backtop


Print 62 comment(s) - last by JediJeb.. on Mar 12 at 6:59 PM

Richard Branson and think tank also trade barbs over "global warming spending" and greenwashing accusations

What might have been a comment from a top tech executive aimed at stemming rebellious shareholders has quickly devolved into the latest hypersensitive reaction from those who feel global warming "deniers" are endangering the planet.
 
I. Investor Unhappy With Apple’s Social, Political Efforts
 
The incident began last week at Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) annual shareholder meeting when The National Center for Public Policy Research -- which has invested some of its funding in Apple shares -- put for a proposal calling on Apple to be "more transparent" about how it spends money on political or environmental issues.

Tim Cook
Tim Cook found himself in the crosshairs of one investor over his company's political and "green" efforts. [Image Source: Getty Images]

In a letter the National Center writes:

Our  Proposal  highlights  an  area  of  concern  to  all  shareholders:  Company affiliations that may  primarily advance social or environmental causes  rather  than  promoting shareholder  value.
   
We  are  asking  the  Company  to  be  transparent  about  its  membership  in,  and payments  to,  trade  groups  and  outside  organizations  that  are  actively promoting top-­down  environmentalism  rather  than  working  to  advance  shareholder  value.

The letter clearly wasn't aimed solely at Apple's environmental efforts.  The company's top executives spent $128,000+ USD on wooing President Barack Hussein Obama (D) and Republican challenger Willard Mitt Romney [source].  This was among the policies that the National Center was unhappy with, as the libertarian leaning think-tank found both candidates to represent the bloated spending ideology that's come to dominate the neoconservative/neoliberal Republican and Democratic parties.

epeat award
Apple has bragged of its products' "greeness" in recent years.

But the group also wasn't pleased with the spending on global warming efforts, such as trying to make Apple a "carbon neutral" company.

The National Center's mission statement describes the group as:

A conservative think tank and policy institute covering Congress, insider political information, global warming and the environment, legal reform, Social Security, and campaign reform.

The focus of the rather broad amendment, though, quickly narrowed in on the "global warming..." part of the think-tank's mission statement.
 
II. Green or Greenwashing?
 
Apple long paid no mind to global warming or the environment. But given that its rise to dominance in the electronics industry was driven by a counterculture, rebellious image, it quickly became the prime target of environmentalists with a bone to pick over manufacturing practices.  In recent years Apple has done its best to please these groups, even if that cuts into profits a bit.
 
After getting knocked by environmental advocacy group Greenpeace in 2012, Apple looked to prove itself, expanding its global alternative energy portfolio aggressively over the last year. Currently, 75 percent of Apple's power comes from renewable sources.  The company says on one of its publicity pages that it plans to reach 100 percent in years to come.

Apple green energy
Apple is backing up its renewable energy promises. [Image Source: Apple]

Apple currently offers no such accounting to shareholders, lumping such unmentioned expenditures into its operating expenses.  Shareholders like the National Center were pushing to get line-item style accounting of political or environmental spending.
 
But other shareholders were opposed to the move or felt it unnecessary.  Profits haven't seemed to suffer much, given Apple's trademark ability to squeeze record amounts of productivity out of workers in China and elsewhere for the lowest cost.  On the other end, its expertise at squeezing carriers just as hard for fees to carry the iPad and iPhone, have also helped the cause.
 
CEO Tim Cook had remarked on his company's cash pile in 2012, "It's more than we need to run the company."
 
But rather than get aggressive about increasing shareholder incentives such as stock repurchasing and dividends, he's instead moved to spend money on things like a 50 percent hiring binge and a pricey new "spaceship" headquarters, which has suffered delays and budget overruns.
 
III. Applied, Applied, Denied
 
At the annual shareholder meeting Tim Cook announced that Apple's CFO Peter Oppenheimer would be retiring after a decade with the company. Luca Maestri -- former CFO of General Motors Comp. (GM) Europe – will be installed as the new financial face of Apple.  Mr. Maestri's global credentials drew relatively positive reactions, but did not quell investor anxiety over Apple's sizeable $160B USD cash pile.

Luca Maestri
Luca Maestri is Apple's new CFO. [Image Source: Reuters]

But Mr. Cook beat back the proposal of Justin Danhof, a general counsel for the National Center.  In a vote, only 2.95 percent of shareholders supported the proposal, with the majority of major shareholders voting in opposition.

The CEO -- who has seemed a bit on edge of late, as witnessed in his infamous Europe rant -- appeared genuinely angry when Mr. Danhof tried to push his client's issue in the Q&A session.  Tim Cook commented:

When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind.  I don't consider the bloody ROI.  If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.

While Tim Cook gave no hint what part of the proposal he took such umbrage at, MacObserver reportedly initially that he "rejected the group's climate change denial".  Things snowballed from there with most reports ignoring the group's political side of the claim, and the fact that Tim Cook had kept his response purposefully vague in terms of his guiding views on specific environmental topics.

Tim Cook Angry
Tim Cook appeared to get angry at the insistence of the think tank at the annual shareholder meeting. [Image Source: Bloomberg]

Meanwhile the National Center fired up a provocative response, commenting:

I'll be posting that tomorrow after the newspaper in question has a chance to quote from it (if it wants to), but in the meantime, I refer everyone to an article by the British writer Tim Worstall that, we believe, explains what happened -- why Tim Cook got so mad, and why he said a few things that not only were non-responsive to the question, but also not particularly wise things for a corporate CEO to say -- perfectly.

The article: "Apple’s Tim Cook And His Dilemma Over Sustainability And Climate Change."

We'll be saying more tomorrow, but Tim Worstall "gets it."

That's a pretty fiery rebuttal, but the situation was about to grow even hotter.
 
IV. Sir Branson Backs Up Cook
 
At this point things started to get really out of hand, with the founder of Virgin Group, Sir Richard Branson, writing in his blog in defense of Mr. Cook's (supposed) stand.  The media and airline mogul has prided himself in a green image by trekking through juggles, diving into the oceans, and using biofuels in his airlines, comments:

Enormously impressed with Apple CEO Tim Cook for his strong words on climate change deniers, and demanding business should have benefits for people and the planet, beyond just profit.

Cook also touched upon what should be at the heart of any business – its purpose. “We do a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive," he said. "We want to leave the world better than we found it." This goes for Virgin too, and should go for every single organisation in the world.

The NCPPR stated there is an “absence of compelling data" on climate change. If 97% of climate scientists agreeing that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to human activities isn’t compelling data, I don’t know what is.

 
Richard Branson
Sir Richard Branson, Virgin Group chairman, holds up a vial of biofuel. [Image Source: Reuters]

The UK tycoon's remarks will obviously stir up controversy, particularly with the U.S. suffering one of the coldest, snowiest winters on record.
 
And even among the majority of scientists whom believes in global warming, there is a growing contingent that believes that mankind cannot "stop" global warming.  Such critics believe that most global warming "solutions" are basically ineffectual wealth redistribution schemes.  Such people are often lumped in as part of "the consensus", despite the fact that their views are radically different from those who support such questionable solutions (e.g. Al Gore, a "carbon credit billionaire").
 
V. Think Tank Points Finger at Al Gore, Roasts Branson
 
The furor from the Nation Center has been flying back with equal intensity.  In a press release, it characterizes Tim Cook's rebuke as him telling investors to "drop dead" and blaming Al Gore (a major Apple shareholder) for leading the majority to strike down the proposal.  Mr. Danhof claims he was "greeted by boos and hisses from the Al Gore contingency in the room" when he broached the topic.

Al Gore
The think tank accused leading global warming fearmongerer Al Gore of mind-controlling Tim Cook and fellow shareholders. [Image Source: Sodahead]

The PR goes on to quote Mr. Danhof, Esq. as saying:

Here's the bottom line: Apple is as obsessed with the theory of so-called climate change as its board member Al Gore is.  The company's CEO fervently wants investors who care more about return on investments than reducing CO2 emissions to no longer invest in Apple. Maybe they should take him up on that advice.

Although the National Center's proposal did not receive the required votes to pass, millions of Apple shareholders now know that the company is involved with organizations that don't appear to have the best interest of Apple's investors in mind.  Too often investors look at short-term returns and are unaware of corporate policy decisions that may affect long-term financial prospects. After today's meeting, investors can be certain that Apple is wasting untold amounts of shareholder money to combat so-called climate change. The only remaining question is: how much?

Virgin Airlines

In a brief comment targeting Richard Branson they responded:

"Richard Branson, Jet-Fuel Burner, Criticizes Us on Climate"

Richard Branson, who isn't green, criticizes us for criticizing Apple, which isn't green, either.  Big talk from a guy who got rich burning jet fuel.

We hear he wants to go to the moon or Mars or something now. Solar-powered rocket?

That response seemed pretty funny and tongue in cheek.

VI. Advocacy Then Offers Up Bizarre Nazi Analogy

But it would shortly fire off a far more controversial and inflammatory response, writing "Meet Sir Richard Branson: Concentration Camp Commandant", in which it makes a bizarre analogy likening itself to a holocaust denier and the British media mogul to a commander in the facscist Nazi genocide attempt.  It writes:

I wonder if Sir Richard Branson, when he called us "deniers" in response to our activism at the Apple shareholder meeting (a suggestion that we’re like holocaust deniers), realized that under a scenario in which we are akin to holocaust deniers, he's akin to a concentration camp commandant?

For the record, Richard Branson never brought up the whole "holocaust denier analogy", so at this point the think-tank has effectively likened itself to that -- at least in terms of how it believes others to perceive it as.
 
It goes on to try to justify the questionable and inflammatory analogy by arguing that people accuse global warming "deniers" (as the think tank member writing the post appears to identify themselves) as equivalent to holocaust deniers.  To their credit they do give a lot of examples of such questionable comparisons:

(hereherehereherehereherehere, here, or here)

The comment was likely well intentioned and meant to be clever.  But we're guessing it's an unwise move to liken yourself to a holocaust denier, even if your critics have called you that and even if you meant it to be a tongue-in-cheek assertion.

Sources: The National Center for Public Policy Research, Richard Branson's Blog, Mac Observer, The National Center for Public Policy Research



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By atechfan on 3/11/2014 6:20:12 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, how about Artic ice is at the thickest it has been in decades, Antarctic ice is expanding into previously open water. Places in US that pretty much never have snow have had crops destroyed by snow and ice. Britain has the coldest winter in decades. Parts of EU are also having record low temperatures. Central Canada is predicted to have a colder than usual summer because of the amount of ice on the Great Lakes. How many places do you need before you admit it not just "in my back yard".

The high temps from 10 years ago were caused by solar activity, and the low temps now have the same cause. The sun has predictable cycles of high and low activity. Go back a couple thousand years, not 15 or so like the global warming crowd does, and you will see these cycles clearly.


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By Nexos on 3/11/2014 7:05:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How many places do you need before you admit it not just "in my back yard".


However many it takes to assemble a model with testable predictions, which are reliably observed and run counter to our current understanding of global climate change. If that hasn't happened yet, it might not be as easy as you imagine. Average temperatures have been on the rise for more than the 15 years you threw out there, and going back for a hundred or more its apparent that they match rising CO2 levels much more closely then they do solar activity levels.


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By JediJeb on 3/12/2014 6:43:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and going back for a hundred or more its apparent that they match rising CO2 levels much more closely then they do solar activity levels.


This is true, but not in the way the pro-global warming people say it is.

If you look at the graphs, from multiple sources you do see both temperatures and CO2 levels rising. But if you look really close what you will see is that temperatures begin to rise before CO2 does by at least a decade. What Climatologists fail to mention that any Chemist or Physicists knows is that as you warm water, less gasses will be dissolved in it. Therefore it should have been concluded that rising temperatures have caused increased CO2 levels, not the opposite. The Climatologists simply have their cause and effect backwards, and when anyone tries to point that out, they tell them they are wrong and simply ignore the laws of physics. Seems the climate does not have to obey the laws of physics.


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By Mint on 3/11/2014 7:31:21 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Ok, how about Artic ice is at the thickest it has been in decades
Huh?
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/p...
Arctic sea ice thickness and extent is on the same downwards trend that we've seen since we started measuring.
quote:
Places in US that pretty much never have snow have had crops destroyed by snow and ice. Britain has the coldest winter in decades. Parts of EU are also having record low temperatures.
This is a single year observation, cherry picked from a few percent of earth's surface. You're talking about weather, not climate. Learn the difference.
quote:
The high temps from 10 years ago were caused by solar activity, and the low temps now have the same cause. The sun has predictable cycles of high and low activity.
We have very detailed observations about the sun's irradiance. Solar cycles result in variation of ~0.08% from min to max. That doesn't even explain 1/10th of a degree of warming.

You are completely clueless about this topic. Stop embarrassing yourself.


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By retrospooty on 3/11/2014 10:43:23 AM , Rating: 2
Alot of conflicting data out there... That is part of the issue. I just did a search for "polar ice caps" (not any other words) and found this front page. There are links that show the opposite too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/An...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-s...


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By datdamonfoo on 3/11/2014 11:13:36 AM , Rating: 2
So if you actually read the source of the Daily Mail article, it says this:

quote:
The increase in volume is welcome, but does not reflect a reversal in the long-term decline, the scientists said.
"It's estimated that there was around 20,000 cubic kilometres (4,800 cu. miles) of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today's minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years," said Andrew Shepherd, a professor at University College London, a co-author of the study.


It helps to put things in context.


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By BSMonitor on 3/11/2014 11:24:58 AM , Rating: 2
They don't understand that you have to back up 1 data point with countless others to classify something as scientific evidence/fact.


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By retrospooty on 3/11/2014 11:35:05 AM , Rating: 2
Feel free to do to do your own search. My point is there is alot of conflicting data and some evidence to show its not the end of the world as we know it.


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By BSMonitor on 3/11/2014 11:54:09 AM , Rating: 2
Scouring google for blogs isn't research. No, there is only data. Not conflicting data.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/An...

Your blog: Comparing Aug 15,2013 to Aug 27, 2012. Twelve more days of 22-23 hour sunlight.

The only conflicting data is donkey's who take data out of context or honing on a single data point as evidence with the same weight as countless other data points. And in this case, not even comparing the same data points. Something you claimed "alarmists" were doing for decades.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-s...

Even in 2012, look at the difference between Aug 15 "coverage" vs Aug 27. You know, 12 more days of melting to go in the 2013, no biggy.

There are only people who use the scientific process and look at the results for what they are. And people like you who have no clue what the scientific process is and make up arguments based on a single data point and your most basic understanding of the data involved.


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By retrospooty on 3/11/2014 12:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By BSMonitor on 3/11/2014 12:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
Right, and now his evidence is his own ramblings.

Excellent progression here.


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By ven1ger on 3/11/2014 5:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
Only trouble retro, is that a lot of the conflicting data or evidence is usually not backed by any real world data. You can probably find a few scientists that will say whatever they get paid to say but the vast majority of scientists believe that climate change is happening.

Same can be said about evolution vs creationism, you have a lot of people believing in creationism and the earth was created in 6 days, etc, you'll even find some scientists who'll twist themselves into saying the earth was created in 6 days. But the majority of the scientific community believes in evolution and the big bang.

As in anything there is a lot of misinformation out there also, but you really have to lot at what is more credible.


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By retrospooty on 3/11/2014 5:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
I know. I got sucked into BS's BS, arguing to argue, but in many places over the past few years Ice has been increasing so, cool...

Here is what I take from it all.
- Dont panic, the world isn't ending.
- As a whole, we need to get off oil, which is well underway as many other techs are being worked on and getting fairly close to consumer viability.
- Now is probably not a good time to buy Beach front property. :P


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By BSMonitor on 3/11/2014 11:28:41 AM , Rating: 2
LMAO, two blogs


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By retrospooty on 3/11/2014 11:46:03 AM , Rating: 2
Uh... The BBC is a blog?

Anyhow, try and follow the point without your angrychild hat. The point is there is conflicting data and there is data to show some ice returning over the past few years.


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By BSMonitor on 3/11/2014 12:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/

That's the BBC URL captain donkey,

this is a blog:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/An...

That written by Dr. David Rose?? No ?? Just some guy reading articles and making his own article about the topic covered by the article??

Hmmm, it sucks to see you so ridiculously dominated in an argument.

quote:
there is data to show some ice returning over the past few years.


Surely you have links to valid data sources of this trend of ice returning??

After Sep 2012 had the lowest amount of polar ice in recorded history. Surely you can prove this trend.

No?? Just more blogs?


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By retrospooty on 3/11/2014 12:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/

That's the BBC URL captain donkey,


ITs called a source link...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2538...

hmm... Yup, it checks out. BBC. But again not the point.

"After Sep 2012 had the lowest amount of polar ice in recorded history. Surely you can prove this trend."

Again, I am NOT trying to prove a trend, I was showing that there is conflicting data out there. atechfan mentioned it, Mint responded showing the opposite and I added that its easy to find BOTH sides with a simple quick web search. I want us off oil too you giant lunatic.


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By BSMonitor on 3/11/2014 12:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
hmm... Yup, it checks out. BBC. But again not the point.


In what world does it check out?? The actual BBC article says NOTHING of conflicting data.

The blogger article makes all the assumptions that you claim is conflicting data.

Again, nice try.


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By JediJeb on 3/12/2014 6:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote: The high temps from 10 years ago were caused by solar activity, and the low temps now have the same cause. The sun has predictable cycles of high and low activity.

We have very detailed observations about the sun's irradiance. Solar cycles result in variation of ~0.08% from min to max. That doesn't even explain 1/10th of a degree of warming.

You are completely clueless about this topic. Stop embarrassing yourself.


If you place temperatures in the Kelvin scale as any proper scientific work should be, there is an interesting observation to be made about what the solar variance does.

Absolute zero is the point our planet would be at if the Sun were not present(well we would be very slightly above due to the heat from within the core but not so much). Freezing point of water which we consider 32F or 0C is actually 273K. 273K x 0.08% = 0.2184K which is also equal to 0.2184C variance. Isn't that really close to what is claimed to be the temperature swing during the last solar cycle? Funny how things calculate out when you use the proper units. If you used a normal warm day and the Celsius scale that would be 25C x 0.08% = 0.02C variance. Using the wrong scale throws the calculations off by a factor of 10X.


RE: Stop promulgating ignorance
By Cloudie on 3/11/2014 11:56:16 AM , Rating: 2
"Britain has the coldest winter in decades"

WTF? you clearly do not live here if you believe that. This winter has been incredibly mild.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki