Great read, thanks for sharing. You point out an interesting tension for Apple here which I haven’t thought of before - encouraging an annual upgrade cycle whilst also trying to hit ‘net zero’. The two are diametrically opposed. But, I do applaud Apple’s efforts, they’re doing more than most and that should be celebrated, albeit the bar still needs setting much higher.
I watched that Mother Nature commercial and wondered why there was no mention of sourcing raw materials, only packaging. That worries me the most—the child labour and enviro devastation invovled in mining precious metals for these devices, etc.
I'm not sure why anyone needs an Apple watch in the first place. I suspect that everyone who has one also has a phone that does more or less what the watch does. I mean, it's cool. But still.
"the true key to getting to net zero is to use less stuff".
My "Less Now, More Later" mantra. Now, embrace a Less lifestyle – less heating and cooling (GreenBetween 55°F to 85°F, https://greenbetween.home.blog), less driving, less flying, less meat-eating, less population-growth (2 children max). Later, we can embrace a More lifestyle made carbon-free by implementation of green technology and infrastructure.
As for the Apple commercial, note that the company does not remark about eliminating product waste, only packaging waste. So, does all the e-waste of the innards of older Apple products go to the landfill? Probably. Also, we should check their "100% clean energy" claims--which probably neglect the embedded carbon of the solar panels and wind panels. We'd also want to make sure that the life-cycle emissions studies of Chinese solar panels are accurate; there are recent claims to the contrary.
When it comes to carbon offsets, Lloyd cherrypicks information about the offsets that have issues, and ignores the ones that have been demonstrable successes. For instance, Apple is claiming to have genuinely restored ecosystems, which has led to carbon sequestration--as a critical thinker, Lloyd could investigate this and publicize the successes. I don't regard either Joseph Romm or The Guardian as strong sources to refute the effectiveness of offsetting--one needs to look at the evidence closely.
One more time, Lloyd: rather than "all carbon offsets are bad and thus they should be abandoned" would be better framed as: "some offsets work well and some have problems. We need to put our attention into the science and evaluation of offsets so they can become a good tool to draw down carbon from the atmosphere long-term." And, "carbon offsets are a potential tool to shift responsibility for carbon emissions to the direct polluters."
I'm glad you called out the difficulty in repairing existing iPhones. It's nice that newer ones are made consciously, but being able to easily and accessibly repair a cracked screen or replace a battery would make our existing phones last much longer.
Great read, thanks for sharing. You point out an interesting tension for Apple here which I haven’t thought of before - encouraging an annual upgrade cycle whilst also trying to hit ‘net zero’. The two are diametrically opposed. But, I do applaud Apple’s efforts, they’re doing more than most and that should be celebrated, albeit the bar still needs setting much higher.
I watched that Mother Nature commercial and wondered why there was no mention of sourcing raw materials, only packaging. That worries me the most—the child labour and enviro devastation invovled in mining precious metals for these devices, etc.
I'm not sure why anyone needs an Apple watch in the first place. I suspect that everyone who has one also has a phone that does more or less what the watch does. I mean, it's cool. But still.
"the true key to getting to net zero is to use less stuff".
My "Less Now, More Later" mantra. Now, embrace a Less lifestyle – less heating and cooling (GreenBetween 55°F to 85°F, https://greenbetween.home.blog), less driving, less flying, less meat-eating, less population-growth (2 children max). Later, we can embrace a More lifestyle made carbon-free by implementation of green technology and infrastructure.
As for the Apple commercial, note that the company does not remark about eliminating product waste, only packaging waste. So, does all the e-waste of the innards of older Apple products go to the landfill? Probably. Also, we should check their "100% clean energy" claims--which probably neglect the embedded carbon of the solar panels and wind panels. We'd also want to make sure that the life-cycle emissions studies of Chinese solar panels are accurate; there are recent claims to the contrary.
When it comes to carbon offsets, Lloyd cherrypicks information about the offsets that have issues, and ignores the ones that have been demonstrable successes. For instance, Apple is claiming to have genuinely restored ecosystems, which has led to carbon sequestration--as a critical thinker, Lloyd could investigate this and publicize the successes. I don't regard either Joseph Romm or The Guardian as strong sources to refute the effectiveness of offsetting--one needs to look at the evidence closely.
One more time, Lloyd: rather than "all carbon offsets are bad and thus they should be abandoned" would be better framed as: "some offsets work well and some have problems. We need to put our attention into the science and evaluation of offsets so they can become a good tool to draw down carbon from the atmosphere long-term." And, "carbon offsets are a potential tool to shift responsibility for carbon emissions to the direct polluters."
I'm glad you called out the difficulty in repairing existing iPhones. It's nice that newer ones are made consciously, but being able to easily and accessibly repair a cracked screen or replace a battery would make our existing phones last much longer.