Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We are not sustainable

frame.work

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 138 posts

Re: We are not sustainable

#11

Post by kccqzy »

benatkin wrote: post #9
kccqzy wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how the links you've provided show that these companies are greenwashing anything.

It provides one half of that, the article provides the other half. > And neither is any other device maker. This industry is full of "feel good" messaging, but generates 50 million metric tons of e-waste each year. And with my links it shows that these companies are doing feel-good messaging. I just thought I would call them out specifically. The link in the article goes in depth on how far it is from sustainability…

This is comparing apples and oranges. The article is talking about a wider sense of sustainability that includes e-waste. The links you posted are merely talking about carbon neutrality, which is a very small subset, and admittedly easier to achieve.

Re: We are not sustainable

#12

Post by benatkin »

kccqzy wrote: post #11
benatkin wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It provides one half of that, the article provides the other half. > And neither is any other device maker. This industry is full of "feel good" messaging, but generates 50 million metric tons of e-waste each year. And with my links it shows that these companies are doing feel-good messaging. I just thought I would call them out specifically. The link in the article goes in depth on how far it is from sustainability…

This is comparing apples and oranges. The article is talking about a wider sense of sustainability that includes e-waste. The links you posted are merely talking about carbon neutrality, which is a very small subset, and admittedly easier to achieve.

a false carbon neutrality

It's not apples and oranges though. They are both about sustainability. https://3egroup.com.au/news-insights/coming-to-terms-with-su...

Re: We are not sustainable

#13

Post by Alupis »

benatkin wrote: post #12
kccqzy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is comparing apples and oranges. The article is talking about a wider sense of sustainability that includes e-waste. The links you posted are merely talking about carbon neutrality, which is a very small subset, and admittedly easier to achieve.

a false carbon neutrality It's not apples and oranges though. They are both about sustainability. https://3egroup.com.au/news-insights/coming-to-terms-with-su...

Keep it down please - not everyone has queued into the scam that is carbon credits yet. Pay some 3rd party money with the promise they're offset your carbon emissions or plant trees, then go back to polluting however you want. It's quite the thing... but you get to claim you're Carbon Neutral in the meantime!

Re: We are not sustainable

#15

Post by icegreentea2 »

The life cycle assessment shows that over a five year life span, production is responsible for 65% of CO2e, and usage about 25% (out of a total estimated 200kg - roughly 86L of gasoline) using "a typical US energy mix".

Component wise (during production), the largest CO2e contributor was the display at ~25%, then the mainboard at 20%, and then battery around 15%.

Take aways for me are that: from a sustainability standpoint, if you're going to buy new, then it makes sense to buy the most capable model that makes sense, and try to milk it for as long as possible. Also, I never would have guessed how high the impact of display production was. Certainly makes the harvesting of screens from dead laptops seem like a good option.

Re: We are not sustainable

#16

Post by ewzimm »

If the whole tech industry generated 50 million metric tons per year, that’s about 6 kilograms per person on the planet per year, about a watermelon, and if you consider that even half of those are served by it, it’s a manageable amount of waste. The fact that it’s consolidated is a responsibility but also an opportunity to make big changes with every gain. I wish the tone here focused more on that opportunity.

Re: We are not sustainable

#17

Post by [deleted] »

benatkin wrote: post #6

Meanwhile at Google, Microsoft, and Apple: Greenwash all the things! \o/ https://sustainability.google/operating-sustainably/net-zero... https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-b... https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/07/apple-commits-to-be-1... Amazon has 2040 as a target, not sure if that says they're being more honest or it's because they deal more in physical products. https://sustainability.ab…

[deleted]

Re: We are not sustainable

#19

Post by benatkin »

[deleted] wrote: post #17
benatkin wrote: post #6

Meanwhile at Google, Microsoft, and Apple: Greenwash all the things! \o/ https://sustainability.google/operating-sustainably/net-zero... https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-b... https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/07/apple-commits-to-be-1... Amazon has 2040 as a target, not sure if that says they're being more honest or it's because they deal more in physical products. https://sustainability.ab…

[deleted]

[flagged]

Re: We are not sustainable

#20

Post by MrVandemar »

icegreentea2 wrote: post #15

The life cycle assessment shows that over a five year life span, production is responsible for 65% of CO2e, and usage about 25% (out of a total estimated 200kg - roughly 86L of gasoline) using "a typical US energy mix". Component wise (during production), the largest CO2e contributor was the display at ~25%, then the mainboard at 20%, and then battery around 15%. Take aways for me are that: from a sustainability stan…

> Certainly makes the harvesting of screens from dead laptops seem like a good option.

Wouldn't it be awfully nice if the manufacturers made this easy to do.

Post reply on HN