Print 38 comment(s) - last by lco45.. on Oct 7 at 6:40 PM

Apple is at odds with Chamber over climate policies

Apple has been criticized by groups that monitor the green footprint of major manufacturers like Greenpeace for not being green enough – even Dell once jumped on the bandwagon. Apple has taken steps to green up its business and reduce the amount of pollutants that it produces. The company is now looking to change public opinion and is at odds with a major business lobbying group over its green policies.

Apple has announced that it is no longer a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because Apple disagrees with the company's climate change policy. Apple VP of government affairs Catherine Novelli wrote a letter to the chamber saying in part, "We would prefer that the chamber take a more progressive stance on this critical issue and play a constructive role in addressing the climate crisis. Novelli also wrote that Apple was withdrawing from the group "effective immediately."

Apple isn’t the only company that has withdrawn from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over the last few months; three major utility companies withdrew as well including Exelon Corp, PG&E Corp, and PNM Resources Inc. All three of the utility firms withdrew citing the same issues with the Chamber of Commerce's stance on climate change.

Reuters reports that other companies that are members of the Chamber have criticized the business organization for pushing for public hearings to challenge the scientific evidence of manmade climate change. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has stated that it prefers a "mainstream, common sense view" of climate change and does not support the climate bill passed by the House in June.

The Washington Post quotes Novelli from the letter writing, "Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the Chamber at odds with us in this effort."

Thomas J. Donohue, president of the Chamber of Commerce said n a recent statement that the group "supports strong federal legislation" to protect the climate. However, the group feels that the cap and trade system to lower the cost of reducing emissions passed by the House of Representatives was flawed.

The Washington Post quotes a Chamber spokesman, Eric Wohlschlegel for an email statement writing, "While we'll continue to represent the broad majority of our membership on this goal, we recognize that there are some companies who stand to gain more than others with the current options on the table."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

why is this bad?
By kattanna on 10/6/2009 12:00:08 PM , Rating: 5
criticized the business organization for pushing for public hearings to challenge the scientific evidence of manmade climate change

yes, how dare they try to hold public hearings about issues that will effect the general public.

any good scientific theory needs to be held accountable, and is good science practice, yet somehow, the man made CO2 theory doesnt seem to need to be held to the same level. WHY?

RE: why is this bad?
By Lerianis on 10/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: why is this bad?
By lco45 on 10/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: why is this bad?
By Myg on 10/7/2009 7:52:49 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with trusting people who have invested the entirety of their lives studying these things is that alot of the time they lose perspective and the world starts to revolve around their ideas and theories.

This is a common internal issue that has always stifled new ideas and research: Science is generally Science's biggest enemy.

Concerning judgement: To be fair, the public are the one's whos lives are generally effected by the businessmen and scientists decisions; so they have more claim to any to decide what to do then any.

RE: why is this bad?
By lco45 on 10/7/2009 6:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
The public should be concerned, but shouldn't be in the driving seat.

An analogy would be a passenger jet with engine trouble.
The scientists are pilots, the businessmen own the aircraft, and the passengers are the public.

Even though the passengers' lives are at stake, they are not the ones that should be flying the plane.

In the world right now the owners are trying to control the plane themselves, and they are drumming up support with the passengers. Some of the passengers agree with the owners (GW deniers) and some trust the pilots.

I am in the latter group, which will prevail eventually, but possible only after the hazard is so obvious that the plane has already missed its chance to recover.


Too funny
By Dorkyman on 10/6/2009 1:13:00 PM , Rating: 3
I do believe that historians will one day look back in wonder at the current era and marvel that so many otherwise-intelligent people could have been caught up in the "global warming" movement. Apple prides itself on being contrarian to conventional norms; perhaps that alone explains their recent action.

RE: Too funny
By kattanna on 10/6/2009 2:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
that video always cracks me up every time i see it

Sure they do...
By jimbojimbo on 10/6/2009 4:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions
Considering all their crap is made in China, they don't need to care about more greenhouse gas laws and taxes passed in the states.

Cap and trade?
By Jalek on 10/7/2009 7:32:11 AM , Rating: 2
Apple and others are in a snit because this group isn't a fan of carbon certificate trading? It's another enormous scam to make people who produce nothing lots of money, which is why Gore's heavily invested.

When it was being sold, it was pitched as a way out of government subsidies for agriculture. They could sell their carbon allowances instead. The traders buy them and then resell them for however much they can, and if enough have the trading locked up, they can jack prices through the roof.

That's not really a problem, it's just passed along to consumers. The farmers get their pittance for the certificates and the traders can make an unlimited amount on the spread when they resell them.

This isn't a market anyone can just produce something to add to, it's completely artificial and fabricated by state agencies.

By StevoLincolnite on 10/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: .
By 3minence on 10/6/2009 10:09:50 AM , Rating: 5
Back when I was working with some dolphin researchers I attended a NOAA sponsored meeting on underwater sound. The environmental groups sat on one side of the table with their lawyers, and the shipping industry groups with their lawyers sat on the other side. We scientists sat at the end of the table. The entire meeting consisted of the two groups with their lawyers arguing over whether they could sue each other based on the decisions made in the meeting. We researchers just sat their quietly, the science never even being refereed to. In the end NOAA dropped the meetings and decided to create policy alone.

Both sides had an agenda, both sides picked and choose what they wanted from the science, neither cared about facts. Much like religious fanatics.

RE: .
By Kuvache on 10/6/2009 10:22:10 AM , Rating: 3
The motives of the utility companies in question (Exelon in particular) has everything to do with their position within the industry, not with the acceptance of the notion that man made emissions are causing global warming. Exelon, for example, owns a significant proportion of the nuclear fleet in the US--low cost, non-co2 emitting generation--that is operating in a restuctured wholesale market for electricity. They have every interest in seeing the costs of their competitors increase, and the price for power to go up. Passing carbon taxes or cap and trade programs will increase the price of electricity on the margin and help their bottom line.

Hold all the nukes.
Help pass carbon taxes.
Get great press.

RE: .
By DarkElfa on 10/6/2009 10:48:49 AM , Rating: 3
I think that's why they all do this crap. They just want to look good in the green press. In truth they could actually give a crap about the environment except for where they can charge more for so called "green" products.

RE: .
By Myg on 10/7/2009 7:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
Gee, didnt you know thats why they call it the "green" movement, and "green" products? Its obviously an inside joke: it means they can slap on an increased profit margin to get more greens (money) at no cost to themselves and be part of a popular fad to boot.


"Green press" indeed, the sickening irony of that; they are basically printing money for companies...

RE: .
By Amiga500 on 10/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: .
By cabjf on 10/6/2009 11:08:33 AM , Rating: 2
Because scientists and engineers never argue or have bitter disagreements.

RE: .
By rudy on 10/6/2009 11:26:05 AM , Rating: 2
Agree scientists have made plenty of mistakes and so do engineers many times they are so detached from reality they just do not get it. Although I do agree on the point that lawers are pretty useless. I get the business side I get the technical side, I just dont get the law side of things.

RE: .
By headbox on 10/6/2009 1:03:43 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, "science" did all kinds of great things, like test nuclear weapons just outside of Vegas, spray US cities for "germ warfare" tests, and dozens of other "scientific experiments" on the unsuspecting population.

RE: .
By kattanna on 10/6/2009 2:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
science is a tool just like any other tool

if i take a hammer and drive a nail in.. thats good, but if i take that same hammer and hit you in the face with it, then suddenly the hammer is evil?

dont blame science for the ways people choose to use it.

RE: .
By theapparition on 10/6/2009 4:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
Go away troll.

Science didn't do that......governments did that. Find any abuse of science and I'll show you a government behind it rallying thier people in support.

RE: .
By Lerianis on 10/6/2009 9:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, you can blame that on scientists who weren't using their brains and thinking about what their research could create.

RE: .
By Myg on 10/7/2009 8:08:12 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but the responsibility isn't properly shared due to the nature of modern industry.

Behind every gun there is a shooter.

Behind every bullet there is a worker.

Behind every ounce of blackpowder is a miner.

Behind every mining tool there is a designer.

Behind every page for blueprinting there is a miller.

Behind every fallen tree is a forester.

and so on...

I bet only two/three out of the entire list that can be contrived are completely aware.

RE: .
By MrBlastman on 10/6/2009 11:10:51 AM , Rating: 1
*rule 1: Shoot 98% of all lawyers.

*rule 2: The remaining 2% are told to speak only when spoken to, or they are killed.

Finally something I agree with you about.

Though, letting them talk at all is risky. I'd say we allow them to write their ideas down on paper so their quixotic diatribes can not shed influence upon too large a number of peasants.

RE: .
By AlexWade on 10/6/2009 11:15:52 AM , Rating: 5
Well, this will ruin your day. Many of our beloved members of Congress have a lawyer background. Lawyers are, in effect, running this country. And look how good they are doing.

Would scientists do any better? It would be naive to think so. Many humans are corruptible. As proof that scientists wouldn't be much better, look at how many make bogus claims regarding climate change just to get a ton of funding. Not too long ago, a report came out that stated our extra CO2 is causing more earthquakes and volcanoes. Just recently, Steve McIntyre over at won a 10 year battle with scientists to release their data, which they were legally required to do so with the original request 10 years ago. Of course, when the data was finally obtained, Steve proved the scientists cherry-picked data to fit their desires. This is the Yamal tree ring study. All this is essentially the #1 problem with climate change studies is that there are few of them not tainted by money, either for or against climate change. It is very hard to find the truth, because at the end is someone paying to have their personal agenda promoted.

The point is this: money and power corrupt. Lawyers were able to get both and look how it corrupted them. And then look at how many scientists have been corrupted by money and power. The late Michael Crichton adroitly pointed out in his book, State of Fear that studies generally favor those who fund them. If a climate change skeptic funded a study, it would show climate change is a hoax; if a climate change believer funded a study, it would show climate change is very real. The same applies to polls and surveys. The results are usually what the person or group wanted the results to be.

Yes, there are many honest scientists out there. Make no mistake. The above example is a microcosm of what will be even if scientists ran the world.

Money and power corrupts. There is no group of people you can choose who won't be corrupted by money and power. Look at history. The Catholic church at one time required simony to get people into heaven. The UN has had many scandals where foreign aid workers helped warlords for money. And the list goes on. Some groups may have less corruption than others, but the corruption will set in and will build on itself over time.

RE: .
By MrBlastman on 10/6/2009 11:24:27 AM , Rating: 4
Well, this will ruin your day. Many of our beloved members of Congress have a lawyer background. Lawyers are, in effect, running this country. And look how good they are doing.

Hmm, good point. If we got rid of everyone in Congress, the power bill would go up rapidly due to the increased heating costs. As is right now, Congress is self-heating with all the hot air they produce.

The point is this: money and power corrupt. Lawyers were able to get both and look how it corrupted them.

"Get" is the key word. Lawyers take everything they earn from someone else. They produce nothing. Scientists and Engineers create, assemble and produce.

I'd say the net product from Scientists and Engineers will move us foreward, while the product from Lawyers will keep us at a standstill. After all, they are only shuffling money and goods from one person to another.

So, really, when you think about it, it is no wonder that Congress does nothing! They're all too busy shuffling rather than producing anything useful.

RE: .
By kattanna on 10/6/2009 11:44:44 AM , Rating: 2
This is the Yamal tree ring study

the thing that really made me sit back on that was how such noted peer reviewed journals were not requiring the data so others could check like they do with other submissions.

RE: .
By Ristogod on 10/6/2009 11:48:07 AM , Rating: 2
Here's a fact.

People and what they do are not driving Global warming. The Sun is.

RE: .
By jimbojimbo on 10/6/2009 4:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you know? People are more powerful than the sun! Hell, we're causing global warming in Mars that's how powerful we are!

RE: .
By knutjb on 10/6/2009 4:31:07 PM , Rating: 2
Agree. Too many people see Global (insert this weeks name for it) as an ideology. It is a Scientific issue. The problem with scientific issues is that they are treated as fact when they are really in a state of flux.

The majority of the green arguments are a bunch of convoluted theories that all refer to each other to give credence as fact. The science changes but the ideologues don't. I.E. the sun as a factor and the belief that it is highly predictable when that's not entirely true. Or that one little molecule is the sole source of all our woes.

It is far more complex than ideologues are willing to accept. Hence, they treat old conclusions as solid fact like a bible.

Since some business are in position to create great profits from such draconian systemic changes to our power supply, green is wonderful. Apple wants to appear greener in the eyes of the public after some issues so they trash the COC to provide the end to the means.

When surround by chaos follow the money trail.

By Alphafox78 on 10/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: red
By TimInPA on 10/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: red
By Lakku on 10/6/2009 10:17:10 AM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry, but you must have meant your ignorance is showing.

RE: red
By Maxima2k2se on 10/6/2009 4:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO nice catch, Grammar Police FAIL!!

RE: red
By MrBlastman on 10/6/2009 11:06:52 AM , Rating: 2
Did you see the Empire State Building last week?

Chamber of Commerce is a joke
By TimInPA on 10/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: Chamber of Commerce is a joke
By Lakku on 10/6/2009 10:22:06 AM , Rating: 2
There is no reason for any of us to exist other than for self-preservation. That is the same for any species, which is, the perpetuation of said species at any cost. So far, only we as humans seem to be able to bypass those self-preservation instincts and kill each other, not over preservation, but over ideas and being the one who is correct.

RE: Chamber of Commerce is a joke
By invidious on 10/6/2009 3:16:18 PM , Rating: 4
Self preservation applies to preserving one's self and one's offspring, not one's species. Humans are the only species that we know of that can even conceptualize ourselves as part of a species. So by your poor definition we are the only species with self preservation instincts. If anything we act on behalf of the species despite our instinct for self preservation. Which is why as a species we are doing so much better than all of the others.

Your pecimistic view of human nature poorly founded. While our violent nature may eventually lead to our destruction, it is also why we are thriving so well. Also I can assure you the rest of nature is just as violent, predators fight eachother over territory or over prey in nature all the time. Especially those who live in packs.

RE: Chamber of Commerce is a joke
By lennylim on 10/6/2009 2:07:59 PM , Rating: 4
I'd take you more seriously if you would bother to point out why. Without giving any reason, you come across (perhaps unfairly) as "they're a joke because Apple doesn't like them".

"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki