Apple doesn't send charging heads, environmental protection or making money? Netizens questioned the lack of price reduction
Apple explained that it no longer comes with a charging head and headphones with the iPhone in order to reduce waste. They believe that most users already have extra charging heads and headphones at home, and it will cause a great waste of resources to randomly send them. Reducing the volume of packaging also reduces carbon emissions during transportation. Apple claims that this will reduce carbon emissions by 2 million tons per year.
Apple also said that it would be able to reduce the use of materials such as plastic, copper, tin and zinc by eliminating the manufacture and delivery of charging heads, and that it has saved an estimated 550,000 tons of these mineral resources. And on the packaging of the iPhone 13, Apple also removed the plastic film, reducing the use of 600 tons of plastic.
Judging from Apple's statement, no longer including charging heads and earphones can indeed make a certain contribution to environmental protection, reducing resource waste and carbon emissions. This practice has also been questioned by consumers and the law.
Many netizens believe that Apple is making money in the name of environmental protection. It is estimated that Apple has earned 41.4 billion yuan just by no longer providing charging heads. Netizens believe that if Apple is really for environmental purposes, then it should give consumers the right to choose, rather than forcing not to send charging heads.
Courts in many countries and regions have also ruled that Apple's practice violated local consumer protection laws and required Apple to compensate users. In Brazil, for example, a court ruled that Apple must provide free chargers and headphones for all new iPhone purchases.
So are these environmental data provided by Apple really credible? Let's take a look.
Apple claims to reduce the use of 600 tons of plastic and save 550,000 tons of copper, tin and zinc ores per year by no longer including a charging head. These figures may seem impressive, but in fact they are not too large compared to the resource consumption of Apple's entire supply chain.
What's even more questionable is Apple's claim that this approach will reduce carbon emissions by 2 million tons per year. According to the calculation of global carbon emissions of about 36 billion tons in 2021, 2 million tons only accounts for about 0.05%, and the emission reduction effect is minimal. In addition, Apple's lack of transparency about carbon emissions across its supply chain makes it difficult for outsiders to assess the credibility of its emissions reduction data.
Even if Apple's environmental numbers are exaggerated, we can't deny its efforts to promote environmental protection. Any action to reduce emissions and conserve resources, even if it is limited, is beneficial to the protection of the global environment.
Looking back now, Apple no longer comes with a charging head, is it environmentally friendly or profitable? Personally, I think there is some truth to both. From a business perspective, Apple can indeed make a decent profit by doing so; But from an environmental point of view, it is also true that resource waste and carbon emissions are reduced.
It's debatable whether Apple should enforce this practice instead of giving consumers the right to choose. If it's really for the sake of environmental protection, isn't it a better choice to promote trade-in services and recycle old charging heads?
Apple is likely to do more to protect the environment. For example, further reducing the use of packaging materials, promoting trade-in services, improving product service life, and so on. It remains to be seen whether these initiatives are genuinely for the sake of the environment, or if there is something else going on.