Apple To Invest Another $200 Million In Carbon Removal Fund (reuters.com) 31
Apple said it will invest up to an additional $200 million in its Restore Fund, which was created in 2021 to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Reuters reports: The additional investment is expected to help the fund start new projects and carry forward its previously stated goal to remove about 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, the company said. Apple is making efforts to become carbon neutral through its entire supply chain and the life cycle of every product by 2030.
The fund, launched with Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) and nonprofit Conservation International, has invested in forest properties in Brazil and Paraguay in the last two years. The expanded fund will be managed by Climate Asset Management, a joint venture of HSBC Asset Management and Pollination, Apple added.
The fund, launched with Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) and nonprofit Conservation International, has invested in forest properties in Brazil and Paraguay in the last two years. The expanded fund will be managed by Climate Asset Management, a joint venture of HSBC Asset Management and Pollination, Apple added.
Re: (Score:2)
Putting that much CO2 in the atmosphere will alter the climate to such a degree that the subsequent mass extinction will rival the Permian-Triassic extinction event for the title of "The Great Dying".
Climate change is real. Climate change is bad. CO2 causes climate change. We need to return atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels or our civilization won't survive.
Farms are actually terrible carbon sinks. They hold less carbon per acre than a fallow field. And orchard or tree farm holds less carbon than a
Why are the they doing this? (Score:2)
Why are they doing this?
They are gong to reduce global emissions by 1 million tons a year. Right now these age are about 17 billion tons a year, so the reduction is too small to notice. China probably ups their emissions by 4 million tons a year every couple of days,
Its not going to benefit their employees, customers or shareholders. Its bot going to make any difference to US emissions, currently around 5 billion tons a year.
Why are they doing it? Is it to set an example? How much of an effect is their
Re: (Score:3)
good call...
no one do anything...
that will show the planet
Re:Why are the they doing this? (Score:5, Informative)
errr...because it is important to start somewhere instead of sticking your head up your butt and whistling past that graveyard?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has all the money. This is a fart in a shitstorm.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Why are the they doing this? (Score:4, Insightful)
People are making fun of your question, but it is a good question nonetheless. Apple is not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. That would upset the investors. Therefore, why?
As with any corporate action, it's about money. Probably they expect to make some money selling carbon credits. On top of that, its all about marketing and brand image.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not going to benefit their employees, customers or shareholders.
They are presumably doing this so greenies will continue to buy their products. That benefits shareholders.
Its bot going to make any difference to US emissions
It isn't going to make a big difference, but it isn't a big amount of money either.
Re: Why are the they doing this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is virtue-signalling. You know "We are the good guys!" without actually affection anything or investing real effort.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably for multiple reasons some good and some self serving and some a mixture of both.
1. It is good for PR. In today's environment a company even the size of Apple, can go south very quickly if they are shown to be atonal to their brand image.
2. Being a good example. Apple is a giant mega corporation, if they can show they can operate cleanly and be profitable, then other companies may join in as well. I have been working with business management for a while now, across many different sectors, and near
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, it's a simple question of energy balance. There are 33.6 kWh of energy in a gallon of gasoline and, for most uses, you can only use around 40% of that to do work. A gallon of gasoline produces about 20 pounds of CO2 when burned. So how much energy do you need to remove 20 lbs of carbon from the air and do something with it? Is it more than 13.5 kWh? Highly likely. You might be able to extract it from the air for less than that, but then you have to do something with it. Unless yo put it in a giant ba
Re:Pointless (Score:4, Funny)
Earth is a closed system. The amount of carbon on the planet never changes.
Your mind is a closed system. No new information can get in.
Re: (Score:2)
Earth is a closed system. The amount of carbon on the planet never changes.
The Earth is a closed system. The atmosphere is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Earth is a closed system.
So all of that sunlight and those meteors are what, just a mass illusion?
The amount of carbon on the planet never changes.
There are a few different nuclear processes that change to or from carbon. Maybe you've heard of Carbon dating [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The pedant will point out that the Earth is not a perfectly closed system. NASA estimates [nasa.gov] some 48.5 tons of meteroids arrive at Earth every day. Most of those are silicates, but some fraction of that mass is carbon. Meanwhile, some very light gasses (e.g. helium from the decay of radioactive material present since the formation of Earth) leave the atmosphere. We've even managed to transport some tons of material totally out of [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So you helping solve the problem now, or are you in our way?
Re: (Score:2)
If I put a bag over your head and seal it tight, the amount of oxygen in this closed system won't have changed ten minutes from the start of our experiment, but you'll be dead.
Not impressed. (Score:2)
They are merely sidestepping the issue that they are obscene polluters. They could use that money to actually make their products in a far polluting manner... but that's complicated, could impact profits, and time and effort. Throwing money at some feelgood program is far easier... and has tax benefits.
Make a bigger impact, make your iPhones repairable (Score:4, Informative)
If they really wanted to have a true impact on CO2 emissions, they would work toward making iPhones, iPads, and even macbooks, repairable. Make it easy to change the screen and to replace the battery, and people will keep them longer.
Most of the emission from those stuffs come from the manufacturing part. And the best way to reduce CO2 in the athmosphere is to emit less in the first place.
This study by Deloitte [deloitte.com] shows:
- 83% of a smartphone total CO2 emissions occur during the manufacturing (85kg on average)
- the rest (8kg on average) is spread during the life of the smartphone through its usage
Of course, this would not benefit Apple bottom line, so let's focus instead on anectodical ways to capture CO2...
More ESG Bullshit! (Score:1)
'nature-forward agricultural projects' (Score:2)
I had expected they would be funding some kind of technical solutions for carbon capture and removal, but it is mundane.
"sustainably managed farming practices and projects that conserve and restore critical ecosystems that remove and store carbon from the atmosphere"
Just FYI (Score:4, Informative)