This is not an article, this is a press release. It is written by Apple employees.
I didn’t say they were lying. If anything the much more likely scenario is that it is framed in a duplicitous manner but without explicitly lying (in the strict pedantic sense).
Here is a simple question one for you. Find me where Apple provides a clear explanation of their definition of “gross emissions - Manufacturing (purchased goods and services)”; this is the line item that’s key to their press release, everything else is fluff and holds no value when it comes to the bigger picture.
So you admit, there is no reason not to believe what is written in the article, then you posit a strawman argument in the attempt to validate the point you already admitted was meaningless.
How is this anything other than an absurd amount of bias?
Do you not understand the difference between a press release and an article? Are you being serious? The authors literally have apple email accounts.
How is what I said a strawman? What exactly am I “strawmanning”; could you please be clear and specific on this?
There is no bias. This is common sense. Corporate messaging around sustainability (and there are different brands of this) by definition cannot be trusted.
Can you show me how they define “gross emissions - Manufacturing (purchased goods and services)”, surely if they added it in their emissions table and it’s really the only piece that’s important (because it ties back to the “60% of 2015 claim”, everything else in the press release is fluff), you should be able to find the definition as per Apple?
What evidence do you have for that? If you’re going to call the writer of this article a liar, you should back that up with proof.
This is not an article, this is a press release. It is written by Apple employees.
I didn’t say they were lying. If anything the much more likely scenario is that it is framed in a duplicitous manner but without explicitly lying (in the strict pedantic sense).
Here is a simple question one for you. Find me where Apple provides a clear explanation of their definition of “gross emissions - Manufacturing (purchased goods and services)”; this is the line item that’s key to their press release, everything else is fluff and holds no value when it comes to the bigger picture.
So you admit, there is no reason not to believe what is written in the article, then you posit a strawman argument in the attempt to validate the point you already admitted was meaningless.
How is this anything other than an absurd amount of bias?
Do you not understand the difference between a press release and an article? Are you being serious? The authors literally have apple email accounts.
How is what I said a strawman? What exactly am I “strawmanning”; could you please be clear and specific on this?
There is no bias. This is common sense. Corporate messaging around sustainability (and there are different brands of this) by definition cannot be trusted.
Can you show me how they define “gross emissions - Manufacturing (purchased goods and services)”, surely if they added it in their emissions table and it’s really the only piece that’s important (because it ties back to the “60% of 2015 claim”, everything else in the press release is fluff), you should be able to find the definition as per Apple?