Comment by Despegar | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Despegar | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>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-...

> 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.

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.

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

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.

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...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com