Cupertino Must Stop Calling Apple Watches 'Carbon Neutral,' German Court Rules (theregister.com) 58
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: A German court has told Apple to stop advertising its Watches as being carbon-neutral, ruling that this was misleading and could not fly under the country's competition law. Apple has been marketing its newest smartwatches as being carbon-neutral for nearly two years now, with an array of rationales. It claims that clean energy for manufacturing, along with greener materials and shipping, lop around three-quarters off the carbon emissions for each model of the Apple Watch. The remaining emissions are offset by the purchase of carbon credits, according to Apple.
Deutsche Umwelthilfe (well, DUH – that's the acronym), a prominent environmental group, begged to differ on that last point. It applied for an injunction in May and Tuesday's ruling (in German), which will only be published in full later this week, led it to claim victory. The ruling means Apple can't advertise the Watch as a "CO2-neutral product" in Germany. [...] The ruling revolved around the Paraguayan forestry program that Apple claimed was offsetting some of the Watch's production emissions. The project involves commercial eucalyptus plantations on leased land, where the leases for three-quarters of the land will run out in 2029 with no guarantee of renewal.
According to the court, consumers' expectations of carbon compensation schemes are shaped by the prominent 2015 Paris Agreement, which commits countries to achieving carbon neutrality by the second half of this century. It said consumers would therefore "assume" that the carbon-neutrality claims around the Apple Watch would mean neutrality was assured through 2050. That leaves a 21-year gap of uncertainty in this case. The Verified Carbon Standard program, in which Apple is participating, has a "pooled buffer account" scheme to hedge against this sort of uncertainty. However, the German court was not impressed, saying it would only allow Apple to monitor the situation after the leases run out, which is a far cry from definitely being able to keep offsetting those emissions if the plantation gets cleared.
Deutsche Umwelthilfe (well, DUH – that's the acronym), a prominent environmental group, begged to differ on that last point. It applied for an injunction in May and Tuesday's ruling (in German), which will only be published in full later this week, led it to claim victory. The ruling means Apple can't advertise the Watch as a "CO2-neutral product" in Germany. [...] The ruling revolved around the Paraguayan forestry program that Apple claimed was offsetting some of the Watch's production emissions. The project involves commercial eucalyptus plantations on leased land, where the leases for three-quarters of the land will run out in 2029 with no guarantee of renewal.
According to the court, consumers' expectations of carbon compensation schemes are shaped by the prominent 2015 Paris Agreement, which commits countries to achieving carbon neutrality by the second half of this century. It said consumers would therefore "assume" that the carbon-neutrality claims around the Apple Watch would mean neutrality was assured through 2050. That leaves a 21-year gap of uncertainty in this case. The Verified Carbon Standard program, in which Apple is participating, has a "pooled buffer account" scheme to hedge against this sort of uncertainty. However, the German court was not impressed, saying it would only allow Apple to monitor the situation after the leases run out, which is a far cry from definitely being able to keep offsetting those emissions if the plantation gets cleared.
Re:illegal (Score:4, Interesting)
Legal means done through due process of law. There're high confidence that the decision process leading to closure of the nuclear power plants was done through the legal process.
If a company wants to claim carbon neutrality, what they have to do is to follow certifications processes such as ISO 14068-1. Affluent companies hire consulting services such as https://www.carbonneutral.com/ [carbonneutral.com] (for USA) (I see Microsoft on their customer list). Then they can display a "carbon neutral" logo and move the liability to certifying company.
Re: (Score:3)
But shuddering all their nuclear plants... somehow isn't.
I'm pretty sure shuddering a nuclear plant would be illegal just about everywhere.
Maybe you meant "shuttering"?
Ethics is not math (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe otherwise; that every human has an instinctive sense of what is right and what is wrong.
It is just that we often reach for excuses that are emotionally convenient to skirt around them, to make ourselves feel better.
We go for ideology/party line, religious doctrine, junk science, group-think, doing what you are told, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ethics is not math (Score:4, Funny)
My gas-guzzling SUV gets 12 miles to the gallon, but I am more ethically virtuous than you because my watch is carbon-neutral.
Re: (Score:2)
My gas-guzzling SUV gets 12 miles to the gallon, but I am more ethically virtuous than you because my watch is carbon-neutral.
I was told you must drive a Prius if you wear an Apple Watch. You're wearing it wrong.
How is this victory for the complainants? (Score:3)
Their evidence proves Apple is currently carbon neutral on their watches now, and until at least 2029?
Re:How is this victory for the complainants? (Score:4)
Yes, and the court assumed without evidence that people buying "green" products expect a carbon neutrality scheme to be absolutely guaranteed for at least the next 25 years.
I don't even trust my Social Security benefits to be guaranteed that long. (Friedrich Merz recently made a similar assessment of Germany's social welfare system.) It would be dumb for anyone to expect a "green" certification to have that kind of guarantee, and it's even dumber for a court to insist that a company should provide that kind of assurance.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, if I buy a carbon neutral something, I expect it to be carbon neutral now and forever. The issue with plantation projects is that the plants still need to grow. They can't guarantee that the plants will reach the needed size. And they can't guarantee that the carbon will be released again unless they plan for storing the grown plants somewhere forever in a way that they don't decompose.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, because the purchase is once and then you have the item: the properties at purchase are imbued in the item and any degradation of its properties would be your own fault from where on. A good or service that you would rent could be another matter however.
But the core of this case is really about what things mean in advertising.
For example, if you buy a car that has been advertised as "30 miles per gallon", you'd expect that to mean a standard mile and a standard gallon, not some historic mile and som
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and the court assumed without evidence that people buying "green" products expect a carbon neutrality scheme to be absolutely guaranteed for at least the next 25 years.
Neutral kind of means forever. Not "carbon neutral for 5 minutes then we put the carbon back so it's actually not carbon neutral at all".
and it's even dumber for a court to insist that a company should provide that kind of assurance.
What assurance should a company provide or its claims then?
Re: (Score:2)
Neutral kind of means forever.
No. It does not, and it cannot.
The claim of neutrality is intimately tied to the length at which the neutrality applies.
Even carbonaceous rocks aren't carbon neutral at geological timescales.
I do agree with the court that "15 years" seems a bit short, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair point, though that co2 might have been released anyway over that timescale!
But yes I agree forever didn't make sense, but 15 years is easy too short.
Re: (Score:2)
and it's even dumber for a court to insist that a company should provide that kind of assurance.
It's nothing of the sort. If you're going to make claims about how much carbon you saved by not cutting down a tree we're going to damn well hold you to the fact that tree is going to remain not cut down long enough to sequester the carbon you're claiming.
Re: (Score:2)
we're going to damn well hold you to the fact that tree is going to remain not cut down long enough to sequester the carbon you're claiming.
Oh ya? Are they responsible for ensuring its immortality as well? The hermetic sealing of the land so that decomposition cannot happen?
Are they promising a vibrant forest in perpetuity?
Even if they were to offset it by capturing carbon from the atmosphere and making limestone, it too, would one day return its carbon to the atmosphere.
No- "forever" is a stupid fucking assurance, and if you think it isn't, it's because you're stupid.
However, everything in between is negotiable, and I do agree with the co
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon neutrality has an effective definition, and it does not include forever.
Re: (Score:1)
Their evidence proves Apple is currently carbon neutral on their watches now, and until at least 2029?
No. If the tree plantation does not survive to maturity, there is no carbon that has been "neutralized". Trees take time to grow and if the site is bulldozed and repurposed while the trees are still saplings, then nothing has been achieved.
Yes, and the court assumed without evidence that people buying "green" products expect a carbon neutrality scheme to be absolutely guaranteed for at least the next 25 years.
It wasn't an assumption. Carbon neutral programs that rely on tree plantations (and aren't just greenwashing scams) require guarantees that the trees will grow to maturity and wont be burnt down or bulldozed later on. If there are no or inadequate guarantees, then this mi
Re: (Score:2)
No. If the tree plantation does not survive to maturity
Incorrect.
If it does not survive long enough to accumulate enough biomass to offset the desired amount of carbon- that is true.
Maturity is just the point where the biomass stabilizes, which has nothing to do with any particular amount having been "neutralized", and mature forests are slashed and burned just as easy as young ones.
Every neutralization scheme have some period for which they can guarantee the sequestration, with the exception of 1- firing it upwards at escape velocity.
That time period is
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to ask what the fuck Cupertino is.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure.
The concept even extends to politicians.
"The White House said...."
"The Kremlin promised...."
"No comment from 10 Downing Street...."
Re: (Score:2)
It's called metonymy. In this case, the evil company that everyone here hates. No, not Monsanto, the other evil company.
Re: (Score:2)
Walmart?
Made from unobtainium (Score:2)
That would be a far easier thing to do than to be what some government decides is "carbon neutral".
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes, blame the government for enforcing basic environmental standards and not the corporation trying to scam its way into appearing green. Carbon neutral isn't a fuzzy definition, whatever is produced must be offset in order to claim neutrality. In order for the purchased offsets to actually produce said offset, the trees must mature. If your company isn't willing to commit to the time needed to see the offsets realized, then they need a different offset scheme, need to make up the difference in manufac
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes, blame the government for enforcing basic environmental standards and not the corporation trying to scam its way into appearing green.
It isn't. That's the problem.
Carbon neutral isn't a fuzzy definition
The laws of physics demand it must be.
In order for the purchased offsets to actually produce said offset, the trees must mature.
Maturity is a completely arbitrary and unscientific selection. What made you pick it?
But yes, let's keep blaming the government and fellating the corporation.
I blame them both. Both the Government for leaving it up to a court to decide that "2050 is what people probably think it means", which is arbitrary and kind of absurd- and the corporation, for not exercising some level of self restraint coloring within the lack of fucking lines.
"offset by the purchase of carbon credits" (Score:2)
Apple probably bought the carbon credits from this scammer [dailywire.com].
Carbon Lite? (Score:1)
Just don't show any LGBTQ+'s on iWatch or Kid Rock and other TalibanJelicals will shoot it.
-5 Political Troll
Re: (Score:2)
Just don't show any LGBTQ+'s on iWatch or Kid Rock and other TalibanJelicals will shoot it.
The Apple Watch has had pride wallpapers and faces for awhile now. The latest one [apple.com] looks more like Walt Disney threw up than a pride flag, but I digress.
I think what keeps most right-wingers from losing their shit over this is that no amount of screaming "go woke, go broke" at the top of their lungs moves the needle when it comes to people willing to buy Apple's various gadgets.
Tree's aren't long term carbon sequestration (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But treating tree planting as a durable substitute for cutting fossil emissions is wishful thinking.
If your criterion is that whatever you do to capture carbon should be something that cannot be undone then there is no way to capture carbon, even mineralization can be undone if you heat it....which is done to make cement so even that is something that could happen.
Don't get me wrong - the whole carbon offsetting business seems incredibly dodgy and based on very dubious accounting. However, the standard to hold them to has to be that they get to count what they sequester, they cannot be responsible if
Re: (Score:2)
If your criterion is that whatever you do to capture carbon should be something that cannot be undone then there is no way to capture carbon, even mineralization can be undone if you heat it....which is done to make cement so even that is something that could happen.
Well, they german court only ruled the carbon must stay captured for atleast 25 years, but Apple couldn't even do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Providing you don't burn the result the carbon remains sequestered. E.g. my house's primary construction isn't emitting carbon, despite being made of a dead tree.
Re: (Score:2)
Providing you don't burn the result the carbon remains sequestered.
Untrue. Burning is not the only way that carbon biomass becomes gaseous again.
E.g. my house's primary construction isn't emitting carbon, despite being made of a dead tree.
It might not right now, but it will. But also probably is right now too.
Don't get me wrong- using wood to build a house is far fucking better than alternatives, but let us not pretend that every wood house is a Ship of Theseus, in a constant state of decay and rebuilding that eventually becomes unmaintained (rot not replaced with new wood) or burnt.
Re: (Score:2)
*but let us not pretend that every wood house is not a Ship of Theseus.
Proof that Apple users are dumb. (Score:3)
Dumb enough to think "Carbon Neutral" is valid.
Re: (Score:2)
No one thinks this is valid, you don't need to believe something to sue a company for claiming it is. In fact it's the people who aren't dumb enough to believe who almost universally hold these corporate dickbags to account for their bullshit claims.
indulgences (Score:2)
"The remaining emissions are offset by the purchase of carbon credits"
We all recognize that carbon credits are complete bullshit, yeah?
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The idea is solid. You can't pull carbon out of the air so you pay someone who does it for you. Carbon credits is a solid idea, really foundational mathematics when you think about it.
The problem is that the industry is full of fraudsters, and this is all the court wanted, Apple to be held accountable for the supply chain in their carbon credit scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
Both numbers are dumb, really.
25 year sequestration is not any more helpful than 15 year.
"Carbon-neutral" is usually a scam (Score:2)
The problem with Google/Apple/Meta/Microsoft going on about Wind and Solar-generated power is that these sources are invariably part of a larger mixed portfolio of power-generating facilities owned by the large utilities. So when one of these companies goes to the utility and contracts to buy a gigawatt of solar power, that just means that the rest of the customers will be "using" more of their fossil-fuel-generated power.
In a grid, there is no meaningful way to identify the source of power used for any spe
Carbon (Score:2)
The cult of Carbon has spoken. You are unworthy. If you own an Apple watch, you must plant a Bonesai tree in your ass to atone for your greenhouse sins.
court rules (Score:2)
Court rules I can no longer say I have a private line to God. I must show evidence that God is listening.
My Amazon deliveries in are "Carbon Neutral" (Score:2)
So the delivery company (where I live) for Amazon prime claims to be "Carbon neutral" - and this I find really hard to believe, given that the chap performing the delivery is driving around a diesel van that is chucking out black smoke everywhere. Clearly this is more about Carbon neutral cooking the books in some ridiculous offset scheme or other. Companies should not be able to make claims like this and offset schemes are the biggest scam of them all... https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]