Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Apple officially endorses California's Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act

Apple has announced its official support for California's SB 253, a bill that mandates companies earning over $1 billion annually to disclose detailed information relating to greenhouse gas emissions.

SB 253 would require all large U.S.-based corporations doing business in California that make over $1 billion annually to publicly disclose their full carbon footprint in an easily understandable and available way. Senator Scott Wiener introduced the bill.

Senator Wiener posted a letter from Apple that showed the company's support for the bill to X.

The letter was signed by Apple's director for state and local government affairs, D. Michael Foulkes.

"Throughout our environmental journey, we've emphasized the importance of measurement and reporting to help us understand our impact," the letter reads.

"We're strongly supportive of climate disclosures to improve transparency and drive progress in the fight against climate change, and we're grateful for your leadership to drive comprehensive emissions disclosure."

The letter continues to commend SB 253 in a few key areas, most notably in proposing that companies would need to measure and report Scope 3 emissions. Scope 3 emissions are not produced by the company itself but rather from assets owned or controlled by the company. This would require companies like Apple to report emissions from their supply chain partners.

In April, Apple shared its annual Environmental Progress Report, documenting its progress toward becoming carbon neutral by 2030.



19 Comments

❄️
tht 23 Years · 5658 comments

This bill speaks to how reticent people are to change. This bill is only about reporting, not actually doing something. We need bills to do something! Every and all things must tried. Write the bill to enforce >1b companies to be carbon neutral.

Even in California, there is a strange hesitancy. They are going to test out this idea of covering a waterway with solar PV for some hundreds of feet. Hundreds of feet? The passivity here is crazy. Hundreds of feet?! It should be hundreds of miles. California, you will need water. Lots and lots of fresh water. The best option is desalination. You will need basically free energy to do it. Just completely overbuild solar PV by 2x, 4x your peak demand needs. Cover every single waterway and river with solar PV.  Not completely always in the shade covered, but covered. Then use that "free energy" to power desalination plants, batteries of all kinds, direct air capture to gas or to ground. Put in a serious carbon tax to get everyone to turn over.

chasm 10 Years · 3629 comments

This is seriously one of the reasons I doubt I will ever find reasons to switch from Apple products.

Some would point out that Apple already fully complies with this proposed law, but that’s kind of the point: Apple has been pro-active, not reactive, to energy needs vs catastrophic climate change, which are currently seeing the tip of the (now melted) iceberg of.

Few other companies of this size have been as consistently proactive as Apple in terms of both minimizing their harm to the environment while at the same time vastly increasing their use of renewable (and low-cost, after the initial investment) resources.

I would love to see Microsoft and Google do so much more than they are doing in this area, but so far they’re just following the letter of pro-environmental laws — it’s clear their hearts and minds aren’t in it the way Apple’s are.

🎄
8thman 20 Years · 34 comments

This is why companies are leaving California.

The Climate Cult will never be satisfied with the data the businesses HAVE TO PAY FOR. It costs them and adds another State mandate burden to meet just to do business in Cali. 

❄️
mayfly 1 Year · 385 comments

tht said:
This bill speaks to how reticent people are to change. This bill is only about reporting, not actually doing something. We need bills to do something! Every and all things must tried. Write the bill to enforce >1b companies to be carbon neutral.

Even in California, there is a strange hesitancy. They are going to test out this idea of covering a waterway with solar PV for some hundreds of feet. Hundreds of feet? The passivity here is crazy. Hundreds of feet?! It should be hundreds of miles. California, you will need water. Lots and lots of fresh water. The best option is desalination. You will need basically free energy to do it. Just completely overbuild solar PV by 2x, 4x your peak demand needs. Cover every single waterway and river with solar PV.  Not completely always in the shade covered, but covered. Then use that "free energy" to power desalination plants, batteries of all kinds, direct air capture to gas or to ground. Put in a serious carbon tax to get everyone to turn over.

No such thing as free energy. You've made good points, but marginalized the best solution to your last sentence: conservation.


And covering all waterways with solar panels, well, it would be a serious detriment to navigation, and would require shipping to use more electricity for lighting. And ships get electricity from burning diesel fuel. Not to mention that currently, it costs $28,600 to replace 10kWh of electricity with solar panels. Los Angeles County uses an average. 22,000 gigawatt hours (gWh) per year. The math tells us the cost would be $62,920,000,000,000. That's just under $63 quadrillion dollars at current prices. I'm sure economies of scale could bring down the price to a lousy $30 quadrillion or so, but the entire United States GDP in 2022 was $25.46 trillion, or less than a thousandth of the money needed. And that's just for Los Angeles County. Add the cost of shipping, installation, maintenance, repair and replacement over 50 years, it adds up to serious money. Not to mention that one hurricane or earthquake could destroy the entire infrastructure.

We will wind up using less energy per user. How that happens is looking more and more dire for future generations.

🌟
mknelson 9 Years · 1148 comments

mayfly said:
tht said:
This bill speaks to how reticent people are to change. This bill is only about reporting, not actually doing something. We need bills to do something! Every and all things must tried. Write the bill to enforce >1b companies to be carbon neutral.

Even in California, there is a strange hesitancy. They are going to test out this idea of covering a waterway with solar PV for some hundreds of feet. Hundreds of feet? The passivity here is crazy. Hundreds of feet?! It should be hundreds of miles. California, you will need water. Lots and lots of fresh water. The best option is desalination. You will need basically free energy to do it. Just completely overbuild solar PV by 2x, 4x your peak demand needs. Cover every single waterway and river with solar PV.  Not completely always in the shade covered, but covered. Then use that "free energy" to power desalination plants, batteries of all kinds, direct air capture to gas or to ground. Put in a serious carbon tax to get everyone to turn over.
No such thing as free energy. You've made good points, but marginalized the best solution to your last sentence: conservation.

And covering all waterways with solar panels, well, it would be a serious detriment to navigation, and would require shipping to use more electricity for lighting. And ships get electricity from burning diesel fuel. Not to mention that currently, it costs $28,600 to replace 10kWh of electricity with solar panels. Los Angeles County uses an average. 22,000 gigawatt hours (gWh) per year. The math tells us the cost would be $62,920,000,000,000. That's just under $63 quadrillion dollars at current prices. I'm sure economies of scale could bring down the price to a lousy $30 quadrillion or so, but the entire United States GDP in 2022 was $25.46 trillion, or less than a thousandth of the money needed. And that's just for Los Angeles County. Add the cost of shipping, installation, maintenance, repair and replacement over 50 years, it adds up to serious money. Not to mention that one hurricane or earthquake could destroy the entire infrastructure.

We will wind up using less energy per user. How that happens is looking more and more dire for future generations.

I suspect tht was meaning canals rather than waterways. California has a fair number of canals in the central valley - not used for navigation. In fact, I don't think there are many rivers in California capable of navigation for significant distances.

Solar installed over canals has shown to reduce evaporation amongst other benefits.

Your solar replacement math is incredibly suspect. $28,600 to replace 10kW of generation not kWh. (10kWh is only about $3.10 worth of electricity at current consumer rates in California.) That 10kW worth of panels produces something over 30mWh over a year.

As for hurricanes - Hillary was the first in a century. Earthquakes aren't likely to destroy a canal mounted solar system as long as a bit of space is left between modules to allow for slosh and sway.