Apple today announced a new first-of-its-kind investment fund in China to connect suppliers with renewable energy sources.
10 initial suppliers and Apple will jointly invest nearly $300 million over the next four years into the China Clean Energy Fund. The fund will invest in and develop clean energy projects totaling more than 1 gigawatt of renewable energy in China, the equivalent of powering nearly 1 million homes.
”At Apple, we are proud to join with companies that are stepping up to address the climate challenge “We’re thrilled so many of our suppliers are participating in the fund and hope this model can be replicated globally to help businesses of all sizes make a significant positive impact on our planet.”
Transitioning to clean energy can be complex. This is especially true for smaller companies that may not have access to viable clean energy sources. By virtue of its size and scale, the China Clean Energy Fund will give its participants the advantage of greater purchasing power and the ability to attain more attractive and diverse clean energy solutions. The China Clean Energy Fund will be managed through a third party, DWS Group, which specializes in sustainable investments and will also invest in the fund.
Today’s news follows Apple’s announcement earlier this year that its global facilities are powered by 100 percent clean energy and the launch of its Supplier Clean Energy Program in 2015. Since that program began, 23 manufacturing partners, operating in more than 10 different countries, have committed to powering all of their Apple production with 100 percent clean energy. Apple and its suppliers will generate more than 4 gigawatts of new clean energy worldwide by 2020 — representing one-third of Apple’s current manufacturing electricity footprint.
Apple is also working with its suppliers to find new ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The company recently announced it reached a breakthrough with aluminum suppliers Alcoa Corporation and Rio Tinto Aluminum on a new technology that eliminates direct greenhouse gas emissions from the traditional smelting process, a key step in aluminum production.
The initial suppliers participating in the China Clean Energy Fund include:
• Catcher Technology
• Compal Electronics
• Corning Incorporated
• Golden Arrow
• Jabil
• Luxshare-ICT
• Pegatron
• Solvay
• Sunway Communication
• Wistron
Source: Apple Inc.
MacDailyNews Note: For more on Apple’s environmental initiatives, visit apple.com/environment.
Silly liberals, tricks are for kids!
Climate change is ‘not as bad as we thought,’ scientists admit
Climate change is likely to be markedly less severe than forecast, a study says.
It predicted that the impact could be up to 45 per cent less intense than is widely accepted.
The study questioning the future intensity of climate change was carried out by American climatologist Judith Curry and UK mathematician Nick Lewis.
It is based on analysing the warming effect of greenhouse gases and other drivers of climate change, from the mid 19th century until 2016.
(Lord Dawson slams Al Gore: We should focus on ‘REAL problems’)
It forecast that future warming will be between 30 per cent and 45 per cent lower than suggested by simulations carried out by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel one Climate Change.
The study in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate predicts temperature rises of 1.66C compared to one IPCC forecast of 3.1C and 1.33C compared to another IPCC study predicting 1.9C.
The 2015 Paris climate agreement sought to limit climate change to 2C above pre-industrial levels and no more than 1.5C if possible.
Governments around the world base their preparation for tackling climate change on the IPCC models.
Actions include subsidising green energy which has led to higher electricity bills.
— The Daily Express, April 25, 2018
Fwhatever, you are welcome to your highly flawed viewpoints and opinions, but posting a large volume of relatively meaningless crap on this forum is not going to change my mind, or the mind of anyone else with a modicum of logic and reason.
Your sources are routinely poor, mirroring your thought processes.
From Wikipedia:
“The Daily Express is a daily national middle market[2] tabloid newspaper in the United Kingdom. It is the flagship title of Express Newspapers, a subsidiary of Northern & Shell (which is owned by publisher Trinity Mirror). It was first published as a broadsheet in 1900 by Sir Arthur Pearson. Its sister paper, the Sunday Express, was launched in 1918. As of December 2016, it had an average daily circulation of 391,626.[3]
The paper was acquired by Richard Desmond in 2000. Hugh Whittow served as the paper’s editor from February 2011 until March 2018 when he retired. Gary Jones took over as editor in chief March 2018.[4] The paper’s editorial stances have often been seen as aligned to the UK Independence Party (UKIP), Euroscepticism and many other right-wing factions including the right-wing of the Conservative Party.[5][6][7]
Why do you bother, Fwhatever? The rest of us will never stop refuting your ceaseless drivel. Never.
Don’t speak for the rest of us. Read the second post by Firsty from the Wall Street Journal and “refute” that as a dubious source …
You can skip the climate change, but you can not skip the pollution.
OK, we’ve been down this particular rabbit hole before, 2014.
1) Your “source” is The Daiy Express, which is roughly equivalent to The National Enquirer as a journalistic medium. It has been a far-right-wing mouthpiece since well before it ran its famous “Judea Declares War on Germany” headline in 1933.
2) The story’s source is one isolated article in Journal of Climate that is hotly disputed by other scientists in the field. Other, equally supported, studies are even more pessimistic than the IPCC numbers.
3) The scientific article itself does not support the Daily Express claims. Essentially, it says that while the global climate is getting warmer at an unprecedented and accelerating rate, the acceleration of the acceleration in the authors’ models is not as quick as that second-order acceleration in earlier models. They therefore conclude that there is a possibility that vigorous action to limit CO2 emissions temperatures might allow meeting the Paris Accord goals. The authors expressly support the Accords and say they may not go far enough.
4) In fact, they attribute their conclusion that the rate of warming will accelerate less rapidly than in earlier models on the fact that China has curbed its carbon emissions much more rapidly than expected. This was in response to the Paris Accords, other international agreements, and non-state actors such as Apple.
So, more fake news supported by alternative facts.
Climate Change Has Run Its Course
Its descent into social-justice identity politics is the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality.
Climate change is over. No, I’m not saying the climate will not change in the future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue. All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers.
Judged by deeds rather than words, most national governments are backing away from forced-marched decarbonization. You can date the arc of climate change as a policy priority from 1988, when highly publicized congressional hearings first elevated the issue, to 2018. President Trump’s ostentatious withdrawal from the Paris Agreement merely ratified a trend long becoming evident.
A good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over can be found early in the text of the Paris Agreement. The “nonbinding” pact declares that climate action must include concern for “gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity” as well as “the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice.’ ” Another is Sarah Myhre’s address at the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in which she proclaimed that climate change cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades.
The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is like a car alarm—a blaring noise people are tuning out.
This outcome was predictable. Political scientist Anthony Downs described the downward trajectory of many political movements in an article for the Public Interest, “Up and Down With Ecology: The ‘Issue-Attention Cycle,’ ” published in 1972, long before the climate-change campaign began. Observing the movements that had arisen to address issues like crime, poverty and even the U.S.-Soviet space race, Mr. Downs discerned a five-stage cycle through which political issues pass regularly.
The first stage involves groups of experts and activists calling attention to a public problem, which leads quickly to the second stage, wherein the alarmed media and political class discover the issue. The second stage typically includes a large amount of euphoric enthusiasm—you might call it the “dopamine” stage—as activists conceive the issue in terms of global peril and salvation. This tendency explains the fanaticism with which divinity-school dropouts Al Gore and Jerry Brown have warned of climate change.
Then comes the third stage: the hinge. As Mr. Downs explains, there soon comes “a gradually spreading realization that the cost of ‘solving’ the problem is very high indeed.” That’s where we’ve been since the United Nations’ traveling climate circus committed itself to the fanatical mission of massive near-term reductions in fossil fuel consumption, codified in unrealistic proposals like the Kyoto Protocol. This third stage, Mr. Downs continues, “becomes almost imperceptibly transformed into the fourth stage: a gradual decline in the intensity of public interest in the problem.”
While opinion surveys find that roughly half of Americans regard climate change as a problem, the issue has never achieved high salience among the public, despite the drumbeat of alarm from the climate campaign. Americans have consistently ranked climate change the 19th or 20th of 20 leading issues on the annual Pew Research Center poll, while Gallup’s yearly survey of environmental issues typically ranks climate change far behind air and water pollution.
“In the final stage,” Mr. Downs concludes, “an issue that has been replaced at the center of public concern moves into a prolonged limbo—a twilight realm of lesser attention or spasmodic recurrences of interest.” Mr. Downs predicted correctly that environmental issues would suffer this decline, because solving such issues involves painful trade-offs that committed climate activists would rather not make.
A case in point is climate campaigners’ push for clean energy, whereas they write off nuclear power because it doesn’t fit their green utopian vision. A new study of climate-related philanthropy by Matthew Nisbet found that of the $556.7 million green-leaning foundations spent from 2011-15, “not a single grant supported work on promoting or reducing the cost of nuclear energy.” The major emphasis of green giving was “devoted to mobilizing public opinion and to opposing the fossil fuel industry.”
Scientists who are genuinely worried about the potential for catastrophic climate change ought to be the most outraged at how the left politicized the issue and how the international policy community narrowed the range of acceptable responses. Treating climate change as a planet-scale problem that could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme transformed the issue into a political creed for committed believers. Causes that live by politics, die by politics.
— Steven F. Hayward, The Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2018
Mr. Hayward is a senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.
Steven F. Hayward is also a right-wing figure, Fwhatever. Furthermore, he is one person versus many thousands who have reached a consensus opinion that differs from that of Mr. Hayward.
According to Wikipedia, Mr.Hayward earned a BS in business from Lewis and Clark College, a Masters of Arts in government (1984), and a Ph.D. in American Studies (1996) from the Claremont Graduate School. None of those degrees qualifies him to be an authoritative source on climate change science.
Mr. Hayward is out to make headlines and money. Real climate scientists care about the environment.
Eeeevil “RW Figure”. Since when is naming a person’s position on the spectrum argument validation?
Btw, one doesn’t have to have a acronym after one’s name to be really bright, or correct.
Also, how might you know that Mr. Hayward is out to make headlines and money?
He doesn’t know and offered zero debate to refute the article. 🙈🙉🙊
Just typical elitist liberal drive-by denigration of people on the right ..,
I think that what KingMel was saying, and certainly what I was saying, is not that your “sources” are unreliable because they are right wing, but rather that their right-wing bias helps explain why they utterly misrepresent what their own “sources” are alleged to have said. They aren’t unreliable because they are right wing, but because they are distorting the material.
1) To repeat, the Daily Express suggests that the Curry and Lewis paper argues against the Paris Accords and other steps (like Apple’s initiative) to limit greenhouse gas emission when the research paper quite expressly argues for such steps, because they might actually work. There is no obvious explanation for the misrepresentation except that the reported research contradicts an ideology that The Express considers more important than the truth.
2) The Wall Street Journal article is being similarly misreported. If you read it beyond the headline, it is not suggesting that “Climate Change Has Run Its Course” because the science is wrong, but because the public is bored with the issue and unwilling to devote the resources necessary to address it. One might be less bored if he lived on a Pacific island that is going underwater or a United States Commonwealth that has been hit with repeated hurricanes. The Hayward article basically suggests that when public boredom conflicts with scientific evidence, boredom should win.
you prefer eft wing science, left media and give no quarter to right wing science or media for a full debate typical lib mo
Ok Tx, how about: “I think that what Mr Name Here was saying, and certainly what I was saying, is not that your “sources” are unreliable because they are left wing, but rather that their left-wing bias helps explain why they utterly misrepresent what their own “sources” are alleged to have said. They aren’t unreliable because they are left wing, but because they are distorting the material.
What’s the difference? The only difference at this stage of the conversation is it one persons bias is more favorable. Putting someone’s “wing” category into an argument has no practical effect on the argument. It’s the facts of the argument that are pertinent.
Neither of the articles HAS any science—left, right, or center-wing. There are no scientific facts provided to debate—non-partisan or otherwise.
The Express article flatly misrepresents the Curry and Lewis paper it purports to summarize. It contains no facts or opinion from any other source.
The Wall Street Journal article does not discuss the science of climate change, but only the politics of addressing the issue. It, in fact, expressly argues that the science has become irrelevant due to popular disinterest in the subject.
Climate scientists are happy to debate facts. To do so, however, the deniers need to cite actual facts, not just nitpick at minor details that don’t affect any major conclusion. Neither of these articles contains any facts.
the science has long been exposed as doctored by leftist academics guess you missed that also what you missed is the reporting of conflicting science is also not reported by the leftist media
The notion that atmospheric CO2 can trap heat is over 200 years old. It had been experimentally verified by the 1870s. The first mathematical models that attempted to explain observed warming and project future warming were developed over a century ago. I don’t think that leftist academics or journalists were particularly active back then.
Multiple converging lines of evidence show that CO2 levels are at their highest in at least 400,000 years, that the rise is proportional to the volume of greenhouse gases being generated by human activity (and that there is no other plausible source), that the gas levels are roughly proportional to an unprecedentedly rapid rise in global temperatures, and that the natural environment is reacting to that more or less as one would expect.
Blaming that on leftists is like blaming Canada for being a bigger threat than Russia to US security, or hunting for sex slaves in the dungeons under Comet Ping Pong. It is not only a rejection of the scientific method but of the universal rules of logic. It is preferring a complex partial explanation for observed facts when a much simpler, better attested, and more complete explanation is available.
TX, even you call it a “notion”.
More co2 is good for the plants anyway. Your sad devotion to the climate change religion is disturbing, I find your faith in it very disturbing.
your sad devotion to that ancient liberal religion twist on Star Wars
It is worth repeating:
— Isaac Asimov, 1980.
Click to access ASIMOV_1980_Cult_of_Ignorance.pdf
That cult-like attitude goes a long way towards explaining why denial “science” has a significant foothold in the US, alone among over 200 countries in the world. Lots of Americans honestly believe that the opinion of a blogger with no scientific training past freshman Physical Science is “just as good” as the considered (and very nearly unanimous) opinion of hundreds of people who have devoted 30 years to conducting relevant research, after spending 20 years in school to get a doctorate in the field.
The bizarre notion that climate science is based on subjective bias, rather than objective facts, even leads an astonishing number of Americans to doubt the evidence of climate change that anybody older than twenty has seen with their own eyes. Spring is arriving almost a month earlier than it did around 1900. The liberal media didn’t cause that. If not human production of greenhouse gasses, then what? Claiming “It’s a natural cycle” without describing a more credible mechanism than the greenhouse effect is about as scientific as astrology.
“You don’t have to have an acronym after one’s name” to perform brain surgery, but the odds do favor board-certified neurosurgeons with medical school and residency behind them. Similarly, folks who have spent decades developing complex mathematical models of the global climate might be in a better position to understand them than somebody whose recent math experience doesn’t extend past balancing a checkbook.
The cultish attitude also explains why—although the last two men running our national atomic energy and weapons programs were award-winning nuclear physicists—the current guy Is a professional politician who devoted most of his college career to being elected Head Yell Leader while barely getting a BS in Animal Husbandry. Only an elitist or foreigner could find that odd, right?
global warming is the biggest rigged hoax by the left academics and the left media in the history of planet earth. nowhere in your defense of this charade do you entertain the alternative opinions of the right media and right scientists. the earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years. spare us carbon credits lining gore’s pockets
I would be glad to “entertain the opinions of right scientists,” if there were any. Your hypothesis that global climate change “just happens” naturally without describing any causation isn’t science.
The consensus climate hypothesis describes mechanisms to account for the “warming and cooling over millions of years,” as well as the more recent changes (hint: it has to do with greenhouse gas levels and other verifiable physical causes).
Your Comet Ping Pong hypothesis describes no mechanism (or none based on verifiable data) aside from the invisible hand of God or Fate to account for the rate of observed warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution. That rate is absolutely unprecedented over at least hundreds of millions of years. You and your “right scientists” have provided no alternative explanation for that. Instead, they have based their whole case on attacking the character of everybody in the scientific community who rejects their fact-free fantasy.
If you want to convince me that I am wrong, provide some actual data that shows I am wrong. Real scientists propose hypotheses that can be tested against observable reality. They do not claim that their theory must be scientifically correct because their political views are superior.
“I would be glad to “entertain the opinions of right scientists,”
they are out there and do you own homework. global warming has gone the way of the dodo bird move on
“Steven F. Hayward is also a right-wing figure, Fwhatever.“
So are you saying all right-wing figures are wrong and all left-wing figures are correct!? Facts are non-partisan …
So, more fake news supported by alternative facts.
describes your post exactly
Think of the Mac mini they could design with that kind of money…
You’d think a sticky-key issue could have been solved? Nope, “just release it, the more powerful cpu will distract the consumers.” Excellence in one area doesn’t excuse the shoddy in another area. Tim = badboy…go to your room.
Great move China and Apple, clean energy is the way to go. While climate change might be an uncertain topic, clean air certainly isn’t.
http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/over-7-billion-people-face-unsafe-air-state-global-air-2018