Climate Change Archive

But EVs still churn up particulate pollution from the wear and tear of tires, brakes, and roadways. So even if big brands electrify their fleets, they’ll still need to think about how their operations affect the environment and public health. They can be more mindful of where they put up new warehouses, for example. Warehouses are magnets for truck traffic and pollution, which can be a nightmare for nearby communities.

Most offsets are tied to tree-planting schemes, and the idea is that the trees will capture carbon dioxide to cancel out some of a company’s emissions. But these initiatives can cause more harm than good if tree plantations mow over natural landscapes or displace local communities. Even if the right kinds of seedlings are planted in appropriate places, they might not survive long enough to make a dent in climate change.

Maybe to avoid the bad rap these kinds of offsets have gotten, Apple calls them “high-quality, nature-based carbon removal projects” in a recent announcement ahead of Earth Day. Apple’s expanding a fund to try to restore forests and other ecosystems, but these are essentially just carbon offset projects with a fancier label.

These kinds of sustainability campaigns can run into an issue called Jevons paradox, which is when an increase in efficiency just ends up leading to more resource consumption. If you make a a product more “sustainable,” but sell more of those products than you would have otherwise — then you’re still increasing your environmental footprint.

That makes it all the more important to design products to be long-lasting instead of easily expendable. And yet tech companies have dragged their feet (and sometimes outright derailed) efforts to make devices easier to repair, something Google finally did with Pixel last year.

The Verge is keeping an eye on these kinds of sustainability pledges this Earth Day to sort out what’s green and what’s greenwash.

Tree planting campaigns are a popular gimmick for brands looking to make themselves look green. But it’s controversial in the conservation world. Done poorly, the trees likely won’t survive. And instead of restoring forests back to health, some of these schemes create tree plantations that can actually do damage to the local environment. The devil’s in the details.

Synthetic fibers like polyester make up more than 90 percent of the microplastic polluting Arctic waters. And like Adidas points out, 👏 recycling 👏 doesn’t 👏 solve👏 the 👏 problem. But manufacturers can design clothes to last longer, shed less, and find more sustainable materials.

The key word is “partly.” Only one-third of the controller is made with recycled material. That’s because plastic quality deteriorates with each use, so it’s really difficult to make a device using entirely or even mostly recycled plastic. It has to be reinforced with virgin material, which just means more plastic manufacturing and waste in the end.

The most important thing a company can do to tackle climate change is to slash all of its emissions, from its supply chains to its products and operations.

Apple says it has “decreased its comprehensive carbon footprint by over 45 percent since 2015, even as the company’s revenue has grown by over 68 percent during that same period.” That’s the kind of progress to look out for to see if a company is serious about climate change.

Hint: building a seawall could hurt more than it might help, which I learned when writing this story last year.