Last month’s Apple event included the announcement of what the company claimed were two carbon-neutral Apple Watches, the Series 9...
  • B0rax@feddit.de
    0·
    1 year ago

    TL:DR: they don‘t accept offsetting carbon emissions. By that logic, one watch has emitted between 7 and 12kg of CO2.

    Note from my side: driving a combustion engine car emits between 100-200g per CO2 per km. So driving 70km in your car, will equal one Apple Watch.

    So it is still quite impressive how low the value for the Apple Watch is, but it is not neutral.

    • kobra@lemm.ee
      0·
      1 year ago

      I’m confused on what the EU is going for here. When I read “carbon neutral” I assume that means minimized emissions + carbon offsets.

      I’m not sure if “zero carbon” is even a thing but it sounds like that is what EU wants “carbon neutral” to mean?

        • kobra@lemm.ee
          1·
          1 year ago

          I mean… okay. What if I took a $1 bill from you and replaced with 4 quarters? Would that be “money neutral”? These metaphors aren’t really clearing up my confusion.

          Does the EU want carbon neutral to mean “zero carbon emitted during manufacturing/shipping/etc”?

          If so, that’s fine and clears up my confusion.

          I just think a “zero carbon” moniker would make more sense than “carbon neutral” which (at least to me) infers some kind of offset.

          • CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml
            01·
            1 year ago

            Not every CO2 “storage” is as stable as another one.

            The way CO2 output is “negated” is usually with poor, short term storage, that won’t actually help for climate change, in exchange for extracting extremely stable CO2 sources like petrol or coal

      • Hugohase@kbin.social
        0·
        1 year ago

        Carbon neutral has to mean carbon neutral, its rather easy. If you can’t achieve that then you can’t advertise with it.