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 CEO Tim Cook
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."
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
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.
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.
I've had the same thoughts. These models are always imperfect because to actively plant a tree requires a carbon cost, for example. There are countless examples of how the bookkeeping and math is inherently flawed (which is not say we should scrap it simply because it's difficult to calculate, imperfect, and evolving—quite the opposite).
Based on Apple's history of being Green I have no doubt that Apple is more accurate and much better than anyone else for such a large initiative, but I'm also fine with others pointing out flaws and even focusing on Apple so they can improve. Others will follow Apple's lead. If these organizations went after Meta or Microsoft for their Green initiates no one would care.
🤦♂️
So, for every Apple Watch Ultra 2, with the Alpine Loop, Apple is "removing" 12 kg of CO2 (Trail Loop is 11 kg) from the atmosphere by restoring and maintaining forests: "Located in Brazil and Paraguay, Apple’s three initial investments with Conservation International and Goldman Sachs aim to restore 150,000 acres of sustainably certified working forests and protect an additional 100,000 acres of native forests, grasslands, and wetlands. Together, these projects are forecast to remove 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere per year by 2025."
80% of the carbon neutral claim, versus the baseline of just using existing processes, is done simply by sourcing renewable/clean energy for the manufacturing of the product. Another 10% is nicked at by recycling and using boats instead of airplanes for transportation. The last 10% is done with carbon offsets.
The biggest inherent risk with what Apple is doing with forests, wetlands, etc, in Brazil, Paraguay, and I think they said Kenya (?) is that governments change. A new government in Brazil could simply change laws and burn down these areas. They will literally need to have rangers patrolling and possibly killing farmers who want to burn it down. So, there is an inherent level of trust in the permanency of these areas when using carbon credits, which is typically a bad idea. Also, there is no such thing as permanency with global warming. These areas have to be selected to survive the rigors of global warming. Those areas may become too hot and dry to sustain a forest, etc.
The carbon credit needs to last about 50, maybe 100, years. So, not permanent per se, just long enough. By 50 years, direct air capture will be mature, or other processes for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, so these types of carbon credit systems will fade away in favor of more deterministic methods.
The very concept of carbon credits it’s just bait and switch by the ruling classes, the largest salmon fishery in the world is up for grabs.
It is mind blowing that not even that threat can stop it. (Half of all Sockeye Salmon in the world are taken from that lake).
https://kuow.org/stories/copper-versus-salmon-why-an-alaska-mine-matters-in-the-northwest
Climate alarmism is an anti-human, de-growth, neo-Marxist enterprise that needs to be called out for what it is.
Basically all symptoms of early adopter phases or early market development issues when it is a wild west of empty promises with only a few companies creating good products. There is the big issue of getting nations to actually regulate and honor the forestry and wetland projects. You really need the gov'ts to enforce rules, but many many nations are on a knife's edge between parties who have entirely opposite beliefs and goals that it may not be possible to ensure permanency. And like I said before, it is global warming. These areas may not have the climate to be carbon sinks in 50 years times, though I do think lasting 50 years is enough.
Seems to me it's the same old same old. Regulate carbon credit markets.
As far as Apple and its carbon neutral labels, none of the criticisms have actually addressed anything regarding Apple's statement. Apple has an independent 3rd party verify Apple's claims, with certificates and all. Go do the work and verify the numbers.
The cost of an LLM interaction is about 2x to 5x the cost of a regular page-rank search because LLMs need more compute power and the capital costs are like 2x, 3x larger to even get started. So, these LLM chatbot companies will need to attack it from all three sides to actually make money: use power that costs less, use hardware that uses less power, and use LLM interactions that use less compute. Power that costs less basically means solar+storage with a whiff of wind if they can get it locally.
As far as Apple and LLMs, who knows. Lots of hype right now. A lot of writing based fields, be it journalism, entertainment or programming, find it useful, but the hype cycle always assumes there are no limits. We've been through a lot of hype cycles where this (eg, crypto) or that (eg, voice) hyped thing found there limitations; and, I guess nobody likes to take about them anymore. The Internet of Things, the thing the ARMH bet the farm on, doesn't matter anymore? Ben Thompson said voice was the next big thing! Alexa! Apple is falling behind. Uh, all the companies are downsizing. Ben Thompson said VR/AR was it, the next big thing! Apple isn't doing anything about it. Uh, VR/AR looks to be rather limiting right now.
Will have to wait and see with LLM chatbots. It may just be a boring search feature that no one can make any money from in the end.