• This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
home_icon-01_outline
star
  • Earth.Org Newsletters

    Get focused newsletters especially designed to be concise and easy to digest

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Earth.Org PAST · PRESENT · FUTURE
SHOP Support

How are the biggest companies in the world working to reduce their carbon footprint? Apple has announced a target of becoming carbon neutral across its entire business and manufacturing supply chain by 2030. The new commitment means that by 2030, every Apple device sold will have net zero climate impact.

Apple has also said that any company hoping to become a supplier has to commit to be ‘100% renewable for their Apple production’ within 10 years. 

Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, says, “Climate action can be the foundation for a new era of innovative potential, job creation and durable economic growth. With our commitment to carbon neutrality, we hope to be a ripple in the pond that creates a much larger change.”

While the move has been generally applauded, Greenpeace says technology giants like Apple have a responsibility to act quickly in mitigating the climate crisis as they produce vast quantities of waste. Elizabeth Jardim, Greenpeace USA’s senior corporate campaigner, says, “I am happy to see that Apple has worked with suppliers to source actual renewable energy and that it has not relied on low-impact solutions like offsetting or renewable energy credits. But I will want to see how the company is further phasing out reliance on fossil fuels throughout its operations on a near-term timeline.” 

Apple has said that its plan to become carbon neutral involves investment in new eco-friendly projects as well as the purchase of green energy offsets to compensate for some continued use of carbon-emitting fuels. 

Apple says that more than 70 of the company’s existing suppliers have already committed to use 100% renewable energy for work on its products by 2030, the equivalent of taking 3 million cars off the road every year. 

You might also like: US Democrat Joe Biden Proposes $2 Trillion Plan for Clean Energy Projects

Roadmap

Apple’s Environmental Policies

The company has released a 10-year roadmap detailing some of the actions it plans to take. These include the use of a new robot to recover materials from the engines of devices returned for recycling so that they can be reprocessed and put back into supply chains. 

Other efforts include increased use of recycled raw materials in its own products, new solar panel projects to power its own data centres, investment in environmental projects, including work to restore mangrove trees and shrubs in Colombia and woodland-grassland savannahs in Kenya and work on eco-friendly projects to benefit local communities, including the installation of rooftop solar panels at a facility for disadvantaged children in the Philippines and the electrification of an off-grid fishing community in Thailand.

The second part of Apple’s plan is to increase production of renewable energy. New and completed projects in Arizona, Oregon and Illinois bring Apple’s renewable capacity for its corporate operations to over 1 GW- equivalent to powering over 150 000 homes a year. The company is also opening renewable power plants in Scandinavia, the Philippines and Thailand. 

By developing its own renewable energy projects, the company controls 80% of the renewable energy it uses today. 

Carbon Neutral Vs Carbon Negative

When a business is carbon neutral, it adds no carbon to the atmosphere. It can do this by balancing its emissions, for example by removing a ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for every ton it produces, offsetting its emissions or not releasing greenhouse gases in the first place. This slows down emissions as opposed to reversing them.

To be carbon negative, a company must remove more carbon from the atmosphere than it emits.

Apple’s Climate Progress

In 2019, Apple decreased its carbon footprint by 4.3 million metric tons through design and recycled content innovations in its products. Since 2009, the company has reduced the average energy needed for product use by 73%. Further, all iPhone, iPad, Mac and Apple Watch devices released in the past year are made with recycled content. 

Finally, the number of facilities participating in Apple’s Supplier Energy Efficiency Program grew to 92 in 2019; these facilities avoided over 779 000 annualised metric tons of supply chain carbon emissions. 

What Are Other Tech Giants Doing?

Apple ’s aim of becoming carbon neutral follows climate-focused pledges by other technology giants.

Microsoft has pledged to become carbon negative by 2030 and by 2050, to have removed the same amount of carbon from the environment as it has ever emitted. It has also announced the creation of a consortium involving Nike, Starbucks and Mercedes-Benz, among others, to share information on carbon-reducing technologies.

Amazon has pledged to become carbon neutral by 2040 and Google has pledged to extend the carbon-neutral status it claims for its own operations to encompass its supply chain but has yet to set a deadline. 

The abrupt collapse of tourism due to the coronavirus pandemic has again highlighted the inadequacy of resources for conservation in Africa. Carbon credits have been advanced as one possible source of new funding for Africa, but this market’s real potential to protect biodiversity is yet to be established.

A 2018 study of nearly 300 protected areas across the continent found that 90 percent of parks it looked at were severely underfunded. The parks surveyed have an estimated total spending shortfall of between $1 and $2 billion: there are 8,000 other protected areas in Africa.

Under pressure from governments, corporations, and communities pursuing one or another form of development, inadequately protected parks suffer ecological degradation, losing charismatic large species along with valuable habitat, which reduces the potential to generate tourism income in particular, and completes a vicious cycle.

Despite its high profile, tourism is not a major source of income for most protected areas on the continent, according to Max Graham, the CEO of Space for Giants, which works to make both economic and ecological value tangible for local communities in Africa: the significant in-flows come from philanthropy.

“The impact from [loss of] tourism is only going to be felt, from a conservation perspective, in a select grouping of parks that are either private or state-owned and operated in well-established tourism countries like South Africa and to a certain extent in Kenya,” said Graham.

He observed that conservation will likely continue to depend heavily on philanthropy as a crucial source of income in the future.

But attracting and retaining philanthropic support has its limitations. Donors sometimes insist on funding only narrow aspects of an organization’s overall work, or abruptly shift priorities away from a historic focus, said Graham. “Funding can also be difficult to secure at scale or over long periods,” he said.

You might also like: The Fall and Rise of the American Grey Wolf

Carbon Credits as an Alternative Solution

Matthew Brown, the Africa director at The Nature Conservancy (TNC) says there is huge potential to fund conservation through the sale of carbon credits. By the end of 2016, $300 million of carbon credits had been sold on voluntary markets; Africa accounted for just $20 million of this global total.

The potential to fund conservation through carbon credits may now be growing. In 2018, there were $172 million worth of voluntary market carbon credit transactions, according to a self-reported survey of carbon traders conducted by Ecosystem Marketplace, an information hub focused on market-based approaches to conservation. Fifty-eight percent of this total went to forestry and land use programmes – though this figure includes an extraordinary increase in REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) credits involving just one country, Peru.

In Africa, TNC has been supporting a REDD project on 32,000 hectares (80,000 acres) in the semi-arid savannah of the Yaeda Valley, in northern Tanzania, for the past five years.

The valley is home to indigenous Hadza hunter-gatherers, as well as Sukuma farmers, and Datoga agro-pastoralists. Working with English conservationists Marc Baker and Jo Anderson, the Hadza secured legal recognition of 20,000 hectares in the heart of the valley as their territory in 2010, and entered a 20-year contract with Baker and Anderson’s company, Carbon Tanzania, to sell offsets from a REDD+ project.

Critics of carbon credits and REDD argue that very few such projects are able to generate significant income for local communities, with carbon prices too low to incentivise people to protect them over time.

Brown counters that these markets are growing fast, fuelled by growing numbers of corporations seeking carbon offsets to fulfill public pledges to become carbon neutral. “Globally, in 2018, the size of the voluntary market doubled and, in 2019, doubled again. In 2020, it was expected to double once more – before Covid-19.”

Last year, the Yaeda Valley project earned $95,000 for Hadza communities. This income was used to train 30 village game scouts, create 100 jobs for locals protecting habitat, pay school fees for 30 children, and improve healthcare in the valley.

REDD has also been challenged for failing to represent additional prevention of greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation. While this is clearly not the case with the Yaeda project, a French research centre examined 120 carbon credit projects in 2015 and found that 37 percent overlapped with already existing protected areas.

Storing Carbon, Protecting Biodiversity

Another important question is whether REDD protects not just carbon stocks, but biodiversity. On this score, the Yaeda Valley is an ambiguous example.

Walking transects were carried out in both REDD+ and less-regulated areas of the valley every year from 2015 to 2018 to monitor mammal species including elephants, cheetahs, wild dogs, and giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis). Researchers found species richness and the density of wildlife was higher in woodland areas of the valley — REDD+ protected or not.

The researchers credited the project with protecting vital habitat, while pointing to other factors likely contributing to maintaining biodiversity, including multiple habitats within a large study area, and access for wildlife to adjacent protected areas such as the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, allowing animals to move in and out of the area.

They also noted that village game scouts paid for by the REDD programme also patrolled project areas to enforce anti-poaching laws and recommended more formal integration of conservation goals in the design and implementation of REDD+ projects like this one.

While acknowledging the potential of carbon credits to fund conservation in Africa, Graham said the carbon trading sector is very complex and expensive. “There are also questions over state-run parks, which are the majority,” said Graham. “Once a deal is done and money starts flowing, will that flow to the park or to the government agency for wider spending?”

This article was originally published on Mongabay, written by Mantoe Phakathi, and is republished here as part of an editorial partnership with Earth.Org. 

 

Subscribe to our newsletter

Hand-picked stories once a fortnight. We promise, no spam!

SUBSCRIBE
Instagram @earthorg Follow Us