Apple and other technology giants like Microsoft, Meta, and TSMC are increasingly turning to large-scale eucalyptus plantations in Brazil’s Cerrado region as a key component of their carbon removal strategies and sustainability pledges. These plantations, backed by major investments and carbon credit purchases, are marketed as scalable solutions to offset emissions from devices and resource-intensive Artificial Intelligence data centers. The projects claim to transform cattle pastures into fast-growing eucalyptus groves, storing significant amounts of carbon and promising economic revitalization for rural Brazilian communities plagued by industry decline.
The eucalyptus-driven model, particularly Apple’s collaboration via the Restore Fund—a partnership with Goldman Sachs and Conservation International—balances quick carbon sequestration, industry profitability, and claims of ecological restoration by allocating significant property portions to both plantations and native vegetation. Critics, however, are divided. Some local residents admire the evergreen vistas, while others denounce the groves as ‘green deserts’: economically functional but ecologically barren landscapes that threaten biodiversity and water supplies. Brazilian and international ecologists argue that replacing the Cerrado’s unique savanna ecosystem with water-intensive, fire-prone monocultures could hasten the loss of native species and destabilize already-vulnerable watersheds. Evidence tying industrial eucalyptus planting to depleted springs and altered hydrology is mounting, pushing Brazilian authorities to begin formal inquiries.
While Apple and its partners tout monitoring, restoration corridors, and sustainable management as evidence of a ‘high quality’ carbon removal approach, debate rages over the long-term viability and ethics of using eucalyptus—an exotic species in the region—for carbon credits. Grassland scientists warn that these projects risk irreversibly modifying one of the planet’s most diverse, yet underappreciated, ecosystems. At the same time, industry leaders and some conservationists counter that the economic and climate benefits—especially in the absence of scalable alternatives—make these plantations essential for both global supply chains and emissions targets. As scrutiny of corporate carbon offsetting deepens, experts propose a shift away from exact carbon math toward more direct climate mitigation contributions. For now, Apple’s new forests have become a flashpoint, reflecting the complexity and urgency of reconciling corporate climate strategies with the realities on the ground.
