It’s sad that the most upvoted comment has to be as always the contrarian picking the tiniest detail to diminish a laudable achievement.
2) I i was only at the top because my comment was brand new when you opened the thread.
3) it’s not a tiny detail. Animal agriculture is worse than the entire transportation industry combined.
4) even if I am being a contrarian, it is better than sarcasm and logical fallacies.
Let's base arguments on facts please.
US Greenhouse Emissions (specifically CO2) sources:
Agriculture: 9% of emissions.[0][1] (4.2% according to UCDavis[2])
Transportation: 27% of emissions.[0][1][2]
[0]https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
[1]http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/hsus-fact-shee...
[2]http://www.caes.ucdavis.edu/news/articles/2016/04/livestock-...
And here is a report from the UN's FAO; it's not a comparison to other GHG sources, but it's good data nonetheless: http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3671e/i3671e.pdf
it says agriculture is 24% and transportation is 14%
confusing.
And UC Davis is one of the top agriculture schools in the world (I grew up near there) so its in their interest to support the ag industry since that is where a lot of funding comes from, so I'd take that with a grain of salt.
Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (24% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions): Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector come mostly from agriculture (cultivation of crops and livestock) and deforestation. This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector.[2]
Note these are Global stats, while my link is US only, and was focused on CO2.
edit: and it doesn't seem that any of these statistics contradict each other, but it all depends on if we are talking about global stats, US only stats, all GHG emissions, or just CO2.
2) Ok, whatever
3) True that. I'm a vegetarian because of that, but I pretend to be a rational one. Th leather industry is mostly responsible for chemical pollution, though. You don't need to farm animals to make pouches and phone covers. It's not like Apple signed a contract with a cattle farm or something. I would consider that impact negligible, although I'm all for a ban on factory farming any day.
4) Contrarianism is exhausting.
Cattle are completely renewable by any standard.
Not when you realize that clean energy refers only to the production and consumption of electricity and has nothing whatsoever to do with supplies or with animals of any kind, unless you are using electricity produced by cows running in a circle.
Animal product and clean energy? That’s an oxymoron. Animal agriculture is one of the most inefficient systems there is and a major contributor to climate change.
I’d hope the next step is to make a statement by doing without leather, if Apple is indeed trying to set forward thinking and progressive trends.