What I tried to tell my students is simple, what you want is zero, not net zero, just zero carbon use. It is difficult if not impossible, but the point is to try. You explain it well using Apple as an example. The switch of society to major carbon reduction will involve a world view shift. The problem is consumption and our economy is based on consumption. We have to change our global system from one based on consumptive growth to one of ecological health and that is no easy feat. Keep pushing.
Truth in advertising has never been viewed as the way to increase sales. In the law, the concept is known as "puffery," because salespeople are expected to say great things about their products, but the line between puffery and lying is very thin indeed. This is one reason why a robust Federal Trade Commission is important to consumers. In today's world of instantaneous digital communications, it is often not possible for individual consumers to separate puffery from outright fraud.
Well, the Greens have rewritten the laws/norms/regulations that allow such things so companies, still trying to succeed in the failing ESG endeavors, are playing the hand given to them. After all, isn't it the norm for companies to try to take every advantage they can to place first in the Marketplace?
So don't blame Apple - they've just gone along with the rules by which they now must play by. Blame those that shoved the rules into the Marketplace without "wargaming" possible outcomes.
After all, "Learn the system, exploit the system" (Skip Murphy quote). Apple did exactly that.
Great article - thanks. I agree wholeheartedly with your take (and share a fair amount of eye-rolling about 'net zero' claims - I'm not even really sure that they make such a difference to consumers).
But I also want to push back a bit on the idea that the offsets are 'bad' in this context. The main concern about offsets are that they let people off from doing the hard work - that clearly hasn't happened here. I don't think the offsets are stymying innovation or crowding out more expensive solutions. It seems they are pushing up against what's possible.
Of course, there's also a lot of concern about quality - but it seems that Apple is doing the work to make sure their forest carbon credits are robust.
With these conditions met, surely it's better that some funding go to good forest projects? It's not as though there's some great flood of cash for forest projects, and as long as you are doing the real work to drive down your emissions then surely a donation to forest projects should be encouraged. Isn't this basically how it should work?
Yeah - I think you made that point well. I guess what I don’t follow is why you’d continue to dunk on offsets when the company has done everything else right - driven down what they can and made sure they’re good offsets. I’m not really talking about the claim of “carbon neutrality” - I’m simply saying that in these circumstances it’s surely, surely better they offset than not. And if the price of mobilising that increased forest carbon is a slightly wobbly claim of carbon neutrality then so what?
For large companies to try to offset the emissions that they can't eliminate through efficiencies is a no-brainer: of course they should. I totally agree with you.
Lloyd has a strange blockage around carbon offsetting. I think it could be because he's been such an emitter of carbon--like most baby boomers--due to his flying and other habits. Unconsciously, he may not want to reckon with this and offset.
As I've said before, Lloyd does not demonstrate a zero-carbon lifestyle--and he's resumed his habits of int'l flying. This is not to say he shouldn't fly--travel can be very positive. It's to say that he is an example of the current impossibility of eliminating carbon emissions--thus, this makes ecological restoration, that serves as carbon drawdown, totally necessary.
Personally I like that they are supporting the protection/planting of forests in Paraguay as a means of bridging the gap to the final 32kg. I trust apple to do offsets well. If everyone would do this we'd save quite a lot of forest. There are many pressing environmental issues beyond carbon. Until there is a way to get to zero, I'm psyched to see apple working with "neutral." In general, I believe all the neutral hating is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Lloyd, OK, but what good is reduced carbon when the business model is predicated on ever more accelerated cycles of planned obsolescence? Without true cradle-to-cradle producer responsibility the circular economy is just a more efficient way of making waste product out of people.
What I tried to tell my students is simple, what you want is zero, not net zero, just zero carbon use. It is difficult if not impossible, but the point is to try. You explain it well using Apple as an example. The switch of society to major carbon reduction will involve a world view shift. The problem is consumption and our economy is based on consumption. We have to change our global system from one based on consumptive growth to one of ecological health and that is no easy feat. Keep pushing.
Truth in advertising has never been viewed as the way to increase sales. In the law, the concept is known as "puffery," because salespeople are expected to say great things about their products, but the line between puffery and lying is very thin indeed. This is one reason why a robust Federal Trade Commission is important to consumers. In today's world of instantaneous digital communications, it is often not possible for individual consumers to separate puffery from outright fraud.
Well, the Greens have rewritten the laws/norms/regulations that allow such things so companies, still trying to succeed in the failing ESG endeavors, are playing the hand given to them. After all, isn't it the norm for companies to try to take every advantage they can to place first in the Marketplace?
So don't blame Apple - they've just gone along with the rules by which they now must play by. Blame those that shoved the rules into the Marketplace without "wargaming" possible outcomes.
After all, "Learn the system, exploit the system" (Skip Murphy quote). Apple did exactly that.
Great article - thanks. I agree wholeheartedly with your take (and share a fair amount of eye-rolling about 'net zero' claims - I'm not even really sure that they make such a difference to consumers).
But I also want to push back a bit on the idea that the offsets are 'bad' in this context. The main concern about offsets are that they let people off from doing the hard work - that clearly hasn't happened here. I don't think the offsets are stymying innovation or crowding out more expensive solutions. It seems they are pushing up against what's possible.
Of course, there's also a lot of concern about quality - but it seems that Apple is doing the work to make sure their forest carbon credits are robust.
With these conditions met, surely it's better that some funding go to good forest projects? It's not as though there's some great flood of cash for forest projects, and as long as you are doing the real work to drive down your emissions then surely a donation to forest projects should be encouraged. Isn't this basically how it should work?
I agree with you. I tried to stress that focusing on “carbon neutral” misses the bigger picture. Anyone can go net zero or carbon neutral.
Yeah - I think you made that point well. I guess what I don’t follow is why you’d continue to dunk on offsets when the company has done everything else right - driven down what they can and made sure they’re good offsets. I’m not really talking about the claim of “carbon neutrality” - I’m simply saying that in these circumstances it’s surely, surely better they offset than not. And if the price of mobilising that increased forest carbon is a slightly wobbly claim of carbon neutrality then so what?
For large companies to try to offset the emissions that they can't eliminate through efficiencies is a no-brainer: of course they should. I totally agree with you.
Lloyd has a strange blockage around carbon offsetting. I think it could be because he's been such an emitter of carbon--like most baby boomers--due to his flying and other habits. Unconsciously, he may not want to reckon with this and offset.
As I've said before, Lloyd does not demonstrate a zero-carbon lifestyle--and he's resumed his habits of int'l flying. This is not to say he shouldn't fly--travel can be very positive. It's to say that he is an example of the current impossibility of eliminating carbon emissions--thus, this makes ecological restoration, that serves as carbon drawdown, totally necessary.
Personally I like that they are supporting the protection/planting of forests in Paraguay as a means of bridging the gap to the final 32kg. I trust apple to do offsets well. If everyone would do this we'd save quite a lot of forest. There are many pressing environmental issues beyond carbon. Until there is a way to get to zero, I'm psyched to see apple working with "neutral." In general, I believe all the neutral hating is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Lloyd, OK, but what good is reduced carbon when the business model is predicated on ever more accelerated cycles of planned obsolescence? Without true cradle-to-cradle producer responsibility the circular economy is just a more efficient way of making waste product out of people.
well I suppose it is a good thing that there is less waste.
Agreed. Do you know, does Apple track the sources of recycled materials? https://www.voanews.com/a/electronic-waste-accumulating-worldwide-un-report-warns-/7535514.html