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

[CmdrLaForge]

Ironically, North Korea is a member of the Paris agreement.

If true that is ridiculous ironic.
[doublepost=1496463357][/doublepost]

The idea that this single accord will drive the USA into isolationism is ridiculous. You folks on the left are amazing, you get so wrapped up in things it becomes your own little bubble world. The reaction videos on youtube when Hillary lost is a great example of this false world the left lives in.

Leaving the Paris accord will do nothing but make the USA stronger and better positioned to control her destiny instead of handing off authority to global bodies of power.

I doubt it very much that it will make the US any stronger. Regenerative energy is the future and by investing and developing in it China will continue to lead this area as they do already in the solar panel industry.

Setting any hopes on coal is stupid beyond belief.

And about the isolation. No it is not this single treaty that has been agreed by almost every country on the planet. It is more the symbolism that Trump drives at every possible moment.

 

[antonis]

What country is the US announcing weekly that they plan on destroying? How many US citizens are put in labor camps for speaking against Trump. Don't act like North Korea deserves to be treated like the US when it comes to nuclear weapons, that's extremely stupid.

Which is not a reply to my question. Who is considered "worthy" and "sensible" enough to have nuclear weapons and who is not ? By what criteria ? And who judges that ? Any country developing nuclear weapons do not need to threat anyone. The threat goes without saying, on its own. Like US.

 

[roland.g]

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.

And this surprises you.
[doublepost=1496467976][/doublepost]

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

Interesting article. You've done a good job quoting it. Unfortunately:

1. It's (your) argument is flawed.

2. It supposes that we have had a large and rapid changes, that it quantifies as producing an abrupt change. Except that the factors it would like to attribute to humans are neither large or rapid or capable of abrupt change when measured and quantified.

I have no problem being for the environment.

I enjoy recycling, reducing my impact on landfills, and actively compost as a means to properly dispose of my consumption.

I am considering a hybrid for my next vehicle. Because I do believe in alternatives to oil are prudent for a variety of reasons.

But climate change is not one of them.

The US is far behind France and Europe in general in the use of nuclear energy mainly because of stigmas in the US from the 70s with nuclear power plants. However it is the most efficient form of energy. Yet Americans have a hard time embracing it.

We should have 10 times the nuclear energy than we currently do in the US. And it doesn't matter if you do or don't believe in climate change, you should be in favor of it. By I'm guessing you are not.
[doublepost=1496468575][/doublepost]

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.

What a load. Listen to yourself.

"There IS a consensus."
"The people who study AND know the subject agree."
"The people who don't know NOTHING."

You are simply trying to bully your way over the subject without ANY (all caps for you) argument except for outlandish statements.

And that is insulting. To everyone.

I actually know someone who is a preeminent scholar and one of the most recognized authorities on nuclear energy in the world. And I can tell you for a fact he is not part of your consensus. And he not only studies, but happens to know a great deal on the subject.

If you want to pull the wool over your own eyes, go ahead. Just don't subject the rest of us to it.

 

[star-affinity]

1. It's (your) argument is flawed.

Why?

2. It supposes that we have had a large and rapid changes, that it quantifies as producing an abrupt change. Except that the factors it would like to attribute to humans are neither large or rapid or capable of abrupt change when measured and quantified.

How do you explain the vastly increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that corresponds with industrialization?

If you have an alternative explanation for why atmospheric carbon dioxide started jumping around the Industrial Revolution, and the global mean temperature began trending up to follow suit, but is not related to humans, I'd be interested to hear it.

I have no problem being for the environment.

I enjoy recycling, reducing my impact on landfills, and actively compost as a means to properly dispose of my consumption.

I am considering a hybrid for my next vehicle. Because I do believe in alternatives to oil are prudent for a variety of reasons.

But climate change is not one of them.

The US is far behind France and Europe in general in the use of nuclear energy mainly because of stigmas in the US from the 70s with nuclear power plants. However it is the most efficient form of energy. Yet Americans have a hard time embracing it.

We should have 10 times the nuclear energy than we currently do in the US. And it doesn't matter if you do or don't believe in climate change, you should be in favor of it. By I'm guessing you are not.

Good you have ”no problem with the environment”. But I think climate change should be one of your concerns.

I'm not sure about nuclear power. Of course it's efficient in one way and ”clean” in one sense, but it also yields really nasty long lasting waste which has to be taken into account (which doesn't make it very clean in that sense).

 

[Romey-Rome]

How is getting good gas mileage a bad thing?

Weak ass cars. (Tesla, boo hoo. Not planning my roadtrips around charging stations, sorry)

 

[Bonte]

Good you have ”no problem with the environment”. But I think climate change should be one of your concerns.

Overpopulation will kill the Earth well before climate change, why is everybody quiet on that subject?

Like the green revolution fueled the population growth from the sixties on, anti climate change measures will do the same for the next surge in population growth. It's useless and even counter productive if overpopulation isn't tackled first.

He might not know it but in the end Trump is right about not supporting the climate change BS.

 

[star-affinity]

Weak ass cars.

Too weak for what?

As for Tesla charging station – it's of course difficult to in such short time compete with the amount of gas stations.
[doublepost=1496488614][/doublepost]

Overpopulation will kill the Earth well before climate change, why is everybody quiet on that subject?

Did you see my post here?
#776

Massive overpopulation exists only because of coal, oil and gas.

 

[nt5672]

. . . .
"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. . . . .

Good point. I think it has always been this way. The difference now is that the upper class has figured out how dumb down the lower classes (through media and education) and to make the lower classes think they (the upper class) are doing what they do for altruistic reasons (the environment and the children). They aren't.

For example, if Tim Cook was really committed to the environment we would see different behavior out of Apple. We all know that, even if most fail to believe it. Why? Because as a society we have been trained to prefer image over substance. If someone says they want to do good, then we have been trained to believe that is enough, and we never look to see if they actually live up to those beliefs.

 

[hagar]

You are simply trying to bully your way over the subject without ANY (all caps for you) argument except for outlandish statements.

And that is insulting. To everyone.

I actually know someone who is a preeminent scholar and one of the most recognized authorities on nuclear energy in the world. And I can tell you for a fact he is not part of your consensus. And he not only studies, but happens to know a great deal on the subject.

If you want to pull the wool over your own eyes, go ahead. Just don't subject the rest of us to it.

As I posted here before, I'm a climate scientist and I have repeatedly asked on this forum to any "disbeliever" to show me scientific data that disproves man-made climate change and I will gladly explain what is correct or wrong about their reasoning. I also have repeatedly offered to explain any scientific process they don't fully understand or would like to get clarified. Because yes, as I have 3 master degrees and 1 doctors degree on the subject, I consider myself to be an authority.

Guess how many responses I got? None, everybody is just shouting non-arguments. They don't know how the climate works and what is currently going wrong. And they're not interested in knowing. Knowledge is rapidly becoming something of the past.

And in case of the climate change debate, politics has taken over. Which is fine, as long as everybody has the basic fundamental facts straight. But that's not the case. Do you think Trump knows anything about the climate, or his personal advisors? I'm sure as hell not. He just made a political decision, disregarding all the state-of-the-art knowledge on the subject.

Regarding your remarks on nuclear energy: I fully agree with you that this would be one of the easiest and fastest solutions for climate change. Maybe if the US did invest in it in the previous century, there would be fewer wars in the Middle East, the technology would be more advanced and reliable, less oil spills and catastrophes, etc. But, the nucleair risks are very profound and we already had 2 major disasters in Ukraine and Japan.

I live in a West-European country with (outdated) nuclear plants from the seventies and we see that the company exploiting them is covering up multiple (minor) incidents and shortcomings. But the government still has to shut down the plants several times a year because it's not safe. And now, the government wants to distribute jodium pills to the entire population in case of a nuclear disaster. Not exactly reassuring isn't it. So nuclear is just too dangerous. If it goes wrong (and it always will because we are humans), a part of the planet becomes inhabitable for thousands of years. Not exactly a risk one should be willing to take.

The time is now to rapidly switch to a more green and sustainable economy. And the US, as the second biggest polluter in the world, and the world's biggest polluter per capita, should urgently take action.
[doublepost=1496495426][/doublepost]

Good point. I think it has always been this way. The difference now is that the upper class has figured out how dumb down the lower classes (through media and education) and to make the lower classes think they (the upper class) are doing what they do for altruistic reasons (the environment and the children). They aren't.

Historically, the upper class has always dumbed down the lower classes, by keeping them poor, uneducated and afraid. So they would work for them for low wages. That's how they became the upper class. The only way out of this is education. Old-skool millionaires, oil companies, the Trumps of this world, ... they all want to keep it that way. That's why they oppose climate regulations, or any regulations. That's why they want to dismantle the education system. And that's why they are so afraid of new technologies that empower people.

 

[Channan]

The agreement is fair to China, since it forces the US to pay more, since the US is the largest historical polluter.

You don't get to take advantage of pollution, and tell other people they can't pollute, without paying for it.

I was about to argue this so hard, but after reading a few more of your posts, I realized you were being facetious throughout this entire thread. You actually got a laugh out of me.

 

[oplix]

The globalists are sure in a panic over this one.

 

[Bonte]

Too weak for what?

As for Tesla charging station – it's of course difficult to in such short time compete with the amount of gas stations.
[doublepost=1496488614][/doublepost]

Did you see my post here?
#776

Massive overpopulation exists only because of coal, oil and gas.

Very true indeed, and the more we in the West step over to renewable energy, the more oil and gas that can be used for the next surge in population growth.

It's not as if Russia, US, Arabs or anybody will pump less oil, it will all be used.

 

[bighype]

Just RESIGN already, Timmy!!! You're killing Apple!

 

[brendu]

Which is not a reply to my question. Who is considered "worthy" and "sensible" enough to have nuclear weapons and who is not ? By what criteria ? And who judges that ? Any country developing nuclear weapons do not need to threat anyone. The threat goes without saying, on its own. Like US.

Well considering the US has had nukes for 70 years now and has not used them since the first time they were ever used, I'd say we've proven more than capable of being responsible with them. We haven't even used them while at war. Obviously they are horrible destructive weapons but they have also pretty much ensured the major world powers don't go to war with each other.

 

[SactoGuy18]

There's a reason why I oppose the Paris climate accord: it exempts China and India, two countries with some of the world's worst problems with pollution and over-population, from the accord until 2030.

Has anyone seen how bad the air and water quality is in China right now, especially their cities? The air is so bad in their cities that it approaches the worst of the infamous Great Smog of London of December 1952, an event that may have killed possibly as many as 12,000 Londoners. Indeed, it's bad enough that within 15-20 years, China will be essentially bankrupt trying to deal with several hundred million Chinese sickened by long-term exposure to this really bad air pollution. And Cook should know first hand, given the factories operated by Foxconn and Pegatron assembling Apple products in China.

 

[X38]

We'd have to attack climate change from all angles. Solar, Wind, Nuclear, life style changes, and transportation infrastructure changes.

Nope, just nuclear.
With wholesale conversion to nuclear power, all of the other impractical things you cited are completely unnecessary. Without nuclear power, they are just spitting in the wind.

While the Paris Accord did absolutely nothing to advance conversion to nuclear power, many of it's biggest proponents have created some of the greatest opposition to nuclear power (Merkel, etc.).

If your goal truthfully is realistic reduction of carbon emissions, you would be all-in on nuclear and care not one jot for the failed Paris Accord. We did just fine starting the conversion to nuclear power half a century ago without sacrificing any national sovereignty to deceptive schemes of international political intrigue by megalomaniacs. Until the ignorant luddites got in the way.

 

[goobot]

Weak ass cars. (Tesla, boo hoo. Not planning my roadtrips around charging stations, sorry)

Wouldn't getting good gas mileage prevent you from planing your vacation around gas stations?

 

[amegicfox]

for whoever has time you may want to watch William Happer a wonderful man:

 

[cube]

Weak ass cars. (Tesla, boo hoo. Not planning my roadtrips around charging stations, sorry)

You can get a hybrid if you do a lot of city driving, or at least a car with start-stop technology, better if it also has regenerative braking.

 

[antonis]

Well considering the US has had nukes for 70 years now and has not used them since the first time they were ever used, I'd say we've proven more than capable of being responsible with them. We haven't even used them while at war. Obviously they are horrible destructive weapons but they have also pretty much ensured the major world powers don't go to war with each other.

Which is also does not form an answer. First of all, believe me, this is not reassuring at all for anyone outside US. As I said, when you have nuclear weapons, you don't have to really use them. Their existence is a threat in its own. US act as the bullies of the planet for all these years and, to a big percent, because of owing nukes.

Who did they ask permission from, at first place ? Where was their responsibility when they used them in Japan ? How many wars have they waged during the last 70 years around the planet, directly or indirectly ?

Is there a time threshold after which a country that possesses nukes is responsible enough to have them ? Who takes that decision ? So, will it be OK if North Korea keeps their nukes for 70 years without using them ?

 

[MrX8503]

Nope, just nuclear.
With wholesale conversion to nuclear power, all of the other impractical things you cited are completely unnecessary. Without nuclear power, they are just spitting in the wind.

While the Paris Accord did absolutely nothing to advance conversion to nuclear power, many of it's biggest proponents have created some of the greatest opposition to nuclear power (Merkel, etc.).

If your goal truthfully is realistic reduction of carbon emissions, you would be all-in on nuclear and care not one jot for the failed Paris Accord. We did just fine starting the conversion to nuclear power half a century ago without sacrificing any national sovereignty to deceptive schemes of international political intrigue by megalomaniacs. Until the ignorant luddites got in the way.

I doubt nuclear would be able to keep up with human consumption especially with an ever growing population.

 

[You are the One]

This is more about to shifting power from nations to a global unelected elite.

The elite use their brainwashed minions to the work for them. Thus the imbecile arguments, like "do you want to live in a fall-out shelter" or "the majority of scientists are agreeing".

Scientists have become nothing more than another flavour of whores on the take, like the politicians the media and the rest of the establishment.

Follow the money. Who manages the guilt-money? For sure not the brain-dead liberals that scream their lungs out in support of the criminal mafia that run things in the world.

/kek (as in lol in wow) from you friendly neighbourhood shoe polisher.

 

[Nuvi]

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

Bankroll what? Paris Agreement? There is nothing to bankroll. It's about green house gas emissions and changing to more sustainable energy sources. In matter of fact money can be made with innovations and with change to more sustainable energy solutions. Trump just made sure US won't be a leader but a follower.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

There's a reason why I oppose the Paris climate accord: it exempts China and India, two countries with some of the world's worst problems with pollution and over-population, from the accord until 2030.

Has anyone seen how bad the air and water quality is in China right now, especially their cities? The air is so bad in their cities that it approaches the worst of the infamous Great Smog of London of December 1952, an event that may have killed possibly as many as 12,000 Londoners. Indeed, it's bad enough that within 15-20 years, China will be essentially bankrupt trying to deal with several hundred million Chinese sickened by long-term exposure to this really bad air pollution. And Cook should know first hand, given the factories operated by Foxconn and Pegatron assembling Apple products in China.

Have you actually been to China? I can assure you it's not as bad as western media makes out. That's not to say it's good, but it's far from catastrophic. You have to remember the rapid development China has gone through in the last 30 years, they've only just overtaken USA as the worlds largest polluter. The difference is they're effects are visible, and so the government is investing significant money into switching to green sources of energy.

One of the biggest problems is cars though, 30 years ago very few people had them, now everyone does. Cars pollute a lot, and so they are now encouraging public transport and cleaning up the best they can.

The USA on the other hand has a lot more money to spend, which is why they set their targets a lot higher than China. Maybe because they didn't want to get to that point before deciding to fix the problem? I don't know, do you seriously think every nation on the planet would agree to sign up for strict measures though? It took around 20 years just to get people to agree to the Paris accord, no one was exempted or forced to do anything, it was and is an important first step in solving the problem. The world will carry on without the USA though so no worries, but the world cannot understand why Trump wouldn't just change US commitments if he was so bothered by it. But I guess that relates to far deeper issues within the US than just businessmen trying to explain geo-political foundations to a nation. Sad!

 

[nt5672]

That's why they oppose climate regulations, or any regulations. That's why they want to dismantle the education system. And that's why they are so afraid of new technologies that empower people.

Here, here I disagree. There is no way they want to dismantle the eduction system, it turns out way too many uneducated indoctrinated sheep. They have corrupted the education system to ignore reason/logic/truth and just rely on emotion (which they easily control). How many people have they convinced to get worthless degrees and be enslaved to student loans.

All you have to do is look at the recent problems at Berkeley or my alma mater University of Missouri. No free speech, logic, tolerance, or truth exists at that these or most other campuses.

Most new technologies do not empower people, only the internet does and they are slowly getting a stranglehold on that thanks to the government, media, and big business convincing everyone of the sheep that the internet needs to be controlled and privacy eroded to protect the children and stop terrorism.