The Frankfurt Court, to which the Environmentalist Association of Deutsche Umwelthilfe (Duh) had turned, ordered Apple to stop advertising its Smart Watch as “zero emissions”, establishing that the statement is misleading and that violates the right of competition.
It is since 2023 that Apple markets Apple Watch “carbon neutral“, Stating that innovations in design and clean energy reduced carbon emissions of over 75% for each of the devices.
The company actually claimed to have adopted a “clear and rigorous approach“To the decarbonization of its products, targeting three large sources of emission throughout the product cycle, that is, electricity, materials and transport. The remaining emissions, which according to the program cannot yet be avoided, are compensated by the purchase of” high quality “carbon credits, he said.
What happened
All Greenwashing. Deutsche Umwelthilfe (Duh), an important German environmental group, thus presented an injunction to the Regional Court of Frankfurt against those statements on the compensation of emissions.
And in these days, the sixth chamber of commerce of Frankfurt has sided with Duh, making sure that Apple had declared that he managed a forestry project in Paraguay to compensate CO2 emissions, which provided for eucalyptus plantations on land for rent. But this is not the case: these rental contracts for 75% of the project area are valid only until 2029 and, therefore, “there are no safe prospects for the continuation of the project”.
View this post on Instagram
Specifically, the technological company has so far advertised three of its smartwatch models such as “Zero CO2 emissions product“, Stating that the CO2 emissions generated during the production of watches are compensated for compensation projects”based on nature“Apple would also have left unclear for a long time what projects were involved.
During the judicial proceedings, however, the suspects of the Duh have been confirmed: to compensate the remaining CO2 emissions, the company relies on the eucalyptus monocultures in Paraguay, for which lease contracts already expire in 2029 and the subsequent use is not guaranteed. In this way it is not possible to reach a neutral budget of CO2 emissions.
The advertising, therefore, is deceptive and not sustainable due to the short duration of the project, as the Court has now established. The buffer accounts mentioned by Apple, which aim to compensate the loss of land for rent after the end of the contract, are also unsuitable for ensuring sufficient safety of the constraint of the emissions stored, according to the regional court.
In a note to siliconrepublic.com, Apple said:
It is important to underline that the Court has widely supported our rigorous approach to carbon neutrality. We remain focused on the further reduction of emissions through the leader innovation of the sector in clean energy, in the design at low carbon emissions and more, a job that has put us on the right way to reach carbon neutrality throughout our supply chain by 2030.
The icing on the cake? The eucalyptus monocultures are not natural forests, but they are obtained through the regular use of agricultural poisons such as the Fipronil, the well -known killer of bees. Quick growth trees consume huge quantities of water and are highly flammable during drought periods, which further tests the long -term storage of the carbon of these projects.
Meanwhile, it is still not known if the bullyan giant will appeal, but surely he will have to say goodbye to the advertising slogan: “The Apple Watch is our first zero emissions product“.
Sources: Duh / Apple
Don’t you want to lose our news?
