this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
202 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
58364 readers
4836 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wow it’s almost like the term is bullshit and the actual fact of the matter remains that the cost of something, in relation to carbon, is impossible to determine because it’s a sea of variables commingling with each other.
You cannot alone look at the cost of a steak by measuring a handful of variables and call it a day.
And of course Apple is going to spin it. They are the kings of spin. But again, nothing new to businesses. They all make grandiose claims.
I tried looking into "carbon neutral" the other day and got lost in a sea of bullshit. I didn't find a source that goes into the whole process in actual detail. I mean explaining things and giving practical examples of it all. I came out of it thinking, wow it's all just complete nonsense. "We do what we can to reduce emissions, then pay someone else to 'offset' the remaining emissions somehow by mysterious companies". Don't ask any more questions, okay? It's magic.
It’s immeasurable. Everything affects everything. Most of the time you end up shifting shit around to get the same end result but that gets lost in all the corpo double talk.
I don’t doubt Apple has made gains. But to say that a product, from start to store literally has no impact on the climate, is, insane.