I have MagSafe chargers…and I typically only need to charge my phone once a day (at night while I’m asleep)…so the charging speed has not been much of an issue for me.
2 Likes
That’s good to hear! Maybe it depends on the car and Bluetooth standards etc. mine was also a hire car, but can’t remember make or model.
Apple’s environmental impact video is getting trashed by the tech-polloi, but I found it several cuts above the company’s typically stiff rah-rah productions. And it even made me tear up a bit—hoping that it’s both true and influential.
3 Likes
The narrative from those opposed to leather is that raising of cattle in general is environmentally unfriendly.
Those that support leather have the narrative that uses your argument as one of its points.
One can make arguments and rebuttals for both sides. But I think that the discussion would have to go further than trying to assess the damage of bovine flatulence.
Any reduction in cattle use will help the environment, no matter whether it’s for meat, milk, or leather. Just FYI: up to 25% of US land is used for cattle (which is rather insane), according to this analysis by Bloomberg: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
1 Like
Possibly, but that wasn’t what Simon asked.
He asked if cows are “slaughtered for leather alone” and obviously they aren’t, so he answered his own question already.
Hence my response: the less meat and milk you consume, the less leather there will be as well, and therefore less wristbands made out of it.
I was not being rhetorical. I simply don’t know.
Naively, I would have assumed that some cows are bred for quality leather and that perhaps their meat or dairy is of insufficient quality or amount to be of use. Stopping leather production would lead to those cows no longer being bred perhaps which could be of environmental benefit I would assume.
You’re avoiding the point. Not using leather won’t reduce cow consumption if the cows are being slaughtered anyway for meat consumption. Yes, not eating beef will do that but that’s not what Apple is trumpeting, which makes it rather seem like they are being performative rather than serious.
Personally, I think the best way for Apple to have a positive impact on the environment is to make existing devices work better for longer, sell less hardware (by volume), and batch incremental hardware upgrades. It has been frequently mentioned in these threads that (1) Apple should slow down the software release schedule and focus on quality assurance, and (2) most of the improvements are so incremental that performance comparisons are usually made against devices released a few years ago. Of course, that will most likely be undesirable financially, so there is not a high degree of alignment between financial and environmental interests.
Thankfully though, Apple devices are usually long-lasting. It has been almost two years since the M1 Pro/Max MacBook Pro was released, and I have no desire or need to upgrade mine - since it is so performant. Keeping the devices in use for longer is environmentally and financially sensible from the personal perspective.
While Apple labels FineWoven as being more environmentally friendly, I am wondering what the longer-term impact and unintended consequences are. If it is a mix of nylon and polyester, microplastics may be released into the environment. (My Apple Watch braided solo loop is beginning to shed after 18 months of daily wear.)
Nonetheless, I think not using leather on Apple products is sensible: (good) leather usually outlasts these products, and it is really wasteful to discard a perfectly functional accessory just because the parent device is obsolete. Meanwhile, I think it makes sense to use leather on longer-lasting products, such as shoes: the upper can be retained while soles are replaced as they wear out. I guess ultimately these are a matter of trade-offs.
3 Likes
True, but simply ending only one of those uses, when each individual animal is expected to fill more than one, simply results in wasted material with little environmental effect, because that animal still is being raised for the other uses. If you want to reduce the amount of leather used, you need to reduce the amount of beef consumed first, since that’s the primary use of the cattle used for leather.
That said, leather production does have its own environmental costs, but in general, its impact is dwarfed by cattle’s contributions to greenhouse gases. And you can make leather with greatly reduced environmental impact, but it costs more to do it, and most companies are more interested in maintaining their bottom lines than giving more than lip service to the environment.
Also bear in mind that cattle are not the only animals whose hides can be used to make leather. They’re the most common simply because we slaughter so many for food, but leather can come from animals with a much smaller environmental footprint.
1 Like
Keep in mind not all leather comes from cows. Kangaroo leather is the strongest leather by weight and we have 10s of millions of the buggers hopping around and they’re a considerable pest. They’re ‘controlled’ and the meat is sold for both human and pet consumption - the leather used for fine goods and things like whips. We have similar issues with feral goats and rabbits.
Sadly, the US Congress are talking about banning roo leather in the States. Whether they accept it via import is immaterial to the culling - it’s illogical to have the resource available and then refuse to use it. Ironically it will end up in land fill.
I’ll also add that research with seaweed supplements to negate the methane issue with cattle is ongoing. Then there’s the issue of alternatives to meat. Pasture will need to be turned into agricultural land and factories built to produce the ‘fake meat’ products.
3 Likes
Is it really necessary to try to find cynical back-handed reasons for every change that Apple makes?
Almost every article I read that describes what individuals can do most to reduce their effect on climate change mentions greatly reducing (not necessarily eliminating) beef and dairy from our diets, so I would think reducing the amount of leather we purchase new would also make some sense.
And if Apple decides that from a marketing point of view that they are noticing that their customers are starting to make environmental impact decisions when making purchases, and that making a decision to stop making and selling leather products (you cannot get a Series 9 Hermes band with leather from Apple, but Hermes is still selling them directly, with new watches as well), as somebody who is also making purchase decisions this way, I applaud their choice, whether it’s made genuinely or cynically (or a little bit of both.)
1 Like
I’m pretty sure it’s the latter…the no leather from Apple seems like a bunch of virtue signaling…just like the carbon neutral claims. I’m guessing that all of the watches and iPhones being ordered this week will ship completely by air…while they could use ships once the pipeline is full the ship time from China to Long Beach is weeks…it’s 6,000ish miles and container ships average 15 knots so 360 nautical miles or 410ish statute miles per day makes a transit time of about 2 weeks and there isn’t that much ti e between announcement and delivery.
Except there’s a glut of cow hide. I’ve seen estimates that about 45% of cow hide resulting from slaughtering cows for meat ends up in landfills. So Apple’s move won’t do a thing to reduce the number of cows, it will just result in more cow hide in landfills. Now, tanning leather does use toxic chemicals and produce toxic waste, so from that point-of-view it’s a good move for Apple, but it won’t reduce the number of cows.
2 Likes
I think a certain healthy skepticism about any corporation’s actions and announcements is a good idea. Even if it’s performative, I’m glad they’re making an effort on the environment.
1 Like
-
Concerning dropping leather from Apple products:
Leather tanneries are a known source of environmental contamination. So, reducing the amount of leather used does have a positive ecological effect. -
About shipping:
Ground and ocean shipping can be used for inventory maintenance of products at Apple stores, warehouses, and other retailers with no visible effect on availability. The initial increment may well use air shipping, but once the inventory is built, slower, more ecological methods can be used to maintain it.
3 Likes
Vegetable tanning is environmentally sound; chrome tanning is the bad one.
I agree with this. Once the initial shipments are established any subsequent delivery can be done using slower methods and forward planning.
I agree the dropping of leather will be of little consequence - I doubt they’re selling a significant number of leather bands and cases - but I don’t believe their environmental push is purely cynical.
Apple have made decisions regarding their carbon footprint and if they’re going to set targets they need to be ‘all in’. Ironically, it would be cynical if they left out some segment of the market eg. leather goods, if they’re making changes everywhere else. It just wouldn’t look ‘right’.
As an Apple consumer (and shareholder), I’m pleased they’re taking steps to be more environmentally responsible. The changes may not save the world alone, but we can hope it encourages other large corporations to follow suit and then some progress might be made.
1 Like
And that’s ultimately the key. Apple is one of the largest corporations in the world (I think they still have the largest market cap, but I’m too lazy to double-check right now). Them taking concrete steps toward being better environmental citizens puts pressure on other corporations, especially other big tech companies, to do the same.
Of course, it won’t do much to change the corporations and nations that most need to change (oil companies, and a couple of large Asian nations). Peer pressure doesn’t really affect the shameless.
1 Like