German court strikes down Apple’s Carbon Neutral Claims, but is it really Apple’s fault? Buying carbon credits can be risky. But even more challenging is ensuring that the credits purchased are fit for the claims you want to make with them. Just last week, a German court struck down Apple’s “carbon neutral” Apple Watch, and banned the company from using the term. So what happened? In 2023, Apple announced their first “carbon neutral” product, the Apple Watch Series 9. Apple had done amazing work, reducing the emissions associated with making the Apple Watch by 75%, and then using carbon credits to mitigate the remaining emissions. The credits Apple used were issued by Verra, the world’s largest carbon credit registry. Verra claims its credits undergo rigorous assessments and represent “one metric tonne of carbon dioxide reduced or removed from atmosphere.” But the credits Apple purchased, which were tied to newly planted eucalyptus trees in Paraguay, weren’t fit for carbon neutral claims. While emissions from the Apple Watch production will remain in the atmosphere for ~1000 years, there was no guarantee that Apple could claim the carbon stored in the eucalyptus trees after 2029, making it impossible to know if the CO₂ stored in the eucalyptus trees would remain stored. Put another way - while Apple's pollution would persist for a millennium, their solution was only guaranteed to last 0.4% of that time. Apple has some responsibility, they were the one who made the claim. But it’s hard not to look at Verra, the registry who is ultimately responsible for assessing a carbon credit project’s climate impact and issuing credits against it. Apple made the claim, but Verra is the “expert” providing the certification that says it’s okay for them to do so. This dynamic makes navigating the carbon credit landscape treacherous. 3rd-party certifiers like Verra say that credits have a particular impact, yet buyers are the ones who get punished when those certifications fail to stand up. That imbalance erodes trust not only in individual companies but in the entire system. These registries need to evolve beyond simple certification to provide clearer guidance on what claims can be made with different types of credits. They should develop specific categories of credits, with clear labels for credits that are appropriate for carbon neutral claims versus those better suited for other purposes. Without this evolution in the registry system, we'll continue to see companies making well-intentioned but ultimately problematic claims. The responsibility for matching credits to claims shouldn't fall solely on buyers - registries must step up to provide the market infrastructure needed for credible climate action. The credibility of climate action depends on rules that match claims to reality. Until registries provide that foundation, “carbon neutral” will remain more of a marketing slogan than a climate solution.

Incredibly excited to welcome Robert Watson to the AC advisory board! Rob is the "Father of LEED" and the founder of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. One of the world’s most widely used and successful sustainability certification standards. There are few people in the world that have the combination of deep expertise and success in the development and adoption of global sustainability certification standards. We’re grateful that Rob is bringing his know-how to the carbon removal space 🙏. Existing carbon market standards lack the technical specificity, consistency, and usability that are the hallmarks of leading standards across green building, transportation, and pharmaceutical safety. This creates issues for players across the CDR ecosystem… - For Project Developers it makes it harder and more expensive to build out their MRV plans and differentiate their project against other projects making similar claims. - For Buyers it makes purchasing CDR risky, technically complicated, and pricey. - For Registries it slows down methodology development and creates inconsistencies that make directly comparing project outcomes impossible. Solving these problems with specific, consistent, and usable standards make clear the claims that should be attached to each credit. We’re grateful to be working with Rob, and our entire advisory board (@erinmburns @GianaAmador) to solve these challenges and further our mission of ensuring that credit claims match climate impacts.

Mitigation Classes are a key unlock for carbon markets. I’m proud of the @AbsoluteClimate team for their hard work on our new explainer, detailing what Mitigation Classes are and why they matter. 🧵

6/ 💪 Trust & Accountability: By setting rigorous, science-based benchmarks and creating room for innovation, Mitigation Classes help the carbon removal market build confidence and scale responsibly.