Tim Cook did alright by the environment — but AI could upend his climate legacy
Tim Cook is stepping down as Apple CEO leaving a largely positive environmental record, but experts warn his climate legacy could be undermined as the company pushes further into AI. Under Cook, Apple set ambitious targets to cut pollution from its products and supply chain and, unlike rivals such as Google and Microsoft, has largely kept its carbon footprint from rising despite the energy demands of generative AI. Environmental groups have praised Apple's supplier standards, though the timing of Cook's departure means the harder test of maintaining these commitments amid the AI race falls to his successor.
Apple produced 15.3 million metric tons of gross carbon dioxide emissions in 2025, roughly equivalent to 40 gas-fired power plants running for a year, and has cut emissions by 60% since 2015 against a target of 75% by 2030. Its supply chain earned a B+ rating from Greenpeace East Asia in 2025 for renewable energy efforts, and it was the only major tech firm with a 100% renewable electricity target for suppliers in a 2023 Stand.earth study. However, Apple has also faced criticism over misleading "carbon neutral" marketing claims, allegations of forced labour and conflict minerals in its supply chain, and a reported rollback in 2023 of requirements for suppliers to publicly disclose greenhouse gas emissions.
- Tim Cook leaves Apple with a comparatively strong environmental record
- Apple cut carbon emissions 60% since 2015, against a 75% target
- AI expansion threatens to reverse Apple's climate progress under his successor
New here? Start with this
Apple’s environmental impact comes largely from making its devices and the electricity used across its supply chain. Tim Cook’s approach included targets to cut pollution from production and to encourage suppliers to use renewable energy, alongside a goal of reducing the company’s emissions by 75% from 2015 levels by 2030.
The record has drawn both praise and criticism. Environmental groups have recognised Apple’s supplier standards, while questions have been raised about its “carbon neutral” marketing and how openly suppliers report emissions. The growth of AI could increase demand for energy and computing equipment, making it harder for Apple to meet its climate targets.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Cook leaves a meaningful environmental record: Apple has cut emissions substantially since 2015, kept its footprint from rising amid AI’s energy demands, and pressed suppliers to use renewable electricity. Its successor should preserve that progress while expanding AI, since the technology’s benefits need not come at the cost of climate commitments.
The case against
The record remains incomplete: Apple has not yet met its 2030 emissions target, and AI could sharply increase electricity demand as the company expands. Criticism of its carbon-neutral marketing, supply-chain harms and reduced supplier disclosure also gives reason to question whether reported progress reflects durable accountability; the successor may need to prioritise transparency and emissions cuts over the pace of AI growth.
AI Business Climate Companies Environment Markets Science Technology