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

Apple's 'carbon neutral' claims are misleading, say EU groups

Apple's carbon neutral claims are coming under attack, with European environmental groups and consumer watchdogs insisting they are misleading.

Apple declared the Apple Watch Series 9 to be its first "carbon neutral" product during its launch in September, but it quickly became the target of criticism from a Chinese environment research organization as a form of "climate-washing."

Now, Apple faces more opposition from groups in Europe over the matter.

"Carbon neutral claims are scientifically inaccurate and mislead consumers," said BEUC director-general Monique Goyens to the Financial Times. "The EU's recent decision to ban carbon neutral claims will rightly clear the market of such bogus messages, and Apple Watches should be no exception."

Goyens refers to an agreement between the European Parliament and Council in September, which sought to ban "misleading advertisements" including those who use claims "based on emissions offsetting schemes that a product has neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment."

While agreed, the decision has yet to be adopted as law in Europe.

Gilles Dufrasne, policy officer at Carbon Market Watch, also declared it is "misleading to consumers to give the impression that buying the Watch has no impact on the climate at all. It's accounting tricks."

Tree problems

Apple reasons that the purchase of carbon credits count against emissions associated with the production, shipping, and lifetime charging of an Apple Watch. These credits are generated by timber plantations and reforestation projects on land previously deforested in Paraguay and Brazil, with carbon absorbed by the trees.

However, Compensate Foundation board chair Niklas Kaskeala believes that the worth of the carbon credits from timber plantations have "systemic flaws." Since trees are converted into pulp, cardboard, or toilet paper, "the carbon stored in these products is released back into the atmosphere very quickly."

In one Apple-backed conservation fund scheme called Forestal Apepu, trees are planted on land previously used for crops, with up to 25 percent left to be "natural forest." However, the majority of the planted trees are cut down and sold as timber just over a decade later.

Apple explained its approach to decarbonization of its products "offers a rigorous blueprint for how businesses can do their part, prioritizing deep emissions reductions across our value chain before applying high-quality carbon credits." Apple continued, adding it is "committed to driving new innovations to lower emissions and to scaling nature-based carbon removal as we accelerate progress towards 2030."

Apple pledged in 2020 to reach a 100% carbon-neutral footprint by 2030.

The move to create carbon-neutral products was "a proof point of one of the boldest climate commitments in industry today," Apple told the report. "To achieve global climate goals, we need immediate action to drastically cut emissions paired with investments in conservation and carbon removal at scale."



27 Comments

mjtomlin 21 Years · 2690 comments

do they not understand what carbon neutral means? It means you do something to offset the carbon emissions you produce. You effectively “wipe out” the carbon you put into the atmosphere.

2 Likes · 0 Dislikes
avon b7 21 Years · 8062 comments

mjtomlin said:
do they not understand what carbon neutral means? It means you do something to offset the carbon emissions you produce. You effectively “wipe out” the carbon you put into the atmosphere.

The issue here from these groups is not so much the theory but the accounting behind the claims so they aim for a blanket ban on these kinds of statements to end users. 

3 Likes · 0 Dislikes
Honkers 2 Years · 156 comments

mjtomlin said:
do they not understand what carbon neutral means? It means you do something to offset the carbon emissions you produce. You effectively “wipe out” the carbon you put into the atmosphere.

Do you not understand that such "offsets" are very frequently tantamount to meaningless virtue signalling given that they capture very little carbon?  The article talks about it, give it a proper read.

Apple talks a big game about good things that they do, and some of their initiatives genuinely sound great, but if their carbon neutral claims are being majorly bolstered by buying permits to pollute then that's the definition of greenwashing.

4 Likes · 0 Dislikes
22july2013 12 Years · 3738 comments

The EU must be reading my posts. I said something like that after the keynote. I think it was on this website. I'm happy they are learning from me.

But the EU still doesn't have it right. Getting cut down as timber is actually BETTER for carbon reduction than if the tree falls down when it dies. As timber, it can be used in long term construction that can keep CO2 isolated for hundreds of years. You could even drop the trunk into the bottom of a cold ocean or oxygen-deprived muddy lake bottom where it could last for thousands of years... even tens of thousands of years. (Warmer waters will turn wood into worm food.) As deadwood in the forest, it can become CO2 when the forest burns. One of the very best things to do to reduce carbon in the atmosphere is grow trees, cut them, and use the wood in long term projects.

But for some reason environmentalists aren't keen on the idea of carbon sinks. They want us to reduce carbon emissions even though adding more sinks has the same end result. Apple's own words cite "carbon emission reduction" but they ignore "carbon sink increases." Why? Because people are stupid.

5 Likes · 0 Dislikes