I think the title should say „Apple will order from 2025 only batteries with 100 percent recycled cobalt“?
I’m not aware that Apple has noteworthy production facilities. Other than IBM, Dell, Lenovo, TSMC, Intel, Samsung. With Samsung as exception, which produces literally everything.
Then again, if we're to talk about hypocrisy, the cobalt impact on environment (not to mention child, including slave-slave, labor) is downplayed towards token "green" PR.
(And "recycled" cobalt can just be any previous cycle's "new" cobalt, meaning still driving cobalt mining forever - it's just an accounting trick to make it appear less impactful. Except if they promise to only use cobalt mined before 2025 in perpetuity).
How is it an accounting trick? Are you saying there would be no change in the amount of cobalt mined annually if Apple instead said they would use only newly mined cobalt?
Let’s say the world currently uses 90% virgin Cobalt, and 10% recycled Cobalt.
Let’s assume Apple decides to only use recycled Cobalt.
Q1: Is there any change to the amount of recycled Cobalt?
Q2: Is Apple a kind, environmentally-friendly, generous, caring corporation?
Q3: If Apple decided to use batteries without Cobalt, would that decrease Cobalt mining?
Q4: Could Apple reduce the number of phones they produce (decreasing Cobalt usage), and would Apple do that for environmental reasons?
Q5: Let’s assume their new policy actually makes zero difference to the amount of Cobalt mining: would Apple still claim to be environmentally conscious in their marketing?
That’s a lot of hand waving and moralizing to dodge the question. I’m fine hating Apple, but I don’t feel the need to insist that them increasing the average number of proudest a cobalt atom goes through will have no impact on demand for newly mined cobalt.
100% fine if you choose to see this policy as further evidence of their moral irredeemability. But let’s be honest with the math and how supply chains work?
I am wondering whether this is smoke-and-mirrors greenwashing with a side of deflection, versus a significant boost to Cobalt recycling.
Economics:
(A) If 10% of Cobalt is already recycled, but only 5% is used by companies that want to advertise their green credentials, then there is unlikely to be much extra demand for recycled Cobalt so approximately zero extra production of it,
(B) If corporations are only willing to pay a little extra for recycled Cobalt, then there is little extra production of recycled Cobalt. The price will clear near the 10% usage mark.
(C) Even at a high price for recycled Cobalt, if there is a high marginal cost for increasing recycling then little extra Cobalt will be recycled (e.g. if we are already recycling most of what economically can be).
(D) Without very detailed PhD level analysis, the dollars spent is the best proxy for ecological damage. A high price for recycled Cobalt might be doing nothing for the environment, or even be damaging the environment more.
> But let’s be honest with the math and how supply chains work?
I am trying to be. I do question whether Apple Inc is trying to be.
I do hope that Apple’s efforts do improve the world. Apple are one of the biggest economic actors on the planet, so they have the real capacity to make a true positive ecological difference.
Longer software updates to extend device lifetimes would be a true signal they cared about the environment. For example I have seen too many iPads that become obsolete even though the hardware is still working great. If Apple don’t use signals like that, we can presume that they care more about profits. I am 100% fine if Apple choose to see profits as policy, so long as they are honest about it.
I am definitely not a specialist in this area, yet to me there are obvious gaping holes in their narrative which make it seem like they are performing environmental theatre instead of ecologically sound engineering. It is carefully constructed advertising - whether there is any meat in it is the question.
Whether we can discover the underlying truth is another matter.
> hand waving
Perhaps you could criticise my points, rather than make a hand waving argument.
Also, will Apple even continue to use "100% recycle cobalt" if their production grows in some market segment (say the "Apple car" eventually arrives) and their cobalt needs increase beyond that? Not a chance.
They still do - they said about half of their cars don't. Still:
Huayou Cobalt will supply processed cobalt for batteries to Tesla from July 1, 2022, to the end of 2025, according to the filing. The miner specified that the prices of the products will be “subject to market prices for nickel, cobalt and manganese, as well as refining fees.”
I'm saying "100% percent recycled" still means new cobalt will continue to be mined, including for future Apple use. Apple just offsets using the newly mined by 1-2-3 years and calls it a green solution.
An, with you there. To the extent Apple claimed this policy would result in the total cessation of all cobalt mining, they were wrong to do so. It is merely a reduction in demand for newly mined cobalt, not a complete elimination across the entire economy.
I think this should create a substantial market for recycled cobalt, which will drive up the level of cobalt recycling, which means there would be less actual cobalt mining.
> Except if they promise to only use cobalt mined before 2025 in perpetuity
They’re not in a situation to promise anything like this, though. Nobody is going to ask when the cobalt was mined when you bring a device for recycling. Of course, recycling is not perfect and not using any would be better. But it’s still much, much better than not doing any recycling.
I’m not aware that Apple has noteworthy production facilities. Other than IBM, Dell, Lenovo, TSMC, Intel, Samsung. With Samsung as exception, which produces literally everything.