“Facing increased scrutiny” is an awfully kind way of saying “downright rejected with good reason by the EU” 🙄

Offsetting aside, the claimed carbon emissions of 7-12kg CO2e feels super low for a smart watch.

For comparison, this recipe of Tomatoes and Chickpeas on toast, when eaten in season from local produce, claims to reduce the carbon emission of the single meal by ~2.5kg, and this article would suggest that a single serloin steak is 5-10kg of CO2e.

I know eating beef is high impact, but basically the same as a smart watch which requires mining of precious metals and numerous transcontinental shipments? Not a chance.

If Apple is anything, it is through technicality of stretch or loophole, for profit. Whether a marketing claim, tax exemption, or product feature, it is what it is because a team of gymnasts in that field performed a 9.5 routine, backed by lawyers that can cover arse like baggy jeans should scrutineers appear. But for the most part, users just see the 9.5 scorecards held by the judges that are the marketing team.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Apple faces scrutiny from European environmental and consumer groups over its claims that its latest devices are “carbon neutral,” a term that Brussels proposes to ban in corporate marketing because it is “misleading.”

But the US tech giant’s decision to rely on credits to cancel out the 7-12 kg of greenhouse gas emissions behind each new Watch prompted a sharp reaction from consumer groups in the wake of a long-trailed clampdown by the EU on “greenwashing.”

“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.”

The debate over Apple’s claims highlights the problems facing companies that are trying to follow environmentally sound policies, while seeking to make marketing statements to tout their green credentials.

The European Parliament and Council, two decision-making bodies, reached a political agreement in September to ban “misleading advertisements,” including “claims based on emissions offsetting schemes that a product has neutral, reduced or positive impact on the environment.” This accord is yet to be formally adopted.

Climate campaigners have also questioned whether tracking carbon emissions provided a thorough assessment of the environmental impact of small electronic devices such as smartwatches and wireless earbuds, which can be difficult to repair and often end up as e-waste.

The original article contains 451 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 53%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

Wow it’s almost like the term is bullshit and the actual fact of the matter remains that the cost of something, in relation to carbon, is impossible to determine because it’s a sea of variables commingling with each other.

You cannot alone look at the cost of a steak by measuring a handful of variables and call it a day.

And of course Apple is going to spin it. They are the kings of spin. But again, nothing new to businesses. They all make grandiose claims.