Apple’s environmental reports appear as well organized, colorful infographics that explain the exact environmental cost of producing a single iphone. Looking at the most recent environmental report for the upcoming iPhone X, the production of one iPhone X produces 79kg of carbon dioxide throughout its lifetime (6). While this is not anywhere near the highest footprint produced by previous iphones, which belongs to the iPhone 6 Plus which produced 110kg of carbon dioxide, it is still considerably higher than the average footprint of previous iPhones.
While this is a concerning amount of waste, especially when considering how many iPhones are in circulation, it is only one of several environmental concerns surrounding iPhones.
Another major concern, though only applying exclusively to the iPhone 5C, tarnished the good name of Apple’s previously easily recyclable materials by introducing a plastic model. “Still, Apple’s iPhones have at least always been manufactured out of recyclable materials, given its now-iconic glass and aluminum design. Yet the latest iPhone 5c – with its playdough-inspired palette – could make recycling more difficult.
Why? Because it introduces 14 grams of hard-to-recycle polycarbonate to the mix, where the iPhone 5 had none. Every port, button, and slider has had its metal swapped out for plastic.” (5). This created a huge environmental impact and it has as such been a huge relief that we haven’t seen this design since the iPhone 5C.
The third major concern after carbon footprint and the threat of another polycarbonate body is that of the iPhone’s batteries. These are lithium batteries that are toxic to both people and the environment if tampered with, and Apple has made their batteries notoriously difficult to separate from the phone, which not only makes it more difficult to recycle the body, but also prompts users to change out their entire phone when only a single component, the battery, fails. “That's why we were bummed when we took apart the latest iPhones and found the batteries slathered in glue. (The 5c's 1510 mAh battery is just a hair slimmer than the 1560 mAh battery of the 5s.) It took heat and prying to get the batteries up in both phones – not the most desirable operations to perform on something that expels noxious fumes if punctured.” (5).
However, all of these issues can be solved by changing practices on both the production and the consumer ends. Apple would like its users to believe that the carbon footprint of the iPhone comes from the unavoidable regular use of their products, but a majority of the emissions comes from production. “About 80 percent of these emissions are said to come from the production of the iPhones, while about 15 percent is due to the amount you use your device (so don't feel too guilty about always being on your phone).” (7) Apple needs to step up to reduce the production of greenhouse gases during production, which they have made small steps towards such as encouraging independent providers to come up with their own green solutions. “Apple’s Supplier Clean Energy program has enabled direct iPhone suppliers to develop their own renewable energy projects to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These projects resulted in a 6 percent decrease in the greenhouse gas emissions from iPhone production, compared to what they would have been without renewable energy.” (6) Transportation costs are no doubt a large chunk of emissions, continuing to encourage suppliers to make the switch to clean energy alternatives is a good first step, but Apple needs to continue this trend and step up themselves to use clean air vehicles for transportation of products and using clean electricity to fuel their factories.
Regarding the use of polycarbonate plastics, Apple needs to make certain to never produce a phone with a plastic body again. Not only were the iPhone 5Cs notorious for being cheaply made and delicate (as was the intention), they were unpopular and easily overshadowed by their stainless steel brethren. In other words, producing another polycarbonate body iPhone would not only be a bad business decision for Apple, it would also negatively affect their environmental efforts.
Last but certainly not least, Apple needs to solve their battery problem. Apple’s assumptions for how long their users use their devices seems much too long for the fast-paced lifestyle most people tend to live nowadays, and also disregards replacements for broken or stolen iPhones. “Apple’s estimates of its environmental impact (that their products generate 9.3 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions or 30% of Apple’s total emissions) are based on assuming four years of use for a Mac and three years of use for an iDevice. Without a battery replacement, iPhones usually don’t make it that long (Apple rates the lifespan of the iPhone’s battery at around 400 cycles or complete charges).” (5) For a person working intensively using their phone, such as a business person who makes long video conference calls, or a student who listens to music most of the day, their battery goes from 100% to ~10% over the course of a day. Assuming someone charges their phone every night, that would put their phones battery expectancy at just over thirteen months. As mentioned earlier, due to the iPhone batteries being glued into the circuit boards, it makes replacement of a dead battery an inefficient, and sometimes dangerous, option. Many Android phones feature batteries that are simple enough to open up and replace, and Apple would do well to copy this notion if they really are committed to reducing environmental impact, regardless of the effects it may have on their business model. People would be much less likely to purchase an entirely new phone if they could just replace their battery, thus making that average of 80kg of waste per phone last over a much longer period.