This is such negative comment. I don't understand why this gets traction.
I'm sure pretty smart people spent a lot of time in coming up with this goal that is ambitious and pretty noble may a I say. Probably going through months of goal planning a long vision setups.
And with low effort comment you can say, meh, I think I know better without almost any contextual information about any of this.
I don't mean to be insulting, just that I think it's a little disrespectful to peoples effort. And only negative.
Maybe you can present us a semi detailed plan of how Apple can better set their carbon emission program.
I don't think it's either negative or insulting. And it raises a good point. In 10 years' time lots of things could change that would make this "goal" irrelevant. Apple might be struggling to make ends meet 5 years down the line. I know that seems very unlikely for Apple right now, but imagine a company like Intel, add a big economic regression, trade wars with China (which for Apple is a big source of revenue) etc. But even just a few changes in the board of directors, or a change of CEO could see this target go out of the picture.
Besides, it's not a difficult target to achieve. I don't think it would cost much more than a few tens of millions of dollars to start and operate some solar and wind power stations of sufficient capacity to offset all of their consumption. It should be pocket change for Apple's budget.
I'm sure pretty smart people spent a lot of time in coming up with this goal that is ambitious and pretty noble may a I say. Probably going through months of goal planning a long vision setups.
And with low effort comment you can say, meh, I think I know better without almost any contextual information about any of this.
I don't mean to be insulting, just that I think it's a little disrespectful to peoples effort. And only negative.
Maybe you can present us a semi detailed plan of how Apple can better set their carbon emission program.