Part of the problem is the slipperiness of attempts to tie a carbon credit – an abstract financial instrument – to a particular product in the armada of Apple products or to the broader global economy. The Watch plays no role in creating those credits. They are only brought together by the sleight of hand of an accountant.
Of course, that assumes you think carbon credits mean much in the first place. The credits don’t refer to carbon-sucking devices (although Apple says it’s also investing in that as part of its broader sustainability efforts, on a smaller scale), but rather to “nature-based” offsets. The company says it has selected “high-value” projects, a term for which there is no official arbiter apart from the private companies and NGOs involved in the process of buying and selling carbon credits.
For the Watch, Apple says it is expanding investments in so-called “managed” forestry projects in Paraguay and Brazil. This generally means turning areas of degraded pasture land, where livestock used to live, into tree plantations. Some of the carbon is locked up in the trees grown and then in the products they become, and the operators also agree to set aside a larger percentage of the land for wild, unharvested growth than they normally would would do.
Critics of these types of projects say that even if a particular plantation looks good, there are uncertainties about factors outside that country. The biggest potential problem is known as ‘leakage’. What stops a rancher displaced from a piece of land diverted to support carbon credits from wreaking destruction somewhere else that is not managed or protected? In other cases, carbon credit projects have been accused of supporting companies that also do less forest-friendly work elsewhere. Apple declined to comment but has said that in addition to standards like Verra’s, it will also verify projects directly using satellites and other technology.
These problems often defy the good intentions of those who pay for the carbon credits that support these projects. From a recent study by The guard found that more than 90 percent of projects from major carbon crediting body Verra actually stored no additional carbon. Many of his projects simply pushed the destruction elsewhere. (Verra disputes the research behind the analysis, although it has since updated its methodologies for conservation projects.)
Apple’s claim about its Watch bucks a trend where companies have decided to stop using the carbon neutral label when it comes to credits – which is almost always the case. Jetblue said last year it would move away from carbon credits. This also applies to companies such as Gucci and Nestlé.
Apple is making progress in reducing the carbon emissions associated with making its attractive products, in a world that continues to make that difficult. But maybe it’s time to retire the phrase. No, your new watch is not CO2 neutral. It’s more things, and more things always leave a trace.
Additional reporting by Adrienne So