Apple calls on global supply chain to decarbonize by 2030
apple.com
apple.com
Total gross carbon footprint (without offsets) (metric tons CO2e):
Fiscal Year 2017: 27,500,000
Fiscal Year 2021: 23,200,000
This include Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions so AFAIK includes things like transportation of goods.
For scope definitions see https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/what-a...
Edit: Corrected yearly emissions
Which, sure, there are a few naive folks like that; but the renewables space is filled with industrialists that did the hard technology work of actually creating an entirely new energy future. Come on, random Twitter dude... these folks know their supply chains and are smart enough to know that basically all reports everywhere for the past 10 years are predicting this massive shift from fossil fuel extraction to mineral extraction. Nobody is surprised.
As for the rest of your comment, none of the rest of the energy source has to be carbon based. And by saying that they are going to decarbonize their supply chain, Apple is creating a guaranteed customer for new business to actually deliver that supply. And for a new business, that guaranteed market is by far the most important factor for getting a new business off the ground. It means that no matter their costs, as long as they are better than the other decarbonized sources, they can win the bid. And that's where subsidies/tax credits are weaker, because they have to predict the delta between the earliest decarbonized product and the traditional alternatives. A guaranteed market gets around that.
For tough-to-decarbonize sectors such as concrete, having more purchasers of the zero-carbon early products, such as city governments or state governments, is a huge boom to entrepreneurs looking to pioneer a new space.
So Apple really is doing something significant, which will actually change the economy for the better, and probably more so than a tax credit scheme.
People are working on reducing demand for electricity through efficiency, but if we electrified everything in the US today, demand for electricity would something like 9x. So, yes, we're going to need a lot more copper.
Still...good to see it's dropping.
I think the numbers are swapped? Anyway, they've made a good progress.
Electricity and power make up around 20% of global use, with manufacturing taking a portion of the pie closer to 30%. Migrating those systems is a very large hurdle, but I'll admit that whilst doing some investing around this recently, it seems to be a clear target by many organisations. Migrating traditional manufacturing processes for chemicals and base materials is going to have a massive impact on the overall situation.
In saying all this, the idea that we will be anything close to decarbonised by 2030 is a joke of epic proportions, the scale of the problem is mind boggling. Not that that means we shouldn't try, as it's a very necessary goal. But I actually think being more realistic about the scale of the issue is more likely to generate more interest in crafting fixes, as opposed to these bullshit goals that in many ways, make the problem sound solveable within the timeline. Which it isn't.
This seems to be more about moving manufacturing to use renewable electricity sources, which should be pretty easy (just get a different contract and pay slightly more).
I like your thought on this, but it really is not that simple, however great it would be if it was. You get into issues of energy density very quickly, and hard industries requires lots of heat, which the conversion rate for electricity is very inefficient, necessitating other forms of energy source. It's nowhere near as simple as just "switching provider", you can't smelt steel with solar power.
For the big 5 products, steel, plastic, cement, ammonia and icantrememberthelastone, you have a bunch of processes that require energy densities that are fundamentally different to residential tier appliances etc that can be provided by solar, wind etc. And for some of these products, which are integral to worldwide economies, there really aren't feasible replacements.
How much of their scoring takes into account the generation of e-waste?
Beyond that, this definition of "repurposing" seems...slanted. You probably aren't repurposing an iPad 1 anyway because it's a very slow single-core processor, but I still have multiple 30-pin-connector iPads around my house (including at least one iPad 2) being used as dedicated kiosks/control surfaces for stuff. I wouldn't expose them to the internet, but I also don't really see a reason why I would anyway--they'd be too slow to use to browse the web. (I do the same with a couple of old Nexus tablets, too.)
And that I repurpose them is a particularly exceptional use case. It is for any stuff that old. This mythical idea of "oh, well, if they had unlocked bootloaders, people would still be using iPhones and iPads long into the future!" is just...pretty clearly untrue. Android devices with unlocked bootloaders end up in the bin at no less of a rate than iOS devices, even though one could go install an AOSP flavor on them and keep them ticking. There aren't enough people interested in doing so to soak up all of those; why would adding more devices move the needle?
I have 10+ year old Macs that make excellent Linux machines, and I can connect them to the internet, too, because they're capable of running modern software.
Allowing iPads to run non-Apple approved software opens the door to a world of opportunities for iPad owners, even if you personally can't think of what you'd do with that freedom.
"With the help of customer and employee participation across recycling programs, we directed more than 38,000 metric tons of e-waste to recycling globally in fiscal year 2021."
Page 11: "we model our emissions across the entire life cycle of our products — including the sourcing of raw materials, manufacturing, shipping, product use, and end-of-life processing"
Page 85 contains information on how they model emissions transportation: "To model transportation, we use data collected on shipments of single products and multipack units by land, sea, and air. We account for transporting materials between manufacturing sites; transporting products from manufacturing sites to regional distribution hubs; transporting products from regional distribution hubs to individual customers; and transporting products from final customers to recycling facilities."
It's not. We ship food from half way around the world and still make a profit, so the shipping cost are very low. And very low cost implies low carbon emissions.
Given how terrible we are at incorporating externalities into costs, I'm very skeptical.
While packaging is on the heavy side, I always find alternate uses for those apple boxes :)
Anyway, lots of grumbling in the comments, but that is the nature of online fora. Presumably a CSAM scanning comment will make its way out here soon.
There is a great article, focused primarily on the clothing industry, that shows that most companies just can't know the details anymore, even when they try to:
https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/the-myth-of-...
And this has to do with dynamics that are bigger than any one company. All these countries that we outsource our labour or resource extraction to are encouraged with trade deals and international debt to operate in certain ways that benefit the West and lead to inequitable and unenvironmental practices. That, or the US just outright intervenes in their governance and invades them or funds anti-democratic coups.
Right?
Increasingly escalating 'No true Scotsman'/appeal to purity arguments are sure fun!
I say let's just assume people are not by default acting like a villain in an episode of Captain Planet.
Partner and I have dabbled in Veganism, it was detrimental to our health. One diet can't fit all and we should not apply morality to one or the other, within reasonable limits of course.
Blowing it up to hyperbole is stupid.
I don't think people are villains. I just think they are misguided.
Well, you don't have to go full vegan. Doubtful you need to eat meat every day to stay healthy.
(yes, the European taxonomy is not great. Different countries, different opinions, better some conclusion than none I guess...)
Apple could do so much more for the environment, but it would hurt their profits.
Do they just pretend that the emissions from their likely hundreds of parts suppliers don't count?
What do they intend to do about their products having a short lived lifespan and then are thrown away or sent to the third world for a horrific "recycling" process.
I am going to guess if I took a bunch of iPhones, ground them up in a blender and then filtered water through it no Apple exec would drink it.
Planting trees is great and all, but this is hilariously misleading. Just seems like a big distraction.
Their 2022 Environment Impact Progress report (https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Pr...) includes scopes 3 emissions which covers emissions from suppliers (see page 84).
> What do they intend to do about their products having a short lived lifespan and then are thrown away or sent to the third world for a horrific "recycling" process.
Pages 49 + 50 contain information on their approach to recycling. I haven't read it all but a skim appears to show they're thinking about how to improve recycling processes. No idea how harmful their recycling approaches are to health.
Of course there are going to be co2 emissions caused by the products. The factor, even the workers are causing co2. Some of it is unavoidable and they recognize this. Still a lot can be saved.
What can't be saved by Apple('s partners) will be saved by avoiding to burn oil, wood, etc in poorer countries, offsetting the co2. This is how many companies already call their products co2 neutral (by offsets) right now.
By contrast: other companies (Stripe) invest in co2 capture, but this is wildly less efficient than offsets.
True wireless headphones are nice products, and I share your enjoyment of them. Let's pressure all companies to design their products so we can use them even more than 3 years after they launched.
You can make any argument you like.
Far-fetched though to imply that Apple is solely responsible for defining the spending patterns of billions of people.
How is it far-fetched? Smartphones, app stores, subscription services, gig economy, all fundamentally Apple's fault.
All this greenwashing brouhaha makes me regret the times when all capitalists were greedy capitalists, not hypocrites. You can successfully fight capitalist greed, it's much more difficult to fight this, whatever this is.
* assuming you can implement a carbon tax on all carbon actually emitted
And going by the definition of greediness, that tax will be passed almost entirely to the non-greedy "proletariat". Which is why I find this "fight" against climate change fought by the West to be so harmful, it's enough to look at the incomes of those who are in its front lines to know whose material interests will be protected first and foremost.
Please stop using class-warfare terms. It's very 1850 and is unproductive.
> non-greedy
If they are mammals or any biological organism, they are greedy, even if they hide it well.
If the carbon tax is simply passed to the consumer, this will have exactly the intended effect. People will pick the cheapest products and we'll end up with an economy that's optimizing for the most efficient ways of lowering carbon.
Why should I “stop” that? Do you think we’re at the classless level already? Because we’re definitely not, hence why saying things like “class talk is stuff from the past” comes from pure class privilege.
> People will pick the cheapest products and we'll end u
What’s cheaper than basic bread and basic cooking oil? Because the prices for those two have certainly gone up thanks to all the EGS craziness of “let’s not invest in fossil fuels anymore!”. Again, this type of speech and ignoring all these basic aspects comes from class privilege alone.
(And yes, I know the bar is probably pretty low)
Meanwhile over in the Google play store I didn't even break $100 for the exact same apps.
And yes, that's despite the controversies; none of them seem to me to be actively evil, merely giants who tread incautiously.
And if Apple were to succeed, under our current political systems, it'd just mean, they'd have made their customers pay a premium to push carbon emissions to cheaper companies/products/sectors.
If you figure that out, you should definitely share the specifics, as it would be a major flaw.
But if you don't have a specific way this could happen, then I suspect you are falling prey to the fallacy that decarbonization is impossible.
Don't get me wrong, it's totally ok they do that. But it shouldn't lead people to think, that since Apple/Tesla succeeds, humanity doesn't need to drastically change its way of doing things.
Sustainable ressources are scarce. One company stocks up on them -> others are pushed to less green sources or they have to reduce output (which they try to avoid obviously).
Yeah, sure, there's also positive effects such as economies of scale improving things with sustainable business when there's more demand for it. But, in my opinion, the mining and sourcing of raw materials and the supply of renewable energy is in a pretty inelastic situation right now because of physical constraints. This inelasticity means: one players buys up more, others are pushed elsewhere.
> ... falling prey to the fallacy that decarbonization is impossible.
Oh it is possible. It's not possible as fast as most politicians make it appear.
Here are some numbers at minute 40:
"Assoc Prof Simon Michaux - The quantity of metals required to manufacture just one generation of renewable technology to phase out fossil fuels"
But that's not the case, as far as I understand any Apple's inputs. New supply chains and new accounting for all the supply chains will need to be created.
All the raw material inputs needed to produce the components, that's where it gets interesting. I kind of doubt you'll find a copper (or whatever) mine where green electricity powered dump trucks drive around (which .. in turn would need to have been produced sustainably, otherwise they add CO2 to the BOM).
And good luck trying to first build the factories for the production of components from exclusively decarbonized materials. Steel? Concrete? Plastics?
In the methodology, Apex claims to have visited only Apple's Oregon and Haifa, Israel facility, none of its China or Asian based facilities were visited.
The relationship between Apex and Apple is like rating agencies and banks -- you know what happens there.
Overall, I have to say, Apple is certainly using a premium quality paint in their green washing campaign.
edit: Any company that is saying their goal is complete de-carbonization in 8 years is a thorough fraud or has carved-out and does not count the polluting parts.
Congrats!
If this is truly a climate emergency, that cash (what was it, $200B in reserves?) is a small price to pay, and would help a long way for companies that can't afford it like you can. Otherwise keep your mouth shut - it's nothing more than a "we really think you should spend your money on..." at best and a "spend your profits on this or else" at worst.