“Facing increased scrutiny” is an awfully kind way of saying “downright rejected with good reason by the EU” 🙄

Offsetting aside, the claimed carbon emissions of 7-12kg CO2e feels super low for a smart watch.

For comparison, this recipe of Tomatoes and Chickpeas on toast, when eaten in season from local produce, claims to reduce the carbon emission of the single meal by ~2.5kg, and this article would suggest that a single serloin steak is 5-10kg of CO2e.

I know eating beef is high impact, but basically the same as a smart watch which requires mining of precious metals and numerous transcontinental shipments? Not a chance.

If Apple is anything, it is through technicality of stretch or loophole, for profit. Whether a marketing claim, tax exemption, or product feature, it is what it is because a team of gymnasts in that field performed a 9.5 routine, backed by lawyers that can cover arse like baggy jeans should scrutineers appear. But for the most part, users just see the 9.5 scorecards held by the judges that are the marketing team.

Wow it’s almost like the term is bullshit and the actual fact of the matter remains that the cost of something, in relation to carbon, is impossible to determine because it’s a sea of variables commingling with each other.

You cannot alone look at the cost of a steak by measuring a handful of variables and call it a day.

And of course Apple is going to spin it. They are the kings of spin. But again, nothing new to businesses. They all make grandiose claims.