A U.S. federal judge has dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing Apple of misleading consumers with “carbon neutral” marketing for several Apple Watch models. The case targeted the Apple Watch Series 9, Apple Watch SE, and Apple Watch Ultra 2. Plaintiffs said the company exaggerated the environmental benefits of the watches. They claimed Apple relied on carbon offset projects that did not truly cancel the products’ emissions.
Seven buyers filed the lawsuit in February 2025 in federal court in California. They argued they would not have bought the watches, or would have paid less, if they knew the details of Apple’s carbon accounting.
In February 2026, U.S. District Judge Noël Wise dismissed the case. The court ruled the complaint lacked strong evidence showing Apple’s carbon-neutral claims were false or misleading. Wise said:
“At this juncture, the court has a narrow question to consider: have plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Apple’s claims of carbon neutrality are false? Because the court finds that the answer to that question is no, Apple’s motion to dismiss is granted.”
The ruling gives Apple an early legal win. But it also highlights growing scrutiny of corporate climate marketing.
How Apple Calculates a “Zero-Emission” Watch
Apple launched its first carbon-neutral devices in September 2023. The company said the Apple Watch models achieved neutrality through a mix of emissions reductions and carbon offsets.
For example, Apple estimates the lifecycle carbon footprint of a carbon-neutral watch model at about 8.1 kg of CO₂-equivalent emissions per device before offsets. After applying carbon credits, Apple says the net footprint becomes 0 kg CO₂e.
The tech giant says it lowers emissions by:
- using recycled materials,
- increasing renewable electricity in manufacturing,
- improving product efficiency, and
- reducing shipping emissions.
Any remaining emissions are offset through environmental projects.
The lawsuit challenged two offset projects tied to Apple’s claims. One project protects forests in Kenya’s Chyulu Hills, while another supports reforestation efforts in China. Critics argued such projects may not always deliver additional carbon reductions.
The court did not rule on the scientific debate over offsets. Instead, it said the plaintiffs failed to show Apple’s claims were clearly deceptive.
The Tech Giant’s 2030 Net-Zero Roadmap
Apple’s carbon-neutral watches are part of a larger climate plan known as “Apple 2030.” The company aims to make its entire business, supply chain, and product lifecycle carbon neutral by 2030.

The iPhone maker has made progress toward that goal. The company says its global greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by more than 60% compared with 2015 levels.
In 2024, Apple reported a total carbon footprint of about 16.5 million metric tons of CO₂-equivalent emissions across its operations and supply chain. That figure represented a decline from the previous year.

Most of Apple’s emissions come from Scope 3 sources, including manufacturing and product use. To address that, it works closely with suppliers. The company reports that 17.8 gigawatts of renewable electricity are now operating in its global supply chain. Those projects helped avoid about 21.8 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions in 2024 alone.
Apple has also increased recycled materials in its products. About 24% of the materials used in Apple devices in 2024 came from recycled or renewable sources. These efforts are central to the company’s climate strategy.
Greenwashing on Trial: Climate Claims Face Legal Tests
Even though Apple won the U.S. case, climate lawsuits are rising worldwide. Greenwashing claims typically challenge marketing statements such as:
- “carbon neutral”
- “net zero”
- “climate friendly”
These terms can involve complex carbon accounting that consumers may not fully understand.
Apple has faced legal pressure outside the United States as well. A court in Frankfurt, Germany ruled in 2025 that Apple could not advertise the Apple Watch as “CO₂-neutral” in Germany. The court said the claim could mislead consumers under local competition law.
European regulators are also tightening rules on environmental claims. New EU consumer protection rules will restrict vague labels like “carbon neutral” in advertising beginning in 2026. These legal developments could reshape how companies communicate climate progress.
Big Tech Emissions: Clean Energy vs. Rising Power Demand
The Apple case reflects a larger trend in the technology sector. Tech companies are under growing pressure to cut emissions as demand for digital services rises.
Data centers, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence require massive amounts of electricity. As a result, technology firms are investing heavily in renewable energy and carbon removal projects.
Apple’s progress contrasts with some peers whose emissions have risen due to expanding AI infrastructure. Apple still emitted about 15.3 million metric tons of CO₂ in 2024, but that figure is far below its 2015 baseline of 38.4 million tons.
At the same time, clean energy adoption is growing globally. The rapid expansion of renewable power also supports other low-carbon industries, including electric vehicles.

Companies such as Tesla rely heavily on the decarbonization of electricity systems. The climate benefit of electric cars increases when power grids shift toward renewable energy.
Global electric vehicle adoption is rising quickly. According to the International Energy Agency, EVs represented about 20% of global car sales in 2024, compared with 18% in 2023 and just 4% in 2020. That growth is expected to continue as governments strengthen climate policies and consumers adopt cleaner transportation.
Technology companies and automakers both depend on credible climate strategies to maintain investor confidence.
The Role of Carbon Credits in Corporate Climate Plans
Carbon credits remain a key tool for many companies pursuing net-zero goals. Apple increased its use of carbon credits in 2024, retiring about 737,100 tons of CO₂-equivalent offsets—its highest level to date.
Carbon offsets support several projects such as:
- forest protection,
- reforestation,
- methane capture, and
- renewable energy development.
However, the quality of carbon credits has become a major issue in climate policy.
Some researchers argue that certain nature-based credits may overestimate their climate impact. Others say these projects are essential for protecting ecosystems and funding conservation. The debate is likely to intensify as more corporations adopt net-zero targets.
A Legal Win, but Climate Claims Under the Microscope
Apple’s victory in the U.S. greenwashing lawsuit marks an important moment in the evolving field of climate litigation. The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not present enough evidence to prove the tech giant’s carbon-neutral claims were misleading.
However, the case also shows how closely corporate climate messaging is now examined. Companies across technology, energy, and transportation sectors face growing pressure to show real emissions reductions and transparent reporting.
As the clean-energy transition accelerates, and industries from consumer electronics to electric vehicles expand, clear standards for climate claims will become increasingly important.
For Apple and other global companies, the challenge is not only reducing emissions but also proving those reductions in ways that stand up to scientific, legal, and public scrutiny.
- READ MORE: Oil Giants Under Fire: ExxonMobil Fights Climate Laws as TotalEnergies Found Guilty of Greenwashing
The post Apple Beats ‘Carbon Neutral’ Lawsuit, But Greenwashing Scrutiny Is Heating Up appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

