Climate change was a lot less prominent in this year’s iPhone event

Last year, Apple couldn’t say enough about the reduced climate impact of its products, going so far as hiring Octavia Spencer to play Mother Nature in a highly produced, five-minute promo spot. This year? Apple spent just a few minutes, total, on the subject.

That’s not to say the company is backsliding on its prior commitments — there was nothing in the keynote to suggest that — but it does show just how hard meaningful progress on carbon emissions can be, even for one of the world’s most valuable companies.

The Apple Watch once again led climate news at this year’s event. Previously, only the aluminum and Ultra models were claimed as carbon neutral; this year, the higher end versions, now made with a recycled titanium case instead of stainless steel, qualify. 

“Any Apple Watch in any finish can be carbon neutral,” Jeff Williams, Apple’s COO, said in the pre-recorded video. Note the use of the qualifier “can be”: To be carbon neutral, users have to select a qualifying band, which is denoted on the website by a little green flower and some accompanying text. The cheapest bands, the fluoroelastomer sport bands, don’t make the cut. 

Even the term “carbon neutral” comes with a slew of caveats. Where Apple can’t eliminate the use of fossil fuels, most prominently in its materials supply chain, the company buys carbon credits to make up the difference. Problem is, the market for carbon credits has been plagued by lax enforcement and scandal. Apple may very well do extra diligence to vet the credits it buys, but the system could use some work.

Perhaps the most glaring omission was anything significant regarding climate progress for the iPhone. Sure, the enclosure now has 85% recycled content in the base model, the iPhone Pro has a 100% recycled aluminum chassis, and all iPhones come in 100% fiber-based, plastic-free packaging, but that’s about it for news.

If you dig deeper into the environmental product report, Apple claims to have made some progress on the iPhone 16 Plus’s climate impact, dropping 1 kg of carbon emissions from its life cycle compared with the previous generation. The vanilla iPhone 16 is unchanged relative to the 15.

In some ways, the dichotomy between the Apple Watch and the iPhone lines isn’t surprising. Pick up any iPhone from the last few years, and it’s pretty obvious that Apple isn’t in the mood to overturn the cart when it comes to its flagship product line. In fact, there’s a case to be made that Apple is taking a sensible approach by prioritizing the Watch over the iPhone. 

Compared with the iPhone, the Apple Watch remains a niche product that uses far fewer materials. It’s far easier to coerce those suppliers to use renewable or low-carbon electricity. Eventually, lessons learned in building the Watch in that fashion could bubble up to the iPhone and the Mac. Apple doesn’t appear to have committed to that path yet, but if the company is serious, it’s a trend worth watching.