Keep reading from page 18. The good news is that they're using the same strategy for all their suppliers, which is putting renewable energy onto the grid.
First off, the way they're describing the suppliers sounds different, and sounds like offsets.
Secondly, electricity used in facilities is not the whole of their carbon footprint. You've got all the shipping across the supply chain for one example.
>We launched the Supplier Clean Energy
Program in October 2015 to advance
those goals through our manufacturing
supply chain. Since then, we have made
strong progress toward our initial goal
of bringing online 4 gigawatts of new
clean energy by 2020. Building on that
momentum, we recently set a new,
even more ambitious goal: to transition
our entire manufacturing supply chain
to 100 percent renewable electricity
by 2030.
>We’re proud of the progress our suppliers
have made so far. As of June 2020,
71 manufacturing partners in 17 different
countries have committed to 100 percent
renewable energy for Apple production.
And Apple itself has continued to invest
directly in renewable energy projects
to cover a portion of upstream emissions.
The Supplier Clean Energy Program
now has 7.8 gigawatts of clean energy
commitments, of which 2.7 gigawatts was
operational in 2019.
They're funding new renewable energy projects all over the world, including in China [1].
>Secondly, electricity used in facilities is not the whole of their carbon footprint.
It's just the vast majority of their carbon footprint.
>Since 2018, we’ve generated or sourced
100 percent renewable electricity for
all of Apple’s global facilities, driving
our scope 2 emissions from electricity
to zero. And we estimate that in our
manufacturing supply chain, which itself
makes up 75 percent of Apple’s overall
carbon footprint, around 70 percent
of emissions come from electricity.
When people refer to "offsets" they're talking about buying renewable energy credits (RECs). Funding new renewable energy projects, and thus putting renewable energy onto the grid, is not that.
Do you also consider Carbon sequestering an "offset"?
> Apple has protected and restored forests, wetlands, and grasslands since 2015. Through our work with The Conservation Fund and the World Wildlife Fund, we have protected and improved the management of over 1 million acres of forests in China and the U.S.
> Starting in 2020, we plan to scale up our ambition to remove atmospheric CO2 by creating a first -of -its-kind fund that will invest in the restoration and protection of forests and natural ecosystems globally. By investing in nature-based carbon removal projects, this fund aims to cover residual emissions that we believe are not otherwise avoidable.
My primary concern with all of these things is that they are liable to get "double counted." Apple protects a forest in State X and uses it as a license to release more carbon into the air; meanwhile, State X's governor uses the forest as an example of the state's conservation efforts, even as the carbon savings of those efforts are being zero'd out by Apple.
I don't think I'm as cynical as some other comments in this thread. I'm really glad Apple is making these efforts, and I'd like to see other companies do the same. However, I don't feel like we're anywhere near the point where I can throw away a perfectly good iPhone guilt-free.
In other words, I want to see Apple get rid of their "must shred" agreements with recyclers[1], and to support repairability efforts more broadly.
They aren't. See page 18.
https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Pr...