generated or sourced 100 percent renewable electricity for
all of Apple’s global facilities, driving our scope 2 emissions from
electricity to zero. And we estimate that in our manufacturing supply chain,
which itself makes up 75 percent of Apple’s overall carbon footprint, around
70 percent of emissions come from electricity.

[1] [https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apple-launched-
china-...](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apple-launched-china-clean-
energy-fund-invests-in-three-wind-farms/)

~~~
monocasa
> They're funding new renewable energy projects all over the world, including
> in China [1].

Yep, to offset their supplier's usage. That's an offset.

And you're quoting is 75% of 70%, or 52.5%. I wouldn't call that a _vast_
majority.

~~~
Despegar
When people refer to "offsets" they're talking about buying renewable energy
credits (RECs). Funding new renewable energy projects, and thus putting
renewable energy onto the grid, is not that.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
I see where you're coming from, but in my view that's still an offset.

~~~
yazaddaruvala
Do you also consider Carbon sequestering an "offset"?

> Apple has protected and restored forests, wetlands, and grasslands since
> 2015. Through our work with The Conservation Fund and the World Wildlife
> Fund, we have protected and improved the management of over 1 million acres
> of forests in China and the U.S.

> Starting in 2020, we plan to scale up our ambition to remove atmospheric CO2
> by creating a first -of -its-kind fund that will invest in the restoration
> and protection of forests and natural ecosystems globally. By investing in
> nature-based carbon removal projects, this fund aims to cover residual
> emissions that we believe are not otherwise avoidable.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
It's all great work, don't get me wrong.

My primary concern with all of these things is that they are liable to get
"double counted." Apple protects a forest in State X and uses it as a license
to release more carbon into the air; meanwhile, State X's governor uses the
forest as an example of the state's conservation efforts, even as the carbon
savings of those efforts are being zero'd out by Apple.

I don't think I'm as cynical as some other comments in this thread. I'm really
glad Apple is making these efforts, and I'd like to see other companies do the
same. However, I don't feel like we're anywhere near the point where I can
throw away a perfectly good iPhone guilt-free.

In other words, I want to see Apple get rid of their "must shred" agreements
with recyclers[1], and to support repairability efforts more broadly.

[1] [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-
ip...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-iphones-
macbooks)

------
curiousllama
I love the ambitious goal-setting.

One thing to notice: > they’ve helped us make our products more energy
efficient and bring new sources of clean energy online around the world.

This is a play in the sustainable-tech market space. Inasmuch as _other
companies_ care about sustainability, Apple is trying to publicly stay ahead
so it can credibly claim expertise when other companies start paying
attention.

------
cjohansson
I hope they focus on the human well-being aspect as well in their production
and supply chain. There is no reason a Chinese worker should experience worse
working-conditions than a US worker

~~~
macintux
They have been generating annual, detailed reports for years on the conditions
at their suppliers and their programs to remediate problems.

As far as I can tell, they are going much farther towards enforcing humane
treatment than anyone else in the computer business, but I’d be curious to
hear who’s doing a better job.

[https://www.apple.com/supplier-
responsibility/](https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/)

------
enahs-sf
While this is definitely a noble goal, I wonder what it would take for Apple
to become carbon negative and what the timeframe for that would be?

~~~
bilbo0s
I don't think it's possible. (Unless my understanding of the term "carbon
negative" is mistaken.)

Let's suppose you could manufacture your devices with 0 carbon emissions. No
solar, no wind, no gas, no nothing. Some other energy source with no carbon
inputs needed. For the sticklers, let's suppose none of the human employees
breath or anything during the manufacture of the products. So no carbon there
either.

You still have to deliver it right?

Let's suppose you make it in Chicago, or Miami, or San Fran, wherever. How are
you going to get that product to Lincoln Nebraska with no carbon emissions?
How will you get it to Lyon France? Or Aguadilla PR? or Ningbo? Or Mwanza?
(And in this case it would have to be more than "no" carbon emissions, it
would have to be "negative" carbon emissions.)

I'm not certain any company can deliver a physical product with negative
carbon emissions. It seems almost impossible without using funny math.

~~~
Voloskaya
Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2030:

[https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-
will-b...](https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-be-
carbon-negative-by-2030/)

To reach that they mention actively investing and deploying carbon removal
systems.

------
oliwarner
By 2030?! Is this serious?

If you want to trade in green credentials, _do it today_. They could offset
their entire operation with a few calls. They have the cash to do it. They
could take more active steps in short order too. Waiting 10 years to meet the
target is a poor show.

------
giorgioz
It feels like it's a too far away goal and too big goal.

2030 is the new 2020 where we push away dreams for the future, forget about
them, try to do them at the last moment and miss the deadline. I think it
would be better to have have smaller goals with a shorter timeframe.

~~~
Trufa
This is such negative comment. I don't understand why this gets traction.

I'm sure pretty smart people spent a lot of time in coming up with this goal
that is ambitious and pretty noble may a I say. Probably going through months
of goal planning a long vision setups.

And with low effort comment you can say, meh, I think I know better without
almost any contextual information about any of this.

I don't mean to be insulting, just that I think it's a little disrespectful to
peoples effort. And only negative.

Maybe you can present us a semi detailed plan of how Apple can better set
their carbon emission program.

~~~
ekr
I don't think it's either negative or insulting. And it raises a good point.
In 10 years' time lots of things could change that would make this "goal"
irrelevant. Apple might be struggling to make ends meet 5 years down the line.
I know that seems very unlikely for Apple right now, but imagine a company
like Intel, add a big economic regression, trade wars with China (which for
Apple is a big source of revenue) etc. But even just a few changes in the
board of directors, or a change of CEO could see this target go out of the
picture.

Besides, it's not a difficult target to achieve. I don't think it would cost
much more than a few tens of millions of dollars to start and operate some
solar and wind power stations of sufficient capacity to offset all of their
consumption. It should be pocket change for Apple's budget.

------
renw0rp
1\. Reuse 2\. Reduce 9\. Recycle

They missed the first point

~~~
frankbreetz
It's 1.Reduce 2.Reuse 3.Recycle

------
coold
Wow, they found a new way to keep outsource in secret

------
exabrial
Doesn't matter. You know what would be awesome? Repairable and upgradable
products. Being stylish and environmentally friendly aren't competing concerns
unless you make them.

~~~
nojito
>Repairable and upgradable products.

This is just an excuse to prop up a industry that ultimately doesn't need to
exist.

We need better warranties and written long term support of tech products.

~~~
bch
I wouldn’t mind having an SD slot and a 3.5mm headphone jack. The impenetrable
sleekness of modern phones looks great in equally impenetrable television ads,
but my real world would benefit from a bit more utility. Add replaceable
battery to the list too, to swap out a dead one, or install a larger one.

~~~
yazaddaruvala
And I would mind having an SD slot and a 3.5mm headphone jack.

This is the beauty of the market, yes? Both of us can shop at different
brands, and the products that sell more get to continue to try new and better
things.

I don't ask that every company stop using 3.5mm headphone jacks. Instead, I
buy Apple. Why do you ask for Apple to re-add them? Instead, just buy some
other brand.

------
BelleOfTheBall
Maybe they'll also consider not using planned obsolescence and stop sourcing
"blood gold"? There was a whole documentary on the latter but the former is
the real big offender.

------
fermienrico
We need to protest Apple to make products locally in California/Texas or in EU
where sustainability can be traced [1], suppliers can be held accountable and
there is no kowtow to the CCP.

Sustainability is just one of the fringe benefits - labor is getting more
expensive in China and Apple has risen because of cheap labor. Apple needs to
bring back manufacturing to the West. It will invigorate local supply chains
from screw makers to PCB manufacturers, glass cutting, CNC, etc.

It would be a dream to buy an iPhone proudly made sustainably in US+EU.

Why are we barking at NBA and flat out ignoring Apple? Where are protests
outside of Apple HQ? Where is the press on this!!!?

[1] [https://9to5mac.com/2020/03/02/apple-suppliers-implicated-
in...](https://9to5mac.com/2020/03/02/apple-suppliers-implicated-in-reports-
of-uyghur-forced-labor-in-china/)

~~~
birdyrooster
Why does Tim Apple get away with being so close to Donald Duck with private
meetings and such to preserve Apple's business with China? I find it curious
that the media hasn't bothered to take swipes at something so obviously in
conflict with Apple's stated mission and ethos.

