When people refer to "offsets" they're talking about buying renewable energy credits (RECs). Funding new renewable energy projects, and thus putting renewable energy onto the grid, is not that.
Do you also consider Carbon sequestering an "offset"?
> Apple has protected and restored forests, wetlands, and grasslands since 2015. Through our work with The Conservation Fund and the World Wildlife Fund, we have protected and improved the management of over 1 million acres of forests in China and the U.S.
> Starting in 2020, we plan to scale up our ambition to remove atmospheric CO2 by creating a first -of -its-kind fund that will invest in the restoration and protection of forests and natural ecosystems globally. By investing in nature-based carbon removal projects, this fund aims to cover residual emissions that we believe are not otherwise avoidable.
My primary concern with all of these things is that they are liable to get "double counted." Apple protects a forest in State X and uses it as a license to release more carbon into the air; meanwhile, State X's governor uses the forest as an example of the state's conservation efforts, even as the carbon savings of those efforts are being zero'd out by Apple.
I don't think I'm as cynical as some other comments in this thread. I'm really glad Apple is making these efforts, and I'd like to see other companies do the same. However, I don't feel like we're anywhere near the point where I can throw away a perfectly good iPhone guilt-free.
In other words, I want to see Apple get rid of their "must shred" agreements with recyclers[1], and to support repairability efforts more broadly.
