Apple played into the greenwashing since a long time. For example removing charger for “climate”, “ecology”, while changing the cable port from a usb A (the rectangle one you plug onto the charger) to a usb C when first removing the charger from the box (thanks for bringing this s* to android too).
Removing the charger from the box does have an environmental benefit. It’s less plastic and manufacturing, and makes the packaging smaller meaning they can ship more products causing fewer transportation emissions.
That it also saves them money is just a massive boon to them.
“Carbon offsets” is a scam like recycling.
I thought the change to usb c was because of the EU law?
You did not understand.
USB A is the rectangle one you plug onto the charger. They changed it ot USB C when they first removed the chargers from the box.
Do you know what USB A is?
I’m talking of the first time they removed the charger.
IPhone 12 - 2020.
Here they are talking about devices having USB C for 2024.
Yes, the article is not about that…
They removed the charger to save cost and waste. Who really needed another wall wart?
Moving to usb c is because of EU regulations
You’re both talking past each other.
First, they had thunderbolt to USB A cables and a USB A charger.
Then they had thunderbolt to USB C cables and a USB C charger.
Then they were forced by the EU to swap out the thunderbolt connector with USB C on the device itself.
They’re claiming apple was greenwashing when they removed the charger. It removed cost and waste, it can be both green and good business.
I thought they were arguing that the move to usb c was also greenwashing, when it was the EU regulations, again to reduce waste. It is green, not greenwashing.
They all do.
I was all in favour until I saw it was a Chinese research organisation.
For what it’s worth, the organization is reportedly well regarded as a climate-focused NPO. But their claim of “climate-washing” (which is a new term to me; I’ve only ever heard “green-washing” before) is pretty weak at the moment. They don’t provide any actual evidence of wrongdoing, just a lack of proof of rightdoing (see I can do it too). The issue they cite is simply that Apple doesn’t require carbon emissions reporting from all of the associated factories, so it’s hard to substantiate the lofty claim of carbon neutrality.
So it’s like claiming you lied about donating to charity because you aren’t showing receipts; it’s certainly much more likely that you’re lying about it, but it’s not proof at all.
