[Peter Cohen]

[quote name='Jon Seff']

>

danviento said:

>
> I know, I know. This is Apple: based in San Fran, almost a bastion of a leftward agenda, so it may have been almost unavoidable.
By which, of course, you mean Cupertino, which is 40 miles or so south of SF and next to San Jose.

But south is left, right?

[Jason Snell]

Peter Cohen said:

But south is left, right?

Only if you're laying on your side, weeping. As I am.

[doglesby]

Fascinating. Half the comments are pissed Apple went green, half are pissed it isn't green enough (seriously, we're worried about the half a watt these machines use when powered off?). Looks like Apple is going green where it makes business sense. Not sacrificing product quality for a green check mark but dropping the monstrous hybrids for seamless, elegant, recyclable enclosures. I've been calling for such a reasonable approach for years.

[Dothemath]

Did you know that Al Gore is on Apple's Board of Directors? He's been a board member since 2003.

Various news articles over the years have mentioned that he has been trying to get Apple to be more green.

[Podesta]

I am a little late reading this and somewhat taken aback. How did a thread about Apple taking the lead in environmental standards turn into a free-for-all for Right Wingers? A reasonable person reading the article would think that Apple has made scientifically feasible adaptations to how it builds its products in a deliberate manner and sensible timeframe. Perhaps such an unassailable reform became fodder for the Right because its members are increasingly bitter. Or, maybe they're just doing what Rush Limbaugh tells them to.

[TimothyA]

I think Apple is doing a fine job with their environmental policy.
Until we get our borders under control, it will all be for naught anyway. How will me reducing my waste and energy consumption by 5% help anything if we add 25 million to our population?
Until population control becomes a part of it, environmentalism is a fraud.

[Biallystock]

TimothyA said:

I think Apple is doing a fine job with their environmental policy.

Belatedly.

Quote

Until we get our borders under control, it will all be for naught anyway. How will me reducing my waste and energy consumption by 5% help anything if we add 25 million to our population?

Do I detect a faint whiff of xenophobia here? The USA like most developed countries already has a low birthrate. Merely adding the 25 million to the USA population, mostly by immigration, has no net gain since it is a relocation of existing population. It is the escalation of the new arrival's consumption to the extremely wasteful and damaging levels of the general US population that is the problem.

Quote

Until population control becomes a part of it, environmentalism is a fraud.

An alarmingly illogical jump of "logic". Environmentalists advocate population control as one of their key solutions to reducing damage to the planet. Lowering population and reducing environmental damage go hand in hand. Achieving or not achieving either, should not be used as excuse to fail to aim for the other.

[Luke_Macwalker]

{quote} seriously, we're worried about the half a watt these machines use when powered off{quote}
half a watt multiplied by millions computers multiplied by dozens hours leads to a lot of wasted power for bricks sitting on or under desks. And this wasted power is billed to you too.
Alas, most Macs don't use half a watt when turned off: they use a dozen watts when turned off.
I would think it's a lot for a sleeping device by today's standard, but I can accept that it's a trade off that any user is free to accept or reject for herself or himself.
But for turned off devices? No way.
I would not walk out of home with the lights turned on because I think it's just plain stupid and I'm billed for this wasted power. Same goes for turned off computers. Just plain common sense IMHO, independently of any green consideration or politics?

[dougoftheabaci]

TimothyA said:

I think Apple is doing a fine job with their environmental policy.

I think they're on the right track, most certainly, but it's not perfect. Then again, no one is. There are so many details to consider that it's almost impossible to cover them all.

Quote

Until we get our borders under control, it will all be for naught anyway. How will me reducing my waste and energy consumption by 5% help anything if we add 25 million to our population?

You can't make the direct connection of population size and environmental friendliness, at least not in the way you're talking about. It's concentrations of humans that are bad for the environment, not the number of them spread over a large area. Take Vermont and London (I've lived in both). At any given time there are as many people in London as there are in Vermont. Vermont, however, is much larger. In which is nature flourishing? (Note: I preferred living in London.)

Also, 25,000,000 is roughly 12% of our current population. That's not an accurate number by any measure. Actual illegal immigration each year is a fraction of that.

Oh, and given that we use roughly 35% of the world's energy if everyone in the country dropped their energy use by 5% ? it's actually very easy to make it as much as 10?15% ? that would equate to 7% of the world's annual energy consumption. Also known as enough to turn back global warming. Or power New York City for a number of years.

Quote

Until population control becomes a part of it, environmentalism is a fraud.

Again, size means nothing. It's concentration combined with policies that make the difference. For instance, if we started doing vertical farming (or helix) in major cities we could cut down the carbon footprint for food production by as much as 20?40% simply because food would not need to be stored and transported great distances. It would also mean less preservatives as the food doesn't have to travel as long before it hits the stores.

Though, my personal favorite is how if every beef farm in the US switched from cows to bison it'd pretty much mean an end to global warming not to mention saving farmers billions a year. Bison is also more healthy. The only reason it doesn't happen is because the populace wouldn't go for it.

We could solve almost every problem we have with the environment with a few big changes but since no one seems to be OK with those we have to do the little ones. This means stupid things like checking your tire pressure, walking when you can, and buying electronics and other goods from more eco-friendly companies.

[Biallystock]

dougoftheabaci said:

Quote

You can't make the direct connection of population size and environmental friendliness, at least not in the way you're talking about. It's concentrations of humans that are bad for the environment, not the number of them spread over a large area. Take Vermont and London (I've lived in both). At any given time there are as many people in London as there are in Vermont. Vermont, however, is much larger. In which is nature flourishing? (Note: I preferred living in London.)

Not quite accurate. Our consumption, which is having such a big impact on nature, is not concentrated. The well distributed population of Vermont, will still be consuming more than the population of London and drawing that consumption from around the world. By actually concentrating the London population they maybe having less of an impact as they do not occupy the same space as plants and animals and consume less energy in transport and heating.

Quote

Oh, and given that we use roughly 35% of the world's energy if everyone in the country dropped their energy use by 5% ? it's actually very easy to make it as much as 10?15% ? that would equate to 7% of the world's annual energy consumption. Also known as enough to turn back global warming. Or power New York City for a number of years.

Quote

Again, size means nothing. It's concentration combined with policies that make the difference. For instance, if we started doing vertical farming (or helix) in major cities we could cut down the carbon footprint for food production by as much as 20?40% simply because food would not need to be stored and transported great distances. It would also mean less preservatives as the food doesn't have to travel as long before it hits the stores.

Vertical farming requires more energy, construction and intervention than normal farming so again maybe that might be wishful thinking. The manufacture of concrete, for example, uses a lot of energy.

Quote

Though, my personal favorite is how if every beef farm in the US switched from cows to bison it'd pretty much mean an end to global warming not to mention saving farmers billions a year. Bison is also more healthy. The only reason it doesn't happen is because the populace wouldn't go for it.

More healthy for cow, bison, environment and you would be if you simply ate the recommended quantity of vegetables and fruit per day. And didn't overeat period.

We could solve almost every problem we have with the environment with a few big changes but since no one seems to be OK with those we have to do the little ones. This means stupid things like checking your tire pressure, walking when you can, and buying electronics and other goods from more eco-friendly companies.

Sadly the greatest possible antidote to the great fossil fuel burnoff, agrichar - the agricultural use of carbon as a soil enhancer, has been given no credit in any of the current carbon treaties.

The second best thing you can do is stop sitting. Stop sitting on your butt, in front of your TV or computer or labor saving device, in your car or airplane, and on top of the problem every time it is raised.

The best thing you can do is stop lying. Stop lying down on the job, lying to yourself, your community, your country and the world that the problem either doesn't exist or will go away.

[dougoftheabaci]

[quote name='Biallystock']
>

dougoftheabaci said:

The well distributed population of Vermont, will still be consuming more than the population of London and drawing that consumption from around the world.

The "around the world" applies to every single location on the planet so we're going to bypass that point. As for consuming more than London... Clearly you've never been to London. It has more Ikeas than the entire state. Also, more buses, trains, metros, taxis, airports... Density makes a difference.

Quote

By actually concentrating the London population they maybe having less of an impact as they do not occupy the same space as plants and animals and consume less energy in transport and heating.

Heating I'll give you but since there are so many other modes of transportation in London than there are in the entire state of Vermont London definitely uses more resources on transportation. Also, while their actual space occupied is not as much as Vermont the city's carbon footprint is much larger due to pollution and so forth.

Quote

Vertical farming requires more energy, construction and intervention than normal farming so again maybe that might be wishful thinking. The manufacture of concrete, for example, uses a lot of energy.

No, actually, it doesn't. The actual preferred model now is to use a helix structure that requires a similar amount of energy but less space. Also, since it works like greenhouse, they can produce food all year. Not to mention since food is grown locally there is no excess transportation involved.

They've actually done studies on this. The only reason why they're not yet put into practice is because they require a lot of capital to implement. Also, there's consumers...

Quote

More healthy for cow, bison, environment and you would be if you simply ate the recommended quantity of vegetables and fruit per day. And didn't overeat period.

No, bison meet is actually healthier to eat, pound-per-pound, than bovine meat. Also, bison do not create the greenhouse gases that cows do. They are also better adapted to the environment of the US and can eat the natural flora where cows can't always.

Quote

The second best thing you can do is stop sitting. Stop sitting on your butt, in front of your TV or computer or labor saving device, in your car or airplane, and on top of the problem every time it is raised.

Actually, labor saving devices can be of great use. The net, for instance, has been very useful in helping get the word of global warming out. Remember: Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

The best thing you can do is stop lying. Stop lying down on the job, lying to yourself, your community, your country and the world that the problem either doesn't exist or will go away.

No one ever said it will go away, or at least I didn't. But something can be done about it. :P

[Jon Seff]

This story is about Apple's environmental efforts...let's keep it on topic.

[Biallystock]

Clearly I have been to London which is quite compact compared with most modern cities.

Buses, trains, metros (you mean the Underground) = good, taxis not so good, airports bad.

Vermont has how much public transport, how many cars travelling what distances? Simply because Vermonts pollution is more dilute doesn't mean it isn't there, particularly the green house gases of carbon dioxide and methane.

Vertical farming requires considerable construction and energy. I am curious what exactly happens in its shadow? The economics will ensure that expensive vertical farming does not prevent long distance food transport.

Typically you missed the point of eating less meat, not different meat.

Labor saving devices have reached such heights of stupidity as people exercising on electrically driven machines inside airconditioned buildings watching plasma TVs. I have long recommended to my friends if you want to lose weight and save money and the environment, run from your home to the Gym, touch the door and run home.

The Net is a huge consumer of energy in itself as are the computers permanently connected to it and it propagates the nonsense of the denialists as much as it does the environmentalists.

>No one ever said it will go away, or at least I didn't. But something can be done about it. :P

Hmmm. Wonder when we will start?

[dougoftheabaci]

We've been told to keep to topic. If you want to discuss this further send me a message.