#iphone

Something kids will fear way more than climate change

Image result for teenagers smartphones selfies climate strike

Is there one thing greater than climate change that can cause children irreparable harm? Yes. Perhaps the kids attending the school climate strikes tomorrow ought to consider that the very smartphone devices that they can’t put down are also harmful to the environment. Will these kids happily give up their smartphones in a quest to save the planet? Will these kids be willing to give up Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter to save their own lives? Not in a million years.

An abstract of a report on the impact of technological devices on GHG emissions by Belkhir & Elmeligi, titled, ‘Assessing ICT global emissions footprint: Trends to 2040 & recommendations is as follows,

In light of the concerted efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) per the so-called Paris Agreement, the Information and Communication Industry (ICT) has received little attention as a significant contributor to GHGE and if anything is often highly praised for enabling efficiencies that help reduce other industry sectors footprint. In this paper, we aim at assessing the global carbon footprint of the overall ICT industry, including the contribution from the main consumer devices, the data centers and communication networks, and compare it with the to the total worldwide GHGE. We conduct a detailed and rigorous analysis of the ICT global carbon footprint, including both the production and the operational energy of ICT devices, as well as the operational energy for the supporting ICT infrastructure. We then compare this contribution to the global 2016-level GHGE. We have found that, if unchecked, ICT GHGE relative contribution could grow from roughly 1–1.6% in 2007 to exceed 14% of the 2016-level worldwide GHGE by 2040, accounting for more than half of the current relative contribution of the whole transportation sector. Our study also highlights the contribution of smartphones and shows that by 2020, the footprint of smartphones alone would surpass the individual contribution of desktops, laptops and displays. Finally, we offer some actionable recommendations on how to mitigate and curb the ICT explosive GHGE footprint, through a combination of renewable energy use, tax policies, managerial actions and alternative business models.”

The study found that the relative emissions share of smartphones is expected to grow to 11% by 2020, exceeding the individual contributions of PCs, laptops and computer displays.

In absolute values, emissions caused by smartphones will jump from 17Mt to 125Mt of CO2 equivalent per year (Mt-CO2e/yr) in that time span or +730%. Most of this occurs at the production stage. Nevertheless with mobile carriers encouraging shorter cycles to upgrade this will only get worse.

ICT will grow from 215Mt-CO2e/yr in 2007 to 764 MtCO2-e/yr by 2020, with data centres (storing all those photos) accounting for about two-thirds of the total contribution.

For comparison purposes, the entire carbon footprint of Australia was about 550 MtCO2-e in 2018.

CM guesses these kids ought to be walking to school too. It is a great lesson in what real sacrifice means. At least they got the day off school.

A worm has turned on Apple

Apple guided Q1 revenue around $84bn vs earlier guidance of $89-93bn. Consensus unsurprisingly pegged itself to the middle of the initial estimate. How original and staying ahead of the curve? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that pulling disclosure of handset sales was the precursor. It wasn’t so long ago that the US Federal Reserve ended disclosure of its balance sheet movements. Ahead of the GFC, Ben Bernanke pulled reporting of M3 money supply right before the GFC.

Apple has lost the entire GDP of Singapore in market cap terms since last September. How many funds are up to the eyeballs in this stock that they believed had endless growth. How soon before it loses another Singapore?

No doubt the iPhone 14S XR limited edition run of 100 million units won’t turn this around.

It is usually around this time in a decayed product cycle that companies launch into random areas they have no expertise in. Watch for M&A deals at silly prices to buy bolt on businesses that bring hopes of growth in a global economy that has maxed out! Cue the goodwill write downs in year 1.

Poverty shaming

Now poverty shaming is the next thing that must be stopped. Putting aside the parenting issues of spoiling teenage kids with $1,000 down jackets, are such school regulations truly necessary? What a condescending slap in the face for those supposedly in poverty to have the school openly show some sense of pity on them. Did the low-income parents ask en masse for this or was it the typical arbitrary decision driven by overhearing a school gate grizzle by one parent having a bad day blown out of proportion by the faculty to signal virtue? To put a question to the school faculty – would they prefer the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich? Seems like a lot of self-loathing rather than driving positive behaviours.

How many times have we seen the activists arrogantly categorize groups as one homogeneous voice. Do all lower income parents despise all middle class parents and vice versa?

What if a kid from a lower income bracket sweated over the holiday season as a casual worker and earned the ability to buy a Moncler jacket? Wouldn’t that be a great lesson? Surely something to be commended, encouraged and supported. Should the school take an inventory check on smart phones to make sure that some richer kids with iPhones aren’t memory shaming those with last year’s model of a Huawei?

Supposedly the school jacket ban idea was brought up because, “Poverty-proofing enables schools to identify and overcome the barriers to learning that children and young people from families with less financial resources face.”

Where does it end? Why not ban parents from dropping their kids off at school in any vehicle from a European luxury brand so parents don’t poverty shame other parents?  If the kids are supposed to learn how to break down barriers, won’t little Henry pulling up to school in the passenger seat of his mother’s Range Rover enforce the same poverty shaming problems when confronting Johnny alighting his father’s clapped out  Ford Fiesta hatchback as he would by wearing a Moncler down jacket? Best force the richer parents to drop their kids at the back gate to protect against the odds of Johnny’s deep seated envy getting triggered.

Or perhaps the school should up the ante and dispense with the poverty shaming edict and just mark the richer kids exams down by 25% to account for their supposed privilege.

Is it any wonder kids are becoming more neurotic when they have identity and ideology thrust down their throats rather than learn about respect and individual responsibility? Best make the kids that don’t fit the apparatchik’s value set share in collective misery.