Lucid's electric vehicles will be able to plug into over 15,000 Tesla Superchargers in North America starting in 2025. The automaker is the latest entry in the growing list of companies pledging to support the North American Charging Standard (NACS), also known as the Tesla charging standard. Lucid will give customers access to a NACS adapter for its current vehicles, which are equipped with the Combined Charging System (CCS), in 2025. The company intends to start building NACS ports into its EVs within the same year, as well, so that newer models no longer need to use adapters.

Ford was the first automaker to announce this year that it was going to give its customers access to Superchargers after the White House convinced Tesla to share its charging network with vehicles from other companies. In the months after that, Mercedes, Volvo, Polestar, Honda, Toyota (and Lexus), BMW, Hyundai and Subaru revealed that they will also give their customers access to NACS adapters and will ultimately incorporate the standard into their vehicles over the next two years. 

As TechCrunch notes, Lucid vehicles use a 900-volt charging architecture, which became the basis of a Lucid Air promotion that called it the "fastest charging electric vehicle ever." At the moment, most Superchargers are rated at around 500 volts, and that means charging times won't be as fast as the company promises. That said, Tesla has started deploying V4 Superchargers that offer higher voltage charging in the US, and supporting NACS could convince potential customers in the region to purchase Lucid EVs. As company CEO Peter Rawlinson said, "[a]dopting NACS is an important next step to providing [its] customers with expanded access to reliable and convenient charging solutions for their Lucid vehicles."

Daimler has finally started producing its flagship medium-duty electric truck, the Freightliner eM2, in its manufacturing plant in Portland, Oregon. The company didn't say when its first production units will be available but once they are complete, the vehicles will be delivered to select commercial leasing companies in the US and Canada.

The eM2 is powered by a battery-electric Detroit ePowertrain and is designed with 2-speed transmissions that minimize energy cost per mile. The truck’s driving range will depend on the battery capacity per model. The class 6 single-motor version that has a 194 kWh battery can drive up to 180 miles on a single charge. Alternatively, the class 7 dual-motor which is equipped with a 291 kWh battery can drive up to 250 miles on a single charge.

The Freightliner eM2 electric delivery truck, which has been in the works since 2019, was able to be recharged to 200 miles in 60 minutes during testing with Penske. But that test was four years ago, and the company didn’t say anything about recharge times in today’s news. Access to charging stations, like the ones being developed by Penske, will be essential for Daimler’s rollout of the eM2. In a similar regard, Volvo, which contends against Daimler in the EV long-haul trucking space, has been focused on improving the battery ranges of vehicles in its truck fleet. The Volvo FE electric truck, which competes against the eM2, has a range of up to 170 miles and is expected to be out for deliveries in autumn of this year.

One by one, automakers have started adopting the North American Charging Standard (NACS) used by Tesla's Superchargers as they move towards their goal of replacing their fleet with electric vehicles. Toyota is the latest company to join the growing list. The automaker has announced that it has reached an agreement with Tesla to incorporate NACS ports into certain Toyota-branded vehicles starting in 2025. Some EVs under its luxury brand, Lexus, will come with the standard's charging ports, as well. 

By using NACS ports on its electric vehicles, Toyota is effectively giving its customers the power to access more than 12,000 Tesla Superchargers across North America. While the company won't be implementing the standard over the next year, its timeline matches its rival automakers'. To note, customers who already have Toyota and Lexus vehicles equipped with the Combined Charging System (CCS) will be offered access to NACS adapters starting in 2025, as well.

BMW also recently announced that it was adopting the standard for all its EVs in the United States and Canada. A few months ago, GM and Ford revealed they were making the switch starting in 2025, but owners will already be able to access Tesla Superchargers next year with an adopter. Hyundai will adopt the port for its EVs in the US in 2024, with EVs in Canada to follow in 2025. Honda, Toyota's fellow Japanese automaker, announced its transition to NACS in September and its plans to sell vehicles with the port in two years' time. It also said, however, that it's developing an adapter to allow pre-2025 Hondas to charge using Tesla's system. 

Car dealers can give buyers an instant rebate for purchasing certain electric vehicles starting in January of 2024, according to new guidance released by the IRS. The memo says eligible vehicles may qualify for a tax credit of up to $7,500. However, the credit amount will depend on whether an EV and its buyer meet certain requirements, and when a car is actually purchased. 

For an electric car to qualify, it needs to have a minimum battery capacity of seven kilowatt hours. Buyers can’t claim the credit if their adjusted gross income exceeds certain thresholds – $300,000 if married and filing jointly, and $150,000 for the majority of single taxpayers. The manufacturer’s suggested retail price for the EV also can not exceed specific price points. For sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks, the cap is $80,000, for example. But for average electric vehicles to qualify, they can't be more than $55,000, which really narrows the benefit for cheaper car makers. While it’s a bummer that you can't get the rebate for an $81,000 Porche Taycan, you can probably get the benefit for something like the Nissan Leaf S that goes for $27,400.

Some EVs bought before 2024 might qualify for the rebate too, if they were bought and weren't intended for resale. For vehicles placed in service on or after April 18, 2023, the IRS says the potential rebate will depend on a variety of factors including the vehicle’s make and battery capacity. There are also requirements in place for length of ownership to prevent unscrupulous buyers from snapping up an EV, reselling it and pocketing the rebate.

The IRS lists eligible vehicles, including battery electric, plug-in hybrid and fuel cell vehicles on FuelEconomy.gov. It says the list will be updated as more vehicle eligibility requirements take effect.

All in all, the proposed guidance by the IRS is in line with the Biden administration’s goal of having 50 percent of new car sales be driven by EVs before 2030. The hope is an instant rebate will incentivize more buyers to purchase an electric car rather than having to wait to see any tangible reward for their purchase when they file their taxes. Albert Gore, executive director of the Zero Emissions Transportation Association, commends the IRS’ memo stating, “This guidance makes it easy for everyone to access the IRA’s new and used electric vehicle tax credits at the point of sale.”

Kia drivers that own electric vehicles will be able to use 12,000 Tesla Superchargers across the United States, Canada and Mexico. This is taking place, just as the company rolls out its EV9 electric SUV, which we dubbed “one of the most important electric SUVs” earlier this year. This move aligns with a broader industry trend of automakers collaborating with Tesla to enhance EV charging options. We have seen competitors including Hyundai, Ford and General Motors take similar steps all within the past year.

Kia said it plans to build the NCAS port, which is the most common charging standard, into all of its new electric vehicles that go on sale in North America starting in the fourth quarter of 2024. This will ensure its EV drivers will gain access to high-speed chargers networks, like the ones being offered by Tesla. Kia also plans to offer adapters for the existing Niro EV and EV6, as well as any EV9s produced before the change, in the first quarter of 2025.

The availability of charging stations is a crucial factor in driving EV adoption. Many American and foreign carmakers have looked to Tesla’s network of 50,000 superchargers across North America as a crutch. When Tesla first started building out its network of Supercharger stations in 2012, they were solely meant for Tesla drivers. But healthy demand for charging station access has skyrocketed as more and more electric vehicles have debuted in the mainstream market. The North America electric vehicle charging stations industry is projected to reach $17.6 billion by 2030, according to a report by Meticulous Research.

Given the current market dynamics, it's reasonable to expect that other automakers will also move in the same direction as Kia. But it may be too soon to tell if Tesla will continue to lead the effort in making charging stations accessible. Notably, seven major automakers, including Kia, are working to establish a new charging network in North America that may rival Tesla’s current web. The new joint program aims to set up around 30,000 high-powered charging points near cities and highways, all in pursuit of the same goal of speeding up the adoption of electric vehicles.

Climate change isn't going away, and it isn't going to get any better — at least if we keep legislating as we have been. In Democracy in a Hotter Time: Climate Change and Democratic Transformation, a multidisciplinary collection of subject matter experts discuss the increasingly intertwined fates of American ecology and democracy, arguing that only by strengthening our existing institutions will we be able to weather the oncoming "long emergency."

In the excerpt below, contributing author and Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University at Buffalo, Holly Jean Buck, explores how accelerating climate change, the modern internet and authoritarianism's recent renaissance are influencing and amplifying one another's negative impacts, to the detriment of us all.  

MIT Press

Excerpted from Democracy in a Hotter Time: Climate Change and Democratic Transformation, edited by David W. Orr. Published by MIT Press. Copyright © 2023. All rights reserved.

Burning hills and glowing red skies, stone-dry riverbeds, expanses of brown water engulfing tiny human rooftops. This is the setting for the twenty-first century. What is the plot? For many of us working on climate and energy, the story of this century is about making the energy transition happen. This is when we completely transform both energy and land use in order to avoid the most devastating impacts of climate change — or fail to.

Confronting authoritarianism is even more urgent. About four billion people, or 54 percent of the world, in ninety-five countries, live under tyranny in fully authoritarian or competitive authoritarian regimes. The twenty-first century is also about the struggle against new and rising forms of authoritarianism. In this narration, the twenty-first century began with a wave of crushed democratic uprisings and continued with the election of authoritarian leaders around the world who began to dismantle democratic institutions. Any illusion of the success of globalization, or of the twenty-first century representing a break from the brutal twentieth century, was stripped away with Russia’s most recent invasion of Ukraine. The plot is less clear, given the failure of democracy-building efforts in the twentieth century. There is a faintly discernable storyline of general resistance and rebuilding imperfect democracies.

There’s also a third story about this century: the penetration of the Internet into every sphere of daily, social, and political life. Despite turn-of-the-century talk about the Information Age, we are only beginning to conceptualize what this means. Right now, the current plot is about the centralization of discourse on a few corporate platforms. The rise of the platforms brings potential to network democratic uprisings, as well as buoy authoritarian leaders through post-truth memes and algorithms optimized to dish out anger and hatred. This is a more challenging story to narrate, because the setting is everywhere. The story unfolds in our bedrooms while we should be sleeping or waking up, filling the most quotidian moments of waiting in line in the grocery store or while in transit. The characters are us, even more intimately than with climate change. It makes it hard to see the shape and meaning of this story. And while we are increasingly aware of the influence that shifting our media and social lives onto big tech platforms has on our democracy, less attention is devoted to the influence this has on our ability to respond to climate change.

Think about these three forces meeting — climate change, authoritarianism, the Internet. What comes to mind? If you recombine the familiar characters from these stories, perhaps it looks like climate activists using the capabilities of the Internet to further both networked protest and energy democracy. In particular, advocacy for a version of “energy democracy” that looks like wind, water, and solar; decentralized systems; and local community control of energy.

In this essay, I would like to suggest that this is not actually where the three forces of rising authoritarianism x climate change x tech platforms domination leads. Rather, the political economy of online media has boxed us into a social landscape wherein both the political consensus and the infrastructure we need for the energy transition is impossible to build. The current configuration of the Internet is a key obstacle to climate action.

The possibilities of climate action exist within a media ecosystem that has monetized our attention and that profits from our hate and division. Algorithms that reap advertising profits from maximizing time-on-site have figured out that what keeps us clicking is anger. Even worse, the system is addictive, with notifications delivering hits of dopamine in a part of what historian and addiction expert David Courtwright calls “limbic capitalism.” Society has more or less sleepwalked into this outrage-industrial complex without having a real analytic framework for understanding it. The tech platforms and some research groups or think tanks offer up “misinformation” or “disinformation” as the framework, which present the problem as if the problem is bad content poisoning the well, rather than the structure itself being rotten. As Evgeny Morozov has quipped, “Post-truth is to digital capitalism what pollution is to fossil capitalism — a by-product of operations.”

A number of works outline the contours and dynamics of the current media ecology and what it does — Siva Vaidhyanathan’s Antisocial Media, Safiya U. Noble’s Algorithms of Oppression, Geert Lovink’s Sad by Design, Shoshana Zuboff’s Surveillance Capitalism, Richard Seymour’s The Twittering Machine, Tim Hwang’s Subprime Attention Crisis, Tressie McMillan Cottom’s writing on how to understand the social relations of Internet technologies through racial capitalism, and many more. At the same time, there’s reasonable counter-discussion about how many of our problems can really be laid at the feet of social media. The research on the impacts of social media on political dysfunction, mental health, and society writ large does not paint a neat portrait. Scholars have argued that putting too much emphasis on the platforms can be too simplistic and reeks of technological determinism; they have also pointed out that cultures like the United States’ and the legacy media have a long history with post-truth. That said, there are certainly dynamics going on that we did not anticipate, and we don’t seem quite sure what to do with them, even with multiple areas of scholarship in communication, disinformation, and social media and democracy working on these inquiries for years.

What seems clear is that the Internet is not the connectedness we imagined. The ecology and spirituality of the 1960s, which shaped and structured much of what we see as energy democracy and the good future today, told us we were all connected. Globally networked — it sounds familiar, like a fevered dream from the 1980s or 1990s, a dream that in turn had its roots in the 1960s and before. Media theorist Geert Lovink reflects on a 1996 interview with John Perry Barlow, Electronic Frontier Foundation cofounder and Grateful Dead lyricist, in which Barlow was describing how cyberspace was connecting each and every synapse of all citizens on the planet. As Lovink writes, “Apart from the so-called last billion we’re there now. This is what we can all agree on. The corona crisis is the first Event in World History where the internet doesn’t merely play ‘a role’ — the Event coincides with the Net. There’s a deep irony to this. The virus and the network ... sigh, that’s an old trope, right?” Indeed, read through one cultural history, it seems obvious that we would reach this point of being globally networked, and that the Internet would not just “play a role” in global events like COVID-19 or climate change, but shape them.

What if the Internet actually has connected us, more deeply than we normally give it credit for? What if the we’re-all-connected-ness imagined in the latter half of the twentieth century is in fact showing up, but manifesting late, and not at all like we thought? We really are connected — but our global body is neither a psychedelic collective consciousness nor a infrastructure for data transmission comprising information packets and code. It seems that we’ve made a collective brain that doesn’t act much like a computer at all. It runs on data, code, binary digits — but it acts emotionally, irrationally, in a fight-or-flight way, and without consciousness. It’s an entity that operates as an emotional toddler, rather than with the neat computational sensing capacity that stock graphics of “the Internet” convey. Thinking of it as data or information is the same as thinking that a network of cells is a person.

The thing we’re jacked into and collectively creating seems more like a global endocrine system than anything we might have visualized in the years while “cyber” was a prefix. This may seem a banal observation, given that Marshall McLuhan was talking about the global nervous system more than fifty years ago. We had enthusiasm about cybernetics and global connectivity over the decades and, more recently, a revitalization of theory about networks and kinship and rhizomes and all the rest. (The irony is that with fifty years of talk on “systems thinking,” we still have responses to things like COVID-19 or climate that are almost antithetical to considering interconnected systems — dominated by one set of expertise and failing to incorporate the social sciences and humanities). So — globally connected, yet divided into silos, camps, echo-chambers, and so on. Social media platforms are acting as agents, structuring our interactions and our spaces for dialogue and solution-building. Authoritarians know this, and this is why they have troll farms that can manipulate the range of solutions and the sentiments about them.

The Internet as we experience it represents a central obstacle to climate action, through several mechanisms. Promotion of false information about climate change is only one of them. There’s general political polarization, which inhibits the coalitions we need to build to realize clean energy, as well as creates paralyzing infighting within the climate movement about strategies, which the platforms benefit from. There’s networked opposition to the infrastructure we need for the energy transition. There’s the constant distraction from the climate crisis, in the form of the churning scandals of the day, in an attention economy where all topics compete for mental energy. And there’s the drain of time and attention spent on these platforms rather than in real-world actions.

Any of these areas are worth spending time on, but this essay focuses on how the contemporary media ecology interferes with climate strategy and infrastructure in particular. To understand the dynamic, we need to take a closer look at the concept of energy democracy, as generally understood by the climate movement, and its tenets: renewable, small-scale systems, and community control. The bitter irony of the current moment is that it’s not just rising authoritarianism that is blocking us from good futures. It’s also our narrow and warped conceptions of democracy that are trapping us.

The US Department of Justice sued eBay on Wednesday for its role in the sale of products that harm the environment. It accused the online retailer of selling or distributing hundreds of thousands of products that violated the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The complaint was filed in a federal court in Brooklyn, NY.

The DOJ’s complaint accuses eBay of selling, offering for sale or causing the sale of over 343,000 aftermarket “defeat devices,” which bypass vehicle emission controls. The devices, familiar to many from Volkswagen’s “Dieselgate” scandal, allow vehicles to cheat emissions tests, making them appear up to par on EPA standards when they aren’t — all in the name of a little performance boost.

“Aftermarket defeat devices significantly increase pollution emissions – including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and nonmethane hydrocarbons – that harm public health and impede efforts by the EPA, states, Tribes and local agencies to plan for and attain air quality standards,” the DOJ wrote today.

The complaint says eBay also unlawfully distributed or sold at least 23,000 pesticide products that were unregistered, misbranded or restricted-use. The DOJ says the EPA issued a “stop sale” order in 2020 (amended in 2021), after which eBay continued to violate it. “Examples include a high toxicity insecticide banned in the United States, restricted use pesticides that only certified applicators may apply and products fraudulently claiming to protect users against the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” the DOJ wrote.

The filing adds that eBay distributed over 5,600 products violating the TSCA Methylene Chloride Rule, a banned (potentially deadly) chemical used in paint and coating removers.

In a statement, eBay said it blocks and removes more than 99.9% of listings for products cited by the DOJ. “And eBay has partnered closely with law enforcement, including the DOJ, for over two decades on identifying emerging risks and assisting with prevention and enforcement,” the online retailer wrote. “The Government’s actions are entirely unprecedented and eBay intends to vigorously defend itself.”

The DOJ asserted that EPA standards will be enforced. “Our nation’s environmental laws protect public health and the environment by prohibiting the unlawful sale of defeat devices; unregistered, misbranded and restricted use pesticides; and unsafe products containing toxic chemicals such as methylene chloride,” said David M. Uhlmann from the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “The complaint filed today demonstrates that EPA will hold online retailers responsible for the unlawful sale of products on their websites that can harm consumers and the environment.”

The US’ outdated electrical grid is not equipped to handle rising demands for renewable energy or the “new normal” threats of extreme weather and cyberattacks. This is according to energy security watchdog, SAFE, whose Grid Security Project found that problems like blackouts and shortages are becoming increasingly common. Without updates to both policy and infrastructure, SAFE warns, these issues are only likely to get worse.

In a new report, SAFE points to events like the deadly 2021 power crisis in Texas, when millions of people were left without electricity during a winter storm, and a 2022 shooting at a North Carolina substation that led to outages for more than 40,000 people. While instances like these may once have been considered rare events, they’re unfortunately becoming par for the course. The report also highlights sophisticated cyberattacks abroad, like the historic hack into Ukraine’s power grid in 2015, as examples of what the US grid could find itself up against.

“Extreme weather events, cyber espionage and domestic terror attacks, combined with increasing demand on aging infrastructure have turned the occasional power failure into alarmingly common events in cities across the United States,” said Thomas Coleman, executive director of SAFE’s Grid Security Project, in a statement published alongside the report.

The rapid transition away from fossil fuels will only add to the strain. Electric vehicles, which draw directly from the grid, have seen exponential adoption in recent years, and the system is still limited in its capacity to deliver energy from renewable sources like wind and solar to populated areas. The current infrastructure won’t be able to reliably keep up with greater energy generation and transmission needs.

According to SAFE, “the progeny of the infrastructure on which our great-grandparents once relied is increasingly inadequate to serve as the foundation of today’s modern economy.” In other words, the grid needs updating, and fast.

Jaguar is joining Mercedes, Polestar and other automakers in adopting Tesla's NACS chargers for vehicles sold in North America starting in 2025. The company signed an agreement with Tesla to gain access to its 12,000+ Superchargers for its "current and future customers" using the standard.

"The next generation luxury electric Jaguars, launching in 2025, will incorporate the NACS connector without the need for an adapter in the USA, Canada and Mexico," it said in a press release, adding that it will adopt the standard for "vehicles and home chargers, and source and supply adapters from Tesla for I-PACE drivers once available." Jaguar noted that its in-house battery and power electronics technology will optimize charging rates on both Tesla's current V3 (250 kW) and upcoming V4 (350 kW) Superchargers. 

Jaguar has been quiet of late around its EV plans, but announced back in 2021 that it would become an all-electric brand by 2025, with its Land Rover division rolling out six new EVs in 2024 — all as part of a sweeping "Reimagine" strategy. The company will use a pure electric architecture for its Jaguar lineup, replacing gas and hybrid vehicles like the XE, XF, E-Pace and F-Pace with all-electric versions. Land Rover, meanwhile, will introduce two separate platforms for all-electric and hybrid vehicles. 

Many, if not most, major automakers have now signed up to use Tesla's Supercharger network, including Fisker, Ford, GM, Honda, Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Polestar, Rivian and Volvo. A number are reported to be in talks, including VW, Stellantis and Hyundai. In addition, other networks are adopting NACs, including ChargePoint and Electrify America. And recently, Tesla received $160 million in funding to expand its Supercharger network in year. 

All of that shows the wisdom in Tesla's gambit over ten years ago to make Superchargers a strong selling point for its EVs. Now, the network is becoming a key feature for other manufacturers as well — to the likely benefit of Tesla. 

During its iPhone 15 event, Apple released a sketch where CEO Tim Cook and VP Lisa Jackson bragged about the company’s environmental goals with Octavia Spencer’s Mother Nature. It was a flex to help bolster the marketing around the Apple Watch 9, some versions of which are sold as carbon neutral. It’s the first product to carry the branding, but others will follow as Apple pushes toward its goal of becoming entirely carbon neutral by 2030. It was after the event, however, that I wondered how much of this was Apple smugly congratulating itself for work that it’s meant to be doing.

There are plenty of companies in the mobile space, and not all of them are as adept at making a song and dance about bread-and-butter stuff as Apple. So, I figured I’d read all the companies’ sustainability reports from the last year to see if that bluster was worth puncturing. But, much as we may want to sneer at Apple for indulging in its smugness, it turns out no major manufacturer is close to snatching that halo. In fact, I’ve had a fairly miserable few days learning how little, even now, some of the biggest names in the space are doing.

Apple’s goals are aggressive, and they are matched by some of its domestic rivals, although they have far smaller hardware businesses. Facebook owner Meta, at one extreme, which is primarily a services company, achieved net zero in its global operations in 2020, and wants to reach net zero across its entire value chain by 2030. Microsoft’s goals are even bigger, as it pledges to become a carbon negative company by 2030. Google, meanwhile, is hoping to reach carbon-free energy in every place it operates by 2030 but it believes it’ll only halve its emissions by that same deadline. And Amazon, which has been the highest-profile laggard in addressing sustainability, has pledged to reach net zero by 2040.

Before we dig in, it’s worth noting there’s no guarantee of consistency between different companies’ reports and the figures aren’t always comprehensive. And we can’t ignore the big financial disparity between Apple and its largest competitor in mobile, Samsung. Similarly, the financial gap between Samsung and the lower-end players in the market is stark, and caring about the environment costs money. But, even so, the limp pledges made by these companies aren’t even as good as they appear to be. (Earlier this year, the New Climate Institute gave Samsung’s climate pledges a failing grade for transparency and integrity, and called out the paucity of its ambition.)

I won’t bore you with every statistic — although I really could — but Apple is standing head and shoulders above pretty much everyone. Take e-waste, where Apple claimed to direct more than 40,000 tons of disused gadgets to recycling rather than landfill. It doesn’t get into specifics of how much was recovered from that, but it’s a fairly standout figure nevertheless. Samsung seems to have collected about a quarter of that figure, and by my wonky math, recovers around 80 percent from that to be reused.

Meanwhile, Xiaomi, the third biggest mobile player in 2022, proudly reported that it had directed 4,500 tons of e-waste to recycling. That figure looks good compared to Oppo, the world number four, which managed to do the same for just 195 tons. Transsion, the parent company of TECNO and Infinix, has merely pledged to run recycling programs. It’s worth remembering that the WEEE Forum predicted, across 2022, that up to 5.3 billion mobile devices would fall out of use, essentially becoming trash.

I was surprised at Apple’s willingness to even mention emissions from supplier factories since it contracts out its manufacturing. It would have been easy enough to launder its dirty emissions onto other companies’ balance sheets and point to its corporate usage alone. Instead, it has received commitments from many suppliers pledging to use 100 percent renewable energy. Apple says its supply chain now has 13.7GW of renewable energy, with a further 6.3GW due in the near future. Samsung, meanwhile, says that it’s looking to move to 100 percent renewable energy at all of its business sites by 2027, and that it already uses green power for 31 percent of its needs. Xiaomi doesn’t appear to have made a commitment to making a firm transition to renewable energy, while Oppo believes that it’s not yet hit its carbon emissions peak until next year.

If there’s one place that Apple still lags alongside the rest of the industry, at least for right now, it’s in repair. Until we know how easy it is for an end-user to replace common components on the iPhone 15, at least, then Apple remains as bad as everyone else. Its self-service repair platform remains frustratingly complex, and it’s still overcharging for basic repairs. (Or just refusing to repair devices as a precursor to getting buyers to replace their devices.) Samsung made a fairly big deal about repairability in its own report, pointing to the Galaxy S23 as an example. It’s worth noting that the gurus at iFixit rated the S23 a 4/10 for repairability, given that while the battery is replaceable, it’s also glued into place.

NIC COURY via Getty Images

For its part, Apple is making some fairly bold claims about how the Watch Series 9 deserves its classification. It says the device comprises 30 percent recycled or renewable materials, including a case made out of 100 percent recycled aluminum. The watch was created in factories using 100 percent renewable energy and at least half of them are shipped by sea, rather than air. The company added it’s not just paying for clean energy for its devices to be made, but has also invested in power generation equal to what users may consume while charging it, too.

The company said that its baseline for the timepiece’s manufacturing emissions was 36.7kg based on its own metrics. From there, it’s managed to reduce the emissions cost from energy altogether, as well as reducing the materials and process emissions. The Series 9, as far as Apple is concerned, only emits 8.1kg into the atmosphere, which is then offset with carbon credits.

In its materials, the company cites the Restore Fund, a project Apple founded, which invests in “high-quality, nature-based carbon removal projects.” Restore Fund is operated in partnership with Conservation International, Goldman Sachs and HSBC, but it isn’t entirely philanthropic. Goldman’s own website describes the fund as designed to be profit-bearing, offering a “future potential financial return from harvesting activities and the sale of properties.”

It’s worth being cynical about offset purchasing, especially since the industry isn’t as clean as you may hope. Earlier this year, The Guardian published an investigation into Verra, the body which verifies carbon offset programs run by a wide variety of big corporations. It found many of the credits bought by companies to reduce their emissions did not translate to real-world action at all. The report suggested that of the 94.9 million carbon credits purchased, there were only real emissions reductions of 5.5 million MTCO2e (metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent). Verra disputed these findings.

It’s worth reiterating that Apple is in something of a privileged position here, given it has a staggering amount of cash on hand. It can use that power to make the sorts of headline grabbing investments in renewable energy its competitors may not have. But its wealth is also a target for progressive critics, including bodies like Population Matters, who point out the company’s annual marketing budget alone could bring clean water to the UN’s 46 least developed countries.

But, from a general view, there’s only one company in the mobile devices space that can stand head and shoulders above Apple in the green stakes: Fairphone. It's still a relatively niche player, but has made building an ethically and environmentally responsible device its guiding mission. The big question is how long it’ll take for all of the biggest players to catch up to where this one small company is right now.