Apple’s carbon removal strategy in 2026 is significantly more nuanced than the eucalyptus headlines would suggest and has far greater scope than many reports acknowledge.
Apple’s Restore Fund is set to invest heavily in nature-based carbon removal to both finance and scale the potential of the field.
A 2023 report on the fund’s second iteration makes clear that the focus has shifted beyond forests to regenerative agriculture and related landscape restoration.
The key point that gets muddied in headlines is that Apple has ambitious carbon removal targets, has seen verifiable impact in some areas, and has rigorous (if as-yet-unproven) verification processes in place for others.
The question is what exactly does Apple’s carbon removal fund actually do and which of those things have actually been proven?
Apple Carbon Removal in 2026: What the Restore Fund Actually Does
Apple announced the launch of its $200 million Restore Fund in partnership with Goldman Sachs and Conservation International in 2021.
Apple has since announced a second fund through the partnership in 2023, Climate Asset Management, with similar goals of stimulating nature-based carbon removal while generating ancillary benefits.
Both funds are intended to finance the broad range of natural carbon removal and storage methods from regenerative agriculture and other ecosystem restoration to traditional forestry practices and rewilding.
Apple states that the two funds’ portfolio companies are all aimed at stimulating the removal of one million tons of carbon dioxide per annum at peak while also promoting biodiversity and providing social benefits.
While a compelling figure, it is also critical to note that one million tons is a target for these funds, not a figure that has been reached or even surpassed.
Apple has positioned the Restore Fund as a pilot program to both develop and then scale nature-based carbon removal solutions.
Apple has already invested in dozens of conservation and regenerative agriculture projects spanning six continents.
Thus the eucalyptus controversy only represents a small subset of the overall fund.
Apple Carbon Removal in 2026: The Eucalyptus Reality
The eucalyptus controversy stems primarily from Apple’s involvement with Project Alpha in Brazil.
This is where the real-world complexity of the company’s carbon strategy begins.
The situation is not nearly as simple as headlines suggest.
Apple’s contribution to the project through its 2022 investment helps to finance a mixture of commercial and native forest restoration plantations that span the states of Minas Gerais, Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul.
Native forest restoration represents a significant component of the proposed 24,119 hectare Project Alpha.
Of those, nearly 15 million trees have been planted since the beginning of the project.
Apple estimates that the project will ultimately offset or remove more than 8.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent from the atmosphere over 15 years.
The issue with interpreting Project Alpha as simply a large-scale eucalyptus plantation is that it represents much more than that.
The project includes extensive riparian buffers, the restoration and protection of habitat for 385 species of wildlife, including nine endangered species, and the creation of a 5 km2 habitat corridor connecting the project’s forests to a nearby legal reserve.
The contiguous forest cover within the project boundary spans over 10,000 hectares, and nine different forest restoration methods are being tested.
Thus, the issue is much more complicated than simply “planting trees” and much more diverse than the eucalyptus headlines would suggest.
Apple Carbon Removal in 2026: What Apple Says It is Measuring
One of the most interesting aspects of the Restore Fund is that Apple says it has developed a detailed set of carbon measurement and verification processes for the fund’s portfolio projects.
This is critical, as nature-based carbon removal projects have a mixed, if generally positive, track record when it comes to both carbon crediting and overall impact.
According to Apple, potential project submissions undergo a screening process before being approved for investment.
Company representatives conduct on-site due diligence in collaboration with project managers.
Apple states that it has employed satellite imaging to calculate the carbon impact of its investments.
Finally, the company assesses the social and environmental impact of the project using a battery of criteria in collaboration with Conservation International.
Apple then performs monitoring, verification, and certification of the projects, including audits, satellite imagery, and ground surveys.
Within Project Alpha, Apple uses a combination of LiDAR, drone surveys, and Apple Maps to monitor the landscape.
The issue with carbon removal projects of all kinds is that they represent much more than simply “trees planted.”
The carbon benefit of forests and other vegetation-based projects must be considered within the context of how much has been removed, whether that removal is additional, how it has been measured, and whether the project’s other claimed benefits can be credibly demonstrated.
Apple’s 2026 report on the Restore Fund is explicit in stating that verifying project integrity is an essential component in delivering on the goals of the fund.
Apple Carbon Removal in 2026: The Verification Question
The critical difference between carbon marketing and carbon verification is reflected in the distinction between a target and a demonstrable fact.
Apple’s 2025 Environmental Progress Report states that Project Alpha was expected to undergo its first Verra verification in 2026.
This is an essential step in the process, as it will define the carbon benefit that the project has credibly delivered.
Verra’s standards require determining the project’s emissions reductions and removals, as well as its additionality.
The latter is a crucial consideration in carbon accounting, as it identifies whether the proposed project would have happened without the initial investment.
If a forest restoration project would have occurred regardless of a company’s carbon budget, the climate benefit of that project is much lower than the same tree planting with an explicit carbon capture objective.
Thus, if verification determines that Project Alpha’s carbon benefit is additional, the climate benefit to Apple is much greater.
The point is that the verification process will define the carbon benefit of the project, which may well be much less than the 8.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that Apple projects will be removed by the end of the project’s 15-year lifespan.
Apple Carbon Removal in 2026: What Has Actually Been Verified and What Is Projected
This brings us to the most critical distinction in evaluating the performance of Apple’s carbon removal strategy – the difference between projected benefits and verified results.
What Apple has reported
Apple has reported a series of targets and benefits that apply to the Restore Fund as a whole while also noting demonstrable achievements at the level of individual projects.
The following list represents facts that either Apple has reported or that have been independently verified:
What still needs to be demonstrated
The most challenging aspect of assessing the value of Apple’s carbon removal strategy is that it is currently a mix of projected benefits and demonstrated impact.
Project Alpha’s first Verra verification was expected to occur in 2026, which means that its carbon benefit can only be credibly assessed at that point.
Until then, it is unwise to conflate the climate benefit of the Restore Fund as a whole with the carbon removal projections of one of its constituent projects.
That said, it is entirely possible that the independent verification of Project Alpha will demonstrate that its carbon benefit is close to the 8.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that Apple projects for the duration of the project.
What Apple Carbon Removal Program Should be Questioned About
Permanence
The carbon benefit of forests and other vegetation-based projects is frequently subject to reassessment due to wildfires, disease, logging, and other factors.
Thus, a tree-planting project that has credibly stored one million tonnes of carbon dioxide has only achieved that level of benefit if its removals have been demonstrated as permanent.
Apple’s 2026 report did not go into detail on this subject, but it is essential to ask how the permanence of carbon sequestration fits into the carbon accounting for the Restore Fund.
Biodiversity
A eucalyptus plantation is not the same as a biodiverse forest, which means that while Project Alpha has plans to promote biodiversity, it is still too early to assess the project’s impact on the local ecosystem.
The same applies to the 385 species of wildlife that the project hopes to protect, including the nine endangered species within the area.
The most pressing concern is that these figures represent the minimum standard for a project that is otherwise dedicated to commercial forestry.
Water
Eucalyptus plantations have a demonstrable impact on the water cycle, which means that Project Alpha is likely to have at least some effect on the regional watersheds.
Apple has credibly stated its intent to generate positive benefits for these ecosystems, but the supporting information does not go into sufficient detail to assess the water-related impact of the project.
Carbon Accounting
The issue of carbon accounting for vegetation-based projects is exceptionally complex, as it involves quantifying the amount of carbon stored in plant biomass.
Apple’s 2026 report does not go into detail on this subject, but it is crucial to understand how the company defines the carbon benefit of its investments.
Community Impact
Apple has made a concerted effort to demonstrate the social benefits of its environmental initiatives, and the 213 full-time jobs supported by Project Alpha represent a significant increase over the nine jobs supported in 2022.
With that said, it is entirely reasonable to ask how many of the jobs supported by the project are local to the region and what Apple’s long-term commitments to the community are.
Why Apple’s Approach Matters
Apple’s approach to carbon neutrality goes beyond the standard carbon budget, which has always acknowledged the limitations of the carbon credit market in addressing climate change.
Apple recognizes that the voluntary carbon market has failed to reduce emissions at the level necessary to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement.
The company’s 2025 Environmental Progress Report was explicit in stating that the voluntary carbon market existed “in a world where carbon emissions far exceeded removals,” and the Restore Fund represented an effort to develop more credible nature-based carbon removal solutions.
This should not detract from the fact that sophisticated carbon accounting does not automatically translate to actual carbon reduction.
Demonstrating the carbon benefit of reforestation and other vegetation-based projects requires actual evidence.
Apple Carbon Removal Is Not a Substitute for Cutting Emissions
The topic of carbon neutrality has frequently been conflated with offsets, but the reality is that carbon reduction strategies are fundamentally different from buying and retiring carbon credits.
Apple is not suggesting that its emissions reduction strategy consists of buying carbon credits to finance tree-planting projects, as its 2026 report demonstrates that the company has taken a multi-tiered approach to emissions reduction.
Apple has stated its intention to achieve carbon neutrality across its entire value chain by 2030 while also acknowledging that carbon removal will play an essential role in reducing emissions after significant reductions have been made.
This is the most important issue when it comes to assessing the benefit of nature-based carbon removal in general and Apple’s approach in particular.
If a company continues to operate as a major emitter while relying primarily on tree-planting projects to finance its emissions, the carbon benefit of those projects is significantly less than if post-emissions reductions have been made.
So Is Apple Greenwashing?
The issue of whether or not Apple’s carbon strategy constitutes greenwashing cannot be answered with a simple yes-or-no.
Apple has invested significantly in third-party projects and has demonstrated a detailed understanding of the carbon budgeting process.
The company has demonstrated its commitment to the Restore Fund by continuing to finance it and has credibly demonstrated that those funds have generated some meaningful benefits.
That said, the most important figures in Apple’s 2026 report represent projections.
A tree-planting project is not automatically a guarantee of carbon benefit, and a eucalyptus plantation is not inherently biodiverse.
The issue of carbon neutrality is significantly more nuanced than most headlines suggest, and the current evidence suggests that Apple has made a substantial but complicated commitment to reducing emissions.
What Happens Next
The most critical issue that will determine whether Apple’s approach to carbon neutrality is effective is the independent verification of its carbon benefit estimates.
Project Alpha’s first Verra verification was expected to occur in 2026, which means that its carbon benefit can only be credibly assessed at that point.
Until then, it is unwise to conflate the climate benefit of the Restore Fund as a whole with the carbon removal projections of one of its constituent projects.
That said, it is entirely possible that the independent verification of Project Alpha will demonstrate that its carbon benefit is close to the 8.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that Apple projects for the duration of the project.
Summary
Apple’s approach to carbon neutrality in 2026 encompasses a broad range of strategies beyond simply buying carbon credits.
The company is investing heavily in nature-based carbon removal while also making a concerted effort to reduce its emissions at the source.
Apple has demonstrated that its efforts represent a significant commitment to carbon neutrality, but the track record of vegetation-based carbon removal projects means that many aspects of the strategy still need to be demonstrated.
Until then, the most important evidence of Apple’s commitment to emissions reductions will be found in the continued reduction of the company’s own emissions.
FAQ
Is Apple just greenwashing?
The available evidence suggests that such a conclusion would be premature, as Apple has invested substantially in a variety of third-party projects and has demonstrated an awareness of the carbon budgeting process.
Why does Apple use eucalyptus?
Eucalyptus trees can provide commercial value to reforestation projects while also offering carbon sequestration benefits.
How much carbon is Apple trying to remove?
Apple has stated its intention to remove one million tons of carbon dioxide using the two funds.
How much carbon has Apple actually removed?
There are no figures in the 2026 materials that demonstrate cumulative carbon removal for the entire fund that have been independently verified.
What is Project Alpha?
Project Alpha is a large-scale commercial forestry and restoration project in Brazil that is partially funded by Apple.
Is carbon removal better than cutting emissions?
No, reducing emissions should be a company’s priority, and carbon removal should be used to target emissions that cannot be eliminated.
When will we know whether Apple’s approach actually works?
The verification results for Project Alpha, expected in 2026, will provide more insight than any headlines suggest.