Apple on Tuesday announced a major expansion of its Restore Fund, doubling the company’s total commitment to advancing high-quality, nature-based carbon removal projects. First launched in 2021 with an up to $200 million commitment with Conservation International and Goldman Sachs, the Restore Fund is now set to grow with an additional fund, including new investment from Apple, and a new portfolio of carbon removal projects.
Apple created the Restore Fund to encourage global investment to protect and restore critical ecosystems and scale natural carbon removal solutions. This approach also helps address residual emissions businesses cannot yet avoid or reduce with existing technology.
As part of the expansion, Apple will invest up to an additional $200 million in the new fund, which Climate Asset Management — a joint venture of HSBC Asset Management and Pollination — will manage. The new portfolio also aims to remove 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year at its peak while generating a financial return for investors. For Apple suppliers that become partners in the fund, it will also offer a new way for them to incorporate high-impact carbon removal projects as they decarbonize.
“The Restore Fund is an innovative investment approach that generates real, measurable benefits for the planet, while aiming to generate a financial return,” said Lisa Jackson, Apple’s vice president of Environment, Policy, and Social Initiatives, in a statement. “The path to a carbon neutral economy requires deep decarbonization paired with responsible carbon removal, and innovation like this can help accelerate the pace of progress.”
Apple and Climate Asset Management are taking a broadened approach with prospective projects, pooling two distinct types of investments: nature-forward agricultural projects that generate income from sustainably managed farming practices and projects that conserve and restore critical ecosystems that remove and store carbon from the atmosphere. This unique blended fund structure aims to achieve both financial and climate benefits for investors while advancing a new model for carbon removal that more fully addresses the global potential for nature-based solutions. All Restore Fund investments are subject to rigorous social and environmental standards.
Already carbon neutral for its corporate operations, last year Apple called on its suppliers to become carbon neutral across all Apple-related operations by 2030, including all of their direct and electricity-related emissions, also known as Scope 1 and Scope 2. High-quality carbon removals will help achieve this goal by offsetting any direct emissions that cannot be avoided or reduced. Suppliers are first expected to reduce emissions by transitioning to renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, and abating direct emissions. Earlier this month, Apple announced over 250 manufacturing partners have committed to power their Apple production with 100 percent renewable energy by 2030.
Located in Brazil and Paraguay, Apple’s three initial investments with Conservation International and Goldman Sachs aim to restore 150,000 acres of sustainably certified working forests and protect an additional 100,000 acres of native forests, grasslands, and wetlands. Together, these projects are forecast to remove 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere per year by 2025. Carbon removal is critical to addressing climate change and achieving global climate goals, as leading scientific bodies like the IPCC have emphasized.
To accurately monitor and measure the impact of Restore Fund projects, Apple is deploying innovative remote sensing technologies — including Space Intelligence’s Carbon and Habitat Mapper, Upstream Tech’s Lens platform, and high-resolution satellite imagery from Maxar — to construct habitat and forest carbon maps of the project areas. These detailed maps will help ensure that projects meet our high standards prior to investment and will quantify and verify the projects’ carbon removal impact over time. Apple is also further exploring the use of the LiDAR Scanner on iPhone to enhance monitoring capabilities on the ground.
The Restore Fund is part of the company’s comprehensive roadmap to become carbon neutral for its entire supply chain and life cycle of every product by 2030. Apple will reduce 75 percent of all emissions by 2030 and balance the remaining emissions with high-quality carbon removal.
MacDailyNews Take: More trees and sustainable lumber production are certainly good things – as is environmentally-focused PR.
Now, for some perspective, Apple is spending $200 million on top of $200 million to remove one (1) million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2025 when the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated in 2019 that the United States alone emitted 5,130 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, while the global emissions of energy-related carbon dioxide totaled a whopping 33,621.5 million metric tons.
So $400 million from Apple takes care of 1/33,621.5th of the “problem” (as of 2019) annually.
See also: Tim Cook gets angry over shareholder proposal for environmental spending transparency, says those who disagree should get out of Apple stock – March 1, 2014
Please help support MacDailyNews. Click or tap here to support our independent tech blog. Thank you!
Support MacDailyNews at no extra cost to you by using this link to shop at Amazon.
So, at $400 million per ton of “high-quality carbon removal,” 🤣 it would cost $2.052 trillion to “offset” the 2019 carbon emissions of the United States alone and $13.4486 trillion to offset the global carbon emissions of 2019.
For further perspective, the U.S. federal government in 2022 blew through $6.27 trillion and the U.S. National Debt is currently $31.675 trillion.
According to a watchdog group: “China permits two new coal power plants per week in 2022.”
Nuff said…
there are 52 weeks in the year. 2 X 52 is 104.
you are believing a watchdog group that says china built then open 102 coal fire plants in 2022. interesting.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary, you have no point. Why did you post this?
What he says is true. You can read about it here:
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin
“permitted” is a long way from built. the article clearly is saying permit. he/she says permit, but the feel of the article would have us believe that the issuing of a permit is a certainty of pollution coming from such permitting processes. it is not. as far as we know china may use technology that in some way mitigates any pollution and co2 emissions. and there is no certainty that such plants will ever be built.
add to that i found it interesting. why cause china is foresting it’s deserts so maybe they are accounting for the additional co2 that could possibly one day be generated.
plus i took off new years and christmas.
If you are using the 9,000 Biden permits available for oil and gas exploration in the U.S. as an example of none built, while correct the reasons are night and day DIFFERENT.
Biden declared war on fossil fuels and an end in the near future and does not allow the permits to go through, not to mention high taxation. Companies need five to 10 years to develop new wells nearing the threatened moratorium. Exception: Recent approval in Alaska for one oil company.
China on the other hand has NO such restraints and could not care less reining King of World Pollution. Sampling of FACTS, you are obviously not aware of:
“China is heavily reliant on coal power. The country is currently running 1,058 coal plants – more than half the world’s capacity.”
“China emits more greenhouse gas than the entire developed world combined. The research by Rhodium Group says China emitted 27% of the world’s greenhouse gases in 2019.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837
Get a grip…
😵💫🤣🤡
So BO(0)B thinks that Xi’s dictatorship has processes similar to the real democracies (including our REPUBLIC) and gives a rat’s ass about the green and woke nonsense that the Marxist profs have instilled into their unwitting students. They’ll do whatever it takes to own the world and they see the looooong view— about 3,000 years of history’s worth. Get real.
In other words, the debt to be paid by future generations has paid for your high and mighty lifestyle today — which you pretend was all do to your superiority, since you refuse to recognize the contributions of others. Nice.
Here’s something you need to know about the stability of the climate system.
In any other system, a change like that would be alarming. Some CO2 may be good, but when humans force things way out of balance, don’t be surprised when your happy bubble breaks … and cleanup costs of climate disasters like forest fires, floods, and hurricanes isn’t cheap. Hope you’ve paid up on your trailer park insurance.
By the way, for the geniuses out there:
This will have the actual real-world effect of…wait for it……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………nothing.
So then? Why do anything!
PRECISELY!
Tim Cook is a serious moron if he believes this bullshit. If he thinks it’s just wise PR, he’s also a moron because you can get a lot more bang for 400 million bucks.
Hey TC…how about increasing the dividend instead………..!
And the right wing idiots here POUNCE on the post, their fingers flying while they wipe the drool from their keyboards to claim how nothing will happen and how climate change is FAKE. FAKE I tell you! Here’s my cherry picked out of context “proof” 🙂
So predicable. Almost as much as the insults they will throw towards me for this post. Bring it on boys, I don’t care. You can’t insult me, you can’t make me angry. But you can make me laugh.
You are a simpleton. A useful idiot. A denizen of the left side of the IQ bell curve.
That you’d be insulted for being a vapid moron is the only prediction you got right. That’s one more than your climate scam puppeteers, so bully for you!
“Carbon dioxide isn’t going to end life on our planet, but instead is responsible to the existence of every living thing on Earth.” — Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace
Right back at you.
And the left wing morons here POUNCE on the factual responses, their fingers flying between smoking weed and screaming on social media screens, while they don’t wipe their heightened sweat triggered by banned keywords to claim, how ONLY THEY have all the answers and everything will instantly happen to fix climate change that is REAL. REAL I tell you!
Here’s my cherry picked full on context “proof”
“So predicable.” Yes, Libtards are 100% predictable.
“Almost as much as the insults they will throw towards me for this post.” So, the humdrum hypocrite hurls insults and acts like it’s exclusive to the other side. Puhleeze!
Bring it on zealots, we on the right side of the debate don’t care. You can’t insult us by attempting to make it personal. But you can make us ALL laugh at your useful sycophant SERVANT stupidity.
Those of us not hopelessly under the indoctrinated spell of climate overblown, overreacting, overreaching dogma — smartly prefer to present facts that WILL, probably make you “angry”…
Here’s a reply for both you, GoeB and Brutal Truth. First off, if you would like actual scientific explanations and proper debunking to all of the climate change denier claims, you can go here:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Sadly, for you it requires reading and not just quoting memes but if you take the time, you might learn something.
Now, to Brutal Truth who trots out the 1989 quote breathlessly like it’s smoking gun slam dunk bit of truth about how fake climate change is while claiming I’m the stupid one. In truth, the stupid one is the one who doesn’t actually look into where the quote came from and if you take the time you learn:
“This statement is frequently presented as an example of climate scientists being both alarmist and incorrect, and serves as the basis for clickbait posts from several climate denial media outlets.”
“The senior U.N. official speaking to the Associated Press was Noel Brown, who served as a regional director of the United Nations Environment Program and who was not a climate scientist. While admittedly alarmist, this senior U.N official’s statements appear to have been muddied further by the Associated Press’s somewhat imprecise reporting on the topic.”
“The Associated Press article created confusion in two ways. First, it suggested (at least to some media outlets) that the statement meant that nations would be under water in the year 2000. In fact, his statement said nations would be under water at some time in the more distant future, “If the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” The scenarios in the papers cited by the AP described projections that went into the year 2100. Second, the article conflates statements made by Brown, which did not represent a consensus view at the time, with statements made in several governmental studies that were more representative of the consensus view. ”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nations-vanish-global-warming/
And no, you can’t just blanket answer that both sites are run by the left and plug your ears and close your eyes. Both cite sources you can follow and determine yourself the truth.
So spare me your anger. Look deeply and perhaps find out where all of this climate change denier nonsense actually comes from. Here’s a hint. The rich and the oil industry. That will get you started.
Bye guys. Have fun.
When you cite Far Leftist Biased websites with no credibility for facts, SADLY, just more brainwashing the sanctimonious elitist snobs like yourself ENJOY…
And just to make one thing clear. Your claim:
“Bring it on zealots, we on the right side of the debate don’t care. You can’t insult us by attempting to make it personal. But you can make us ALL laugh at your useful sycophant SERVANT stupidity.”
The thing is, you seem to have this idea that I’m an extreme left activist when I’m far from that. What I am is someone who doesn’t just believe what I am told, I look for myself and draw my own conclusions. For example, I worked for a University for a time and actually talked to some real climate scientists, something I doubt you have done.
As for you providing factual responses, the fact is you’re not. You’re presenting memes with cherry picked and out of context information and when presented with actual proof of this, because it conflicts with your world view you just say that’s left wing propaganda and stand up and stomp away in a huff without actually doing the work yourself to find out.
Cognitive dissonance at it’s finest.
$200 million pissed away for virtue signaling.
This will have no measurable effect on the climate.
It might surprise you that I agree with you on this.
I’m not sure how many people make it out to the country where trees actually grow but where I’m from, unless the land is being used for some type of farming (which is mostly cattle related) then trees are growing on it. Period.
You don’t see hundreds of acres of fallow land stripped of timber and never replanted. It just doest happen in most cases.
My point is, planting trees is fine, but it is nothing being done on a much larger scale than before. Trees are a crop. When they are harvested, you replant.
Who wold think differently??
-Oh….nevermind.
First, carbon is good. It is essential to life. Second, Apple is on its way to becoming the dumbest company in the world. It throws money away like a Navy of drunken sailors. It no longer deserves to succeed. It deserves a long slow corporate death. It does not even pretend to want to do great things anymore. It spends all its time preening and virtue signaling, while it has no virtue whatsoever.
Second, water is good. It is essential to life. Ergo, waterboarding Kent makes him happy and healthy.
See how bad your logic is? Not only have CO2 levels dramatically exceeded any prior point in known history, the climatic effects of excess CO2 have been recorded, each having dramatic effect on human health and prosperity. For example: the hottest average temperature records are being broken most every year. All that energy is released in greater numbers of more severe storms. Formerly predictable rainfall is killing crops and forests. The western pine forests are dying at a rapid rate because pine borers are literally eating the trees before your eyes, since winters are now so warm that it doesn’t slow down pests. Freshwater lakes are no longer swimmable thanks to not only human pollution but also toxic algae blooms. Mankind is using the last drops of cheap oil not for important life-saving benefits to himself, but to allow lazy assholes to drive insanely oversized ego-mobiles.
A company with the cash flow of Apple can well afford to put its spare couch change toward token do-gooder experiments. It’s already overpaid its executives hundreds of millions of dollars and burned many hundreds of billions buying back its own stock at inopportune times. What’s a few more hundred million? You whiners act as if it hurts you somehow.
Abortion is only acceptable in the case of Truth. Late term abortion would improve the world more than any $200 million carbon reduction. Eliminate Truth’s carbon and we will all be better off.
Deflection much? Save your haterade for someone who cares about your delusions, you pathetic victimized whiner.
stop spending what should be stockholders’ money on crap. no republicans, no democrats, no save anything, grow anything… cook you make a lot of money, use your own money. pay a larger dividend. let the stockholders spend their money on what they want. and that computer you gave trump better come out of your 100 million dollar salary that you just reduced.
end the king era of ceo management style. stop wasting stockholders’ money. whether company spends it on some political crap or the government spends it, somebody else is spending it, as a shareholder i don’t get to spend it.
i can choose my own things i want to spend my money on.
NOT ANOTHER DIME TO ANY POLITICIAN, POLITICAL CAUSE, OR EVEN MEDICAL AID OR FOOD AID OR DISASTER AID. the employees of the company are paid and they can take up a collection amongst each other. these ceos happy to live the life of a donald trump or clarence thomas, never using their own money to pay for anything. enough! stop buying influence. sell your product. the way business is done… well that is a sorry way. the king effect, give away somebody’s else’s money.
this goes for all, all, publicly traded companies not just apple. any ceo over two million in salary is over pay. the president of the US is not paid that kind of money and the president has way more responsibilities. and, and, manages way more assets. may we should up that federal salary to 1% of the federal revenue, with a bonus every year the US has only 2% unemployment.
marjorie taylor says she is paid too little for her job. clarence thomas is bumming vacations, trump is flat out making up crap and begging for money. so why don’t we just boost all federal job pay by 566%. maybe they will answer the phones on the first ring. and, only return less than 6% to the people in services and such.
Oh Bob, how can you have some things correct but still not realize that the FED govt is the problem, not the solution. The senior members of the Fed govt should get bonuses based on the percentage by which they can reduce excessive and wasteful govt SPENDING. And a portion (albeit small) of their reductions in our national debt.
Otherwise, I agree with much of what you just posted regarding lobbying and corporate influencing of our govt members by corporations.