Apple claims its new Mac Mini is "carbon neutral." This is a problem.

They have done an amazing job of reducing their carbon footprint. Why not tout that instead, and forget the questionable carbon neutral thing?

Apple just announced that their new Mac Mini is “carbon neutral,” and Jane Doe on Bluesky is outraged, reaching out to me and Paris Marx to expose the fraud.

We went through this exercise last year when Apple announced their Apple Watch 9, when I wrote Are the new Apple Watches truly "carbon neutral"? I concluded that it wasn’t, primarily because Apple relied on carbon offsets to get to neutral. I quoted physicist Joe Romm, who wrote:

“There is a growing consensus that companies should not be using any offsets they buy from developing countries to make claims about emissions reductions or net zero.” and that “Net-zero targets are mostly greenwash” that focus on “offsets instead of reducing emissions.”

Apple is using offsets and carbon credits with the Mac Mini, and is buying credits from forestry projects in Paraguay and Brazil, both certified by the carbon credit registry Verra. Unfortunately, Verra has recently been in the news because one of its board members was faking data. According to the Financial Times, ”The new chief executive of the world’s largest carbon credit registry Verra has defended its policies on conflicts of interest, after a former board member and client was charged in the US over fraud involving credits that it had certified.” Verra is the largest carbon credit registrar in an unregulated market, further tainting the entire industry.

So, Jane Doe’s outrage is not misplaced. However, we have to look at the bigger picture here. Apple has done an amazing job of reducing the carbon footprint of the computer; the problem is the use of the term Carbon Neutral, which is defined by Apple:

Carbon neutral: Refers to the state where the net carbon footprint reaches zero through gross emissions reductions and, where necessary, to counterbalance residual emissions through the retirement of an equivalent quantity of carbon credits. For an Apple product to be carbon neutral, we require the gross footprint to have been substantially reduced first before carbon credits are applied, [my emphasis] through the use of low-carbon design and recycled and renewable materials, matching all electricity impacts with low-carbon electricity, and prioritizing low-carbon modes of transportation.

I have always objected to the terms “net zero” or “carbon neutral” because one can just buy more of the silly carbon credits and get to zero. Those trees in Paraguay could take decades to offset the carbon of the manufacture of a computer, those upfront emissions that matter now. Forget the fuzzy fuzzy math of net zero or carbon neutrality. I wrote years ago:

The clear, honest, and truthful approach is to forget about net-zero. Just measure the carbon footprint of everything and make the choices that have the lowest upfront and operating carbon, and try and get as close to zero as possible. This is not just buildings; it is transportation, diet, electronics, consumer purchases, everything we do. And come up with a real number, because a net is full of holes.

The key goal, whether in buildings or computers, is to reduce the gross footprint in the first place, and Apple has done that in spades.

This really is remarkable: The base configuration has total lifecycle product emissions of just 32 kilograms of CO2 equivalent. That’s about the same as four cheeseburgers. (your burgers may vary)

They do it by using recycled materials, which reduces the footprint of aluminum or gold by 90%. Any new aluminum they buy is made with hydroelectricity. (see What colour is your aluminum?) They use renewable or low-carbon energy and even transport components by ship instead of flying.

However, the main way they do it is by simply using less stuff; this thing is half the size of earlier models. It sips so little electricity that Apple can buy renewable electricity to cover its estimated three years of operation. They have driven the gross footprint down from 282 kg in 2018 to 112 in 2023 to 32 in 2024. It’s down 80% from their 2015 baseline. I think that is a much bigger story than claiming to be “carbon neutral.”

Apple makes a big deal about the quality of its carbon credits.

“We’re working with forestry managers to create new, responsibly managed forests that are optimized for both carbon and wood production in order to create revenue from timber and generate high-quality carbon credits. The projects also seek to maximize positive environmental impact, including carbon, hydrology, and habitat restoration.”

But let’s not get lost in the woods. Forget the trees, and admire the 32 kilograms.

When I wrote about the Apple Watch, I complained that “The best way to reduce the carbon footprint of an Apple product is not to replace it at all; then, the 29-kilogram carbon footprint goes to almost zero. Unfortunately, that’s not much of a business model for a three trillion-dollar company.” This is still true, although the Mac Mini delivers twice the power in half the size, which I couldn’t say about the watch. Here, they are doing so much more with less.

One should also note that “The life cycle assessment boundary for this product includes the physical product and all of its components and packaging, as well as all in-box accessories.” It does not include the headquarters building with 10,000 parking spots, the glassy Apple stores, and all of the other stuff that goes with a three trillion dollar company.

But it is still an amazing achievement. Its 670-gram weight in steak would have a footprint of 103 kg of CO2e, and it comes in at 32. This is why Apple should stop pushing the “carbon neutral” and just talk about how low they can go. That is what really matters.