Apple CEO Tim Cook: Trump's Decision to Withdraw From Paris Accord 'Was Wrong for Our Planet'

[star-affinity]

We don't need global warming to create refugee hoards. The human cancer is doing a great job regardless of the political football du jour. Massive overpopulation. Billions of people worshipping imaginary sky wizards. Grotesque wealth hoarding by a few. The makings of a perfect storm. Glad I don't have kids. Cesspool Earth here we come!

What you say actually sometimes make we worry about the kids in my proximity (and all other kids for that matter). I still hope they will have a life worth living. The fix? I think the world needs more empathy…

Edit:

A friend read your post and said:

Massive overpopulation exists only because of coal, oil and gas. Skygods are often worshipped by the most overpopulated areas. It is connected. The largest ”dollar monsters” are due to coal, oil and gas, and a system that does not tamper with capitalism, which is basically good, if used properly and bitch slapped.

An economy based on renewable energy, where everything in nature has an actual value measurable in money. Where it costs to destroy it and where it pays off to live with nature. What Trump does not realize is that this is the economy of the future, the ones who switch fastest will grow the most. But everyone is in the same boat so it helps with common goals…


Sounds like something?
Not that I'm for ”bitch slapping” in general, but you get the idea…

 

[cppguy]

Jesus this dude should resign

We get it Tim you're a proud globalist

Do you want your grandchildren to live in a fallout shelter?

 

[canadianreader]

Climate change is a false pretence to be in the social movement it just gives them good publicity. The earth always had climate changes we were in ice age and the ice melted and that created continents and it wasn't man made maybe Earth wants to change it's climate again.

 

[oldhifi]

Apple CEO Tim Cook this afternoon sent an email to Apple employees expressing his disappointment with U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris climate deal.

In the email, which was shared by BuzzFeed, Cook says that while he tried to persuade Trump to keep the United States in the agreement, "it wasn't enough." Cook goes on to reiterate Apple's commitment to reducing its environmental impact through renewable energy and an eventual closed-loop supply chain.Cook, who also shared his disappointment in a tweet, was one of many tech leaders who attempted to persuade Trump not to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement earlier this week, but on Thursday, the president announced that the United States will indeed withdraw from the accord. Since the announcement, tech company CEOs have been speaking out against the decision while pledging to continue to fight climate change.

​

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said leaving the accord "puts our children's future at risk," while Google CEO Sundar Pichai said he was disappointed with the decision. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who said yesterday he had done all he could to advise the president to remain in the accord, made good on a promise to leave the advisory councils he served on.

​

Disney CEO Bob Iger also announced that he's resigned from the President's Council following the decision, while Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff said the company would double its efforts to fight climate change. Many other major companies, including IBM, GE, Microsoft, and Intel have also spoken out against the move.

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple CEO Tim Cook: Trump's Decision to Withdraw From Paris Accord 'Was Wrong for Our Planet'

[doublepost=1496441680][/doublepost]give your money to them Timmy

 

[Karma*Police]

What if the economy weren't globalized? Those low cost workers wouldn't have jobs at all. There's no way that corporations hiring out of a poor country will hurt that poor country, except in ways like pollution. Worst case, they offer those people an option that they don't take.

I agree. I'm a fan of globalism. It's lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. The more wealth, knowledge and experiences that are shared across the world, the better it is for humanity IMO.

But we're still operating in a world of limited resources. Which is why the jobs that are created in developing nations mean lost jobs elsewhere. You're seeing a shift in manufacturing jobs from China to Vietnam, for instance. That's why innovation and the creation of new markets that opens up new jobs is key.

 

[hagar]

Climate change is a false pretence to be in the social movement it just gives them good publicity. The earth always had climate changes we were in ice age and the ice melted and that created continents and it wasn't man made maybe Earth wants to change it's climate again.

How do you know climate has always changed? Because climate scientists told you so. But now that these same scientists are concerned and tell you something is going wrong, you don't believe them? Stop cherry picking.

 

[Precision Gem]

I don't understand why Apple, Tesla, Facebook, Hollywood don't each pitch in a few Billion Dollars and send it the treasury of the Paris Accord. Put their money where their mouth is. These guys talk big, but always want the tax payer to flip the bill after they buy their products. Products which by the way are made in China with almost no regulations, and by almost slave labor. Hyprocrites!

 

[star-affinity]

Climate change is a false pretence to be in the social movement it just gives them good publicity. The earth always had climate changes we were in ice age and the ice melted and that created continents and it wasn't man made maybe Earth wants to change it's climate again.

Wow, you managed to drop the most common myth ”Climate's changed before”. Well, of course it has, but this time around the evidence shows human actions are involved:

Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. The evidence for that is spread throughout the geological record. This makes it clear that this time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.

The myth is wrong for two reasons:

• First, to infer that humans can't be behind today's climate change because climate changed before humans is bad reasoning (a non-sequitur). Humans are changing the climate today mainly via greenhouse gas emissions, the same mechanism that caused climate change before humans.
• Second, to imply we have nothing to fear from today's climate change is not borne out by the lessons from rapid climate changes in Earth's past.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

 

[DoctorTech]

It's disgraceful that this issue is even considered "politics," that some are so wilfully blind as to think the long term well being of our species and our planet is just another issue that can be debated back and forth and used as a political cudgel, as if the science isn't clear and the dangers aren't real.

It's a true embarrassment that not everyone is behind doing anything and everything we can do, as the richest and most powerful nation in the world. Even more shameful is how Paris was just a tiny first step, and we couldn't even make that.

The "richest country in the world" (by your definition) is $20,000,000,000,000 in debt.

 

[star-affinity]

The one thing science teaches us is that so often we discover, determine, or learn through scientific study only to later on learn that we were either wrong or not wholly correct. Our understanding through science can be derivative, evolutionary, or revolutionary.

Well, it's not like it's common that scientific fileds get turned totally upside down every now and then. I'm not saying you're saying that, but some sometimes seem to dismiss science (and scientists) because ”it isn't 100% certain” and ”scientists has been wrong before”.

I'd say in general nowadays science is mostly building on foundations we have a general grasp of. That of course doesn't mean there isn't a lot left to discover nor that there won't be som major revolutions in some fields in the future – we should always be open to that I think. But I doubt for example that we will suddenly discover that we got evolution all wrong or that the entire field of physics is not what we thought. There are some things that seems more or less certain, scientifically. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation under these circumstances.

 

[hagar]

Climate change may or may not be real. The one thing science teaches us is that so often we discover, determine, or learn through scientific study only to later on learn that we were either wrong or not wholly correct. Our understanding through science can be derivative, evolutionary, or revolutionary.

However, whether climate change is real or not, even more fallible than scientific discovery is political discourse and agreement/compromise. And so it is also quite possible that the Paris agreement is potentially flawed. And to that end, I find it rather incomprehensible that tech company figureheads are sounding off in an attempt to sway public response. But then again I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

It's intellectually unfair to refer to scientific uncertainty. The common consensus right now is that man-made climate change is real. There's also something called the the precautionary principle stating that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus (that the action or policy is not harmful), the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking that action.

So in this case, CO2 emissions are suspected to be harmful (well, actually it's more than suspected, it's a fact), so we have to take actions. Because doing nothing will be more expensive in the long run.

 

[hellopupy]

Lol, I thought CEOs could tell when a modeling projection was BS or not, guess they all got duped.

I'll believe they actually believe in this cause and not just some corporate messaging crap when they ditch their private jets.

 

[roland.g]

It's intellectually unfair to refer to scientific uncertainty. The common consensus right now is that man-made climate change is real.

Actually, no it is not unfair.

And there is unfortunately not a common consensus. Trying to convince others that it is is spreading misinformation.

 

[Precision Gem]

If there suddenly massive volcanic eruptions, and these caused climate change, how would the nations react? Would they say it was natural climate change, and therefore OK? What if it was discovered that the billions of livestock farting were causing climate change? Would this be part of nature, and then OK? But then isn't man also part of nature? So if climate is altered by volcanic activity, or a meteor or animals, or man, it is really all natural isn't it?
At one time sea levers were 300 feet below what they are now, on over thousands of years "naturally" rose. Was that a bad thing? At one time the ice caps almost reached the equator, but now have shrunk. Is that a bad thing?
I suppose you could pretty much blame Trump or the Russians.

 

[ibookg409]

It's intellectually unfair to refer to scientific uncertainty. The common consensus right now is that man-made climate change is real. There's also something called the the precautionary principle stating that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus (that the action or policy is not harmful), the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking that action.

So in this case, CO2 emissions are suspected to be harmful (well, actually it's more than suspected, it's a fact), so we have to take actions. Because doing nothing will be more expensive in the long run.

After Kyoto there was a group of 31,000 climatologists and scientists who did not agree with the theory of man made global warming. Some interesting facts about it here.

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php

I really wouldn't call it a consensus at this moment. Climate science is too politically motivated. Climate skeptics don't get funded.

 

[PizzaBoxStyle]

No I'm saying that people that believe these climate change initiatives have anything at all to do with real climate change are simply ignorant of the facts. Why are they ignorant? Because it sounds so incredibly good and acceptable that normal people do not question if the initiative is real. I would not lie about it if I was running a climate change initiative, you would not lie about it if you were, but the politicians and leaders of these movements do lie in order to make the money they need to live better than the rest of us and in order to control others.

Most people are simply too gullible to challenge these initiatives because they are viewed as such a worthy cause. Just like no one challenges the "Its good for the children", when it rarely is.

I really hate to say it but I'm at the point where I'm starting to view life in the US through a lens where we're all still actually in the Wild West days of the 19th century, just modernized little bit for the 21st century.

"I've got mine, so **** you." Seems to be the attitude any more. I think most people don't see or think about this, but maybe that's how the upper-crust of society actually behaves. Maybe it's always been this way, though.

Try it some time. Imagine the life you're living in through the lens of an old western film. It all starts to make sense. We're still the same people we were back then, just a bit different.

 

[hagar]

Actually, no it is not unfair.

And there is unfortunately not a common consensus. Trying to convince others that it is is spreading misinformation.

Again, there IS a consensus in the scientific community. The people who study AND know the subject agree. The people that don't agree are the once that know NOTHING about it. This forum is filled with people not knowing a single thing about the climate, except from what they see outside their window. Everybody thinks they're an expert and voices their opinion based on whatever pops into their head, they read on the internet or heard from Trump.

And frankly, it's just insulting. If you didn't study medicine, you're not a doctor, if you didn't learn how to fly a plain, you're not a pilot. It's up to scientists to study their domain, come to certain conclusions and formulate recommendations. And it's up to politicians to act on those. Period.

In this case, all the nations in the world came to an agreement after years of negotiating. The US agreed and signed the treaty. Now have the balls to honour this agreement. Meanwhile, the US is handing over the driver seat of the world economy to China and leadership of the free world to Germany.

 

[Karma*Police]

I don't understand why Apple, Tesla, Facebook, Hollywood don't each pitch in a few Billion Dollars and send it the treasury of the Paris Accord. Put their money where their mouth is. These guys talk big, but always want the tax payer to flip the bill after they buy their products. Products which by the way are made in China with almost no regulations, and by almost slave labor. Hyprocrites!

It's not their job, nor is it their money to do that. Besides, Apple has been spending billions to run its entire operation on renewable energy and is requiring their partners to do the same so they're definitely doing their part. Tesla is out to disrupt the entire energy market so it's very existence is about putting their money where their mouth is. Not to mention, Elon put almost his entire fortune into it.

The government, OTOH, gets paid extremely well by us taxpayers to ensure we have potable water and fresh air. Without that, nothing else matters! So why aren't they doing that?

I'm not sure I follow your China comment, but those slave wages are a lot more than what they could make as farmers and have contributed to the rising wealth in that country.

 

[iceperson]

Until you repatriate that 200+ billion you're hiding overseas to keep from paying US taxes how about you shut your pie hole? Ireland, where Apple loves to hide their money, pledged a whopping 2.7M compared to the US 3B. Freaking greenies all gung ho about spending other people's money...

http://www.greenclimate.fund/partners/contributors/resources-mobilized

 

[calaverasgrande]

Moving the goal posts now?

First it was "there are no new jobs!"

Now it is "well, what did he do to create these new jobs?!"

If you are trying to give credit to Trump for job, I'd love to know what has transpired to create those jobs?
he hasn't passed any legislation in that regard. And though he has signed a lot of EOs. I'm not familiar with any that could be credited with spurring job growth.
So help me out cupcake. Is it just his magnetic personality?
[doublepost=1496458136][/doublepost]

Thanks because I don't actually know anything about history.

Oh you're welcome. Anytime.
It's one of my favorite subjects.

 

[147798]

Why don't Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and Bob Iger just bankroll the entire thing themselves then....

Because it's far more fun to spend other people's money while fattening your own accounts

 

[calaverasgrande]

Apples green initiative just means money. That's all Timmy Cook cares about. He's the modern day P.T. Barnum.

"Step right this way! This way to the egress!"

You are giving Cook too much credit. He sucks at the hype role.
I agree that for a lot of tech companies the green thing is in large part a marketing and public relations ploy. It is abundantly clear that Apple subcontracts the majority of their manufacturing work to companies with lower standards. They were kind of caught with their pants down on that whole tin mining thing for instance. Though the subcontractors of subcontractors legally insulated them, the blame still flows downriver.
However, even if the intentions are just PR. Apple has change a lot of their manufacturing to be less toxic. The end products are also less toxic. You can dismiss that all you like. But I enjoy the natural environment. I do a lot of solo hiking, camping and trekking. And I appreciate every small amount of effort made towards limiting the impact of toxic man made materials on the planet.
Don't make me sing Pete Seeger at you.

 

[iLunar]

Climate change is a false pretence to be in the social movement it just gives them good publicity. The earth always had climate changes we were in ice age and the ice melted and that created continents and it wasn't man made maybe Earth wants to change it's climate again.

Did a scientist tell you this? Or is it on the bible?

 

[ayasinsk]

Hey Tim how about you focus on sadly outdated desktop line?

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Isn't Tim just proving that you don't need a treaty or accord to fight this? Companies are doing it on their own. The government doesn't need to be involved.

The government doesn't need to be involved? Did you think that through all by yourself? That's cute

The US dept of defence is the biggest polluter in the world and its contributions to climate change dwarf those of even the largest corporations.