• zout
    link
    fedilink
    175 days ago

    I totally believe this. We see it here in the Netherlands (and other EU countries) for all big tech companies, they’ll build some big energy hogging thing, and then buy up all the renewable energy certificates from the market. The general public then ofcourse needs fossil fuels for their energy demand, but that’s beside the point.

  • Ulrich
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Great, let me know when they figure out how to make their products repairable again.

  • @floo@retrolemmy.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    105 days ago

    This is a big step. I hope other technology companies try to aim for something similar and actually meet their goals.

    • mvlad88
      link
      fedilink
      English
      145 days ago

      Because of my job I see a lot of factories from the tech industry and most, if not all, are trying to reduce their impact. Some of them are doing it out of virtue, other because at the end of the day it’s cheaper for them to produce and some are doing it because it looks good on paper and attracts investors.

      Now, the factories that I work with sell in countries where standards and regulations are tight, so take this with a grain of salt.

      • @floo@retrolemmy.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -4
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        OK… You’ve listed an apparent amount of expertise in the subject matter under discussion, but you stopped short of offering your opinion. Excuse me if I’m a little confused.

        • Ghoelian
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 days ago

          Seems to me they responded to

          I hope other technology companies try to aim for something similar

          Which, according to them, they are.

    • Alphane Moon
      link
      fedilink
      English
      45 days ago

      Keep in mind, there is a very large probability that much of the content in the press release is misleading and de facto untrue.

      Why would you ever take a corporate press release at face value?

      • @floo@retrolemmy.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        05 days ago

        What evidence do you have for that? If you’re going to call the writer of this article a liar, you should back that up with proof.

        • Alphane Moon
          link
          fedilink
          English
          8
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          This is not an article, this is a press release. It is written by Apple employees.

          I didn’t say they were lying. If anything the much more likely scenario is that it is framed in a duplicitous manner but without explicitly lying (in the strict pedantic sense).

          Here is a simple question one for you. Find me where Apple provides a clear explanation of their definition of “gross emissions - Manufacturing (purchased goods and services)”; this is the line item that’s key to their press release, everything else is fluff and holds no value when it comes to the bigger picture.

          • @floo@retrolemmy.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            So you admit, there is no reason not to believe what is written in the article, then you posit a strawman argument in the attempt to validate the point you already admitted was meaningless.

            How is this anything other than an absurd amount of bias?

            • Alphane Moon
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              Do you not understand the difference between a press release and an article? Are you being serious? The authors literally have apple email accounts.

              How is what I said a strawman? What exactly am I “strawmanning”; could you please be clear and specific on this?

              There is no bias. This is common sense. Corporate messaging around sustainability (and there are different brands of this) by definition cannot be trusted.

              Can you show me how they define “gross emissions - Manufacturing (purchased goods and services)”, surely if they added it in their emissions table and it’s really the only piece that’s important (because it ties back to the “60% of 2015 claim”, everything else in the press release is fluff), you should be able to find the definition as per Apple?

  • @MTK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    75 days ago

    Smells fishy, also, this will all change once apple AI gets serious I’m betting

    • @WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      65 days ago

      Almost guaranteed. Net zero, and the means to achieving it, was basically a Greenwashing exercise manufactured by the fossil fuel industry, so the entire mechanism is full of ridiculous loopholes en par with Hollywood accounting.

  • @tetris11@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    75 days ago

    “Ive lost 20 pounds since last month through exercising!”
    “Haven’t you gained 40 pounds through eating in that same time?”

    Snark aside, still a good thing.

  • Lord Wiggle
    link
    fedilink
    English
    55 days ago

    I don’t believe anything Apple says. Lying pieces of shit.

  • Geetnerd
    link
    fedilink
    English
    15 days ago

    “And that’s why we deserve the 75% markup on our products. That’s why your peers won’t think you’re a scab, and a loser.”