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

[New_Mac_Smell]

I haven't, but my brother has many times in the last ten years. He told me in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, you NEVER get clear air days where you can clearly see the blue sky, and people regularly wear very thick face masks in order to protect their breathing as best they could. Indeed, during 75th Anniversary parade in Beijing of the founding of the People's Republic of China, they had to shut down all the coal-fired power plants in and near Beijing for a week just to get that clear air for the day of the parade.

That's why I felt the Paris climate accord should have included a provision that China must phase out most coal-fired power plants (or impose EPA-style emission controls on them) over the next ten years. The emissions from coal-fired power plants is so bad that it's affecting the air quality of the Korean Peninsula and Japan's home islands (especially during the spring when the Asian Dust dust storms carry all that pollution downwind, and you can easily see the pollution in Pyongyang, Seoul, most Japanese cities, and the pollution can travel as far as the US West Coast).

I live in Guangzhou, I can assure you the sky is blue and people are quite healthy. Beijing is another matter, but bear in mind you see the few days a year it is super bad. Also what you're saying is exactly why the accord was set up, pollution effects the world not just where it came from, and everyone agreed that this is a bad thing not just for the environment but for international cooperation.

In terms of having any provision in there, it would have been impossible to get every nation on earth to agree to it. That's why each country set their own targets, and most are beating it and driving further greener progress. That's why the accord is such an important first step in achieving that goal, it was never meant to be the end of.

Coal is a very bad source of energy, that's why everywhere on earth is closing that chapter and moving to green energy. Trump isn't going to bring back any coal jobs and the US will have to move to greener energy sources, which is why it doesn't make much sense to pull out.

Currently the accord is set up so if you can afford to move to expensive green energy, do. If you can't, the global fund that wealthier nations pay into will help the poorer nations to transition. As all the wealthy countries have already polluted and gone through that transition before, it's a bit rich to expect a poor nation to suddenly jump an energy step and be condemned for using the cheaper sources. Hence they can use money from this fund, and as the wealthier nations are generally more technologically advanced, they will be buying that technology from the nations that funded it. Making the setup rather net-neutral.

Basically the whole situation is just very confusing. Every nation on earth agreed to this, except for one man. Maybe if it was called the 'Trump Accord' he wouldn't be so hostile towards it, but he seems to not be able to understand the depths of things whilst doing a very poor job at explaining his motives. Like if it's the money that's an issue then just stop paying it, the US only pledged about 0.01% of their GDP into the fund so it was never a huge amount. That's like you giving a single cent to a homeless person.

Who knows at this point, trying to understand Trump logic requires access to an alternate reality that the rest of the world just doesn't have access to.

 

[robbyx]

I enumerated some reasons back there, and I think the trade/currency is a big one... What you're describing is like NATO, and a step towards the US is the EU. Both of those have problems with nations trying to do their own thing, and social issues don't matter there. NATO for example always has problems with certain nations not providing military support. And all these international organizations seem to be falling apart now. I'd say the US is looking really solid for such a big collection of country-sized states.

I can't disagree with your take. The EU does seem to be having its fair share of problems, although I think a lot of that has to do with their rapid expansion, not the core member countries.

The problem I have with the states' rights perspective is that it looks good on the surface, but once you dive deeper, you realize that we're far more entangled as a country than many wish to admit. Even if you could limit federal involvement to a few key areas, as you suggest, does that mean a state like Indiana can make it legal to discriminate in business based on religious grounds? Could a more regressive state, like Mississippi, decide to bring back separate drinking fountains for whites and non-whites? Could another state prohibit women from owning property? Could another ban divorce? And if not, why should states get to decide on transgender bathroom usage but not drinking fountains? Where do you draw the line?

The bigger question, though, is why should people in progressive, liberal, economically vibrant states like California subsidize these regressive ideas? If we're going to limit federal involvement to only a few key areas, then my left coast tax dollars shouldn't go to propping up states like Kentucky, Alabama, and much of the rest of the south that TAKES more from the federal government than it contributes. Those dollars should stay in California and make our state stronger.

In my opinion, states' rights proponents want it both ways. They want the freedom to discriminate under the guise of self determination while simultaneously taking from liberal states that are economically stronger. And let's call a spade a spade, shall we? These "social issues" boil down to religion. I've never heard an atheist or progressive believer care about what bathroom a trans person uses. The only people who care are hardcore fundamentalist believers who feel they have the right to foist their religious beliefs on others, only to cry "war on religion" when anyone pushes back.

 

[ibookg409]

I also worry for the kids. Big time. But I think your friend is naive. Overpopulation exists for two reasons: sky wizards whose believers know that it's easier to be fruitfull and multiply than to convert, and 2) modern medicine, namely antibiotics. I firmly believe that the next generation or two will have to endure a ridiculously filthy, overcrowded and resource constrained planet until technology advances far enough to offset our inability to stop multiplying like cancer cells. The Piscean Age is ending and the old ways and beliefs will not go down without a fight. We have another 50+ years before we're fully in Aquarius and the ride is going to be rough. Long term I have faith. Short term, not so much.

Convert to what? What does your first point mean?

 

[oldwatery]

Hey Tim. Either become a politician or get back to your real job of running Apple. You are a massive failure right now for anyone other than the shareholders. Pathetic.

 

[sudo1996]

The bigger question, though, is why should people in progressive, liberal, economically vibrant states like California subsidize these regressive ideas? If we're going to limit federal involvement to only a few key areas, then my left coast tax dollars shouldn't go to propping up states like Kentucky, Alabama, and much of the rest of the south that TAKES more from the federal government than it contributes. Those dollars should stay in California and make our state stronger.

In my opinion, states' rights proponents want it both ways. They want the freedom to discriminate under the guise of self determination while simultaneously taking from liberal states that are economically stronger. And let's call a spade a spade, shall we? These "social issues" boil down to religion. I've never heard an atheist or progressive believer care about what bathroom a trans person uses. The only people who care are hardcore fundamentalist believers who feel they have the right to foist their religious beliefs on others, only to cry "war on religion" when anyone pushes back.

Where I draw the line is the U.S. Constitution. States can't discriminate against businesses based on their religion because that's against the First Amendment. I think there are a few basic rules like those that all states need to follow, and we ought to have federal laws against discrimination based on irrelevant things like race. Or it should be a constitutional amendment since it's about as fundamental as freedom of expression. Things like bathroom and marriage laws are more debatable because, for example, a law dictating that you have to use the bathroom of your sex applies to everyone equally, regardless of gender, only people of certain genders disagree with it. Similarly, laws that some religions disagree with aren't discriminating based on religion.

I agree that that the state welfare is problematic. Even ignoring the social issues, I see no reason why wealthy states should have to pay any kind of welfare to other states. That's part of the reason I'm annoyed with Obamacare; I have to pay for some random person across the country, probably in those states with high obesity rates, probably in part based on how they set up their societies. I think the states should only pay federal taxes for things truly stay federal, like currency regulation and war. If you're bothered with how arbitrary that is, there can be a system for enacting federal laws like 3/4 nationwide popular vote or just popular vote by delegates, but that's already kind of in place because of the way the president is elected and how representatives cooperate.

 

[Doomtomb]

Coal miners are cheering everywhere

 

[robbyx]

Convert to what? What does your first point mean?

Easier to make followers for your religion than convert others to your religion. Pretty obvious.
[doublepost=1496618878][/doublepost]

Where I draw the line is the U.S. Constitution. States can't discriminate against businesses based on their religion because that's against the First Amendment. I think there are a few basic rules like those that all states need to follow, and we ought to have federal laws against discrimination based on irrelevant things like race. Or it should be a constitutional amendment since it's about as fundamental as freedom of expression. Things like bathroom and marriage laws are more debatable because, for example, a law dictating that you have to use the bathroom of your sex applies to everyone equally, regardless of gender, only people of certain genders disagree with it. Similarly, laws that some religions disagree with aren't discriminating based on religion.

You say race is "irrelevant", but not everyone agrees. And you say that only people of certain genders might disagree with the bathroom law. How is that different from only people of certain races disagreeing? You're making a value judgment. Race is "irrelevant" but gender is not. Someone who was born a man but strongly identifies as a woman would not dismiss gender so casually. Their gender identity is just as valid as someone's racial identity. I don't see the consistency in your argument.

I agree that that the state welfare is problematic. Even ignoring the social issues, I see no reason why wealthy states should have to pay any kind of welfare to other states. That's part of the reason I'm annoyed with Obamacare; I have to pay for some random person across the country, probably in those states with high obesity rates, probably in part based on how they set up their societies. I think the states should only pay federal taxes for things truly stay federal, like currency regulation and war. If you're bothered with how arbitrary that is, there can be a system for enacting federal laws like 3/4 nationwide popular vote or just popular vote by delegates, but that's already kind of in place because of the way the president is elected and how representatives cooperate.

Of course you realize that if wealthier (mostly blue) states stopped subsidizing all the dead weight (mostly red) states in this country, the whole country would collapse. I'm sorry, but I think your dream of a lean federal government is a pipe dream especially in today's world.

Furthermore, who says the US Constitution is the end-all, be-all? It was written centuries ago by a bunch of white dudes and is completely ignorant of modern realities. If we all believed that the original version of something is the best version, we'd still be driving Model Ts and using DOS. If anything, the Constitution could use an update. I personally believe every law should have an expiration date and the Constitution should require mandatory review at least every 100 years.

 

[ibookg409]

Easier to make followers for your religion than convert others to your religion. Pretty obvious.

I politely asked for clarification, you don't need to be nasty.

 

[robbyx]

I politely asked for clarification, you don't need to be nasty.

Sorry you took my comment as nasty. Wasn't intended to be. But I think it was pretty obvious what I meant. No personal offense intended.

 

[pdqgp]

Indeed, let Trump push just a little harder an US products will be banned in future. No inbound flights to Europe for Republicans

with all the attacks in London I'm good with not taking any vacations over there.

 

[ibookg409]

Indeed, let Trump push just a little harder an US products will be banned in future. No inbound flights to Europe for Republicans

Oh darn. But where will I go for top quality dental care and beautiful sunny weather?

 

[Rettun1]

To all the people saying "Brrr Tim Cook should focus on computers not the planet"

1) this is just him sending out a tweet, I'm sure it didn't take much of out his day
2) it's possible to multitask

 

[iceperson]

To all the people saying "Brrr Tim Cook should focus on computers not the planet"

1) this is just him sending out a tweet, I'm sure it didn't take much of out his day
2) it's possible to multitask

Exactly. He has plenty of time to spend hiding Apple's income from tax collectors...

 

[PaulRustad007]

I live in Guangzhou, I can assure you the sky is blue and people are quite healthy. Beijing is another matter, but bear in mind you see the few days a year it is super bad. Also what you're saying is exactly why the accord was set up, pollution effects the world not just where it came from, and everyone agreed that this is a bad thing not just for the environment but for international cooperation.

In terms of having any provision in there, it would have been impossible to get every nation on earth to agree to it. That's why each country set their own targets, and most are beating it and driving further greener progress. That's why the accord is such an important first step in achieving that goal, it was never meant to be the end of.

Coal is a very bad source of energy, that's why everywhere on earth is closing that chapter and moving to green energy. Trump isn't going to bring back any coal jobs and the US will have to move to greener energy sources, which is why it doesn't make much sense to pull out.

Currently the accord is set up so if you can afford to move to expensive green energy, do. If you can't, the global fund that wealthier nations pay into will help the poorer nations to transition. As all the wealthy countries have already polluted and gone through that transition before, it's a bit rich to expect a poor nation to suddenly jump an energy step and be condemned for using the cheaper sources. Hence they can use money from this fund, and as the wealthier nations are generally more technologically advanced, they will be buying that technology from the nations that funded it. Making the setup rather net-neutral.

Basically the whole situation is just very confusing. Every nation on earth agreed to this, except for one man. Maybe if it was called the 'Trump Accord' he wouldn't be so hostile towards it, but he seems to not be able to understand the depths of things whilst doing a very poor job at explaining his motives. Like if it's the money that's an issue then just stop paying it, the US only pledged about 0.01% of their GDP into the fund so it was never a huge amount. That's like you giving a single cent to a homeless person.

Who knows at this point, trying to understand Trump logic requires access to an alternate reality that the rest of the world just doesn't have access to.

It was 100 BILLION per year for our payment to that fund.......

 

[IHelpId10t5]

Great move by Trump. Now lets go after those epa nazis and their ridiculous demands for our automakers.

Please explain to those of us that are sane and educated how and when clean water, air, health, and food became a bad thing? I simply cannot comprehend the inability of insane right-wingers to understand that the EPA, FDA, OSHA, NOAA, etc. have tremendously important roles in keeping you and your entire family safe and healthy. You are seriously delusional if you believe that most of industry has the self control to do what is needed for the better good of the US and its individual citizens.

We are lucky that there are a few bright and highly influential people like Tim Cook that can make quite a difference in opinions of others even when we have a mentally defective president and congress.

 

[developer13245]

Please explain to those of us that are sane and educated how and when clean water, air, health, and food became a bad thing? I simply cannot comprehend the inability of insane right-wingers to understand that the EPA, FDA, OSHA, NOAA, etc. have tremendously important roles in keeping you and your entire family safe and healthy. You are seriously delusional if you believe that most of industry has the self control to do what is needed for the better good of the US and its individual citizens.

We are lucky that there are a few bright and highly influential people like Tim Cook that can make quite a difference in opinions of others even when we have a mentally defective president and congress.

We agree that a cleaner environment is best. International treaties need to bring other country's standards up to ours, not let them pollute to avoid clean manufacturing costs AND undercut prices that harm fair and proper global industries.

Everyone is drinking the flavor aid spun by the anti Trump media.

 

[bpeeps]

You don't need to be in the Paris Accord to do that. Congress and the senate can do that right now if they all pass it through both houses.

And you think the house would pass that? Let alone the senate...
[doublepost=1496650797][/doublepost]

Looks like democrat controlled Detroit TODAY

No it doesn't. Clearly you've never been to Detroit.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

It was 100 BILLION per year for our payment to that fund.......

Where have you got that information from? The global fund was $100b, but that's the fund that every nation was contributing to. The US had pledged $3b and paid $500m. So where did you hear the US was paying $100b each year?

 

[s2mikey]

I can't disagree with your take. The EU does seem to be having its fair share of problems, although I think a lot of that has to do with their rapid expansion, not the core member countries.

The problem I have with the states' rights perspective is that it looks good on the surface, but once you dive deeper, you realize that we're far more entangled as a country than many wish to admit. Even if you could limit federal involvement to a few key areas, as you suggest, does that mean a state like Indiana can make it legal to discriminate in business based on religious grounds? Could a more regressive state, like Mississippi, decide to bring back separate drinking fountains for whites and non-whites? Could another state prohibit women from owning property? Could another ban divorce? And if not, why should states get to decide on transgender bathroom usage but not drinking fountains? Where do you draw the line?

The bigger question, though, is why should people in progressive, liberal, economically vibrant states like California subsidize these regressive ideas? If we're going to limit federal involvement to only a few key areas, then my left coast tax dollars shouldn't go to propping up states like Kentucky, Alabama, and much of the rest of the south that TAKES more from the federal government than it contributes. Those dollars should stay in California and make our state stronger.

In my opinion, states' rights proponents want it both ways. They want the freedom to discriminate under the guise of self determination while simultaneously taking from liberal states that are economically stronger. And let's call a spade a spade, shall we? These "social issues" boil down to religion. I've never heard an atheist or progressive believer care about what bathroom a trans person uses. The only people who care are hardcore fundamentalist believers who feel they have the right to foist their religious beliefs on others, only to cry "war on religion" when anyone pushes back.

California? Economically "vibrant"? How so? Their pension obligations alone for overpaid state employees is out of control. Taxes are through the roof with no end in sight. productive people and businesses are findign ways to et the hell out of there. Just saying.

 

[star-affinity]

Sorry you took my comment as nasty. Wasn't intended to be. But I think it was pretty obvious what I meant. No personal offense intended.

Must say I'm on @ibookg409 side on this one. Wasn't clear to me either. Maybe if you had said "easier to multiply than to convert others". But English isn't my naitive tounge, so what do I know...
[doublepost=1496665890][/doublepost]

Aggressive driving.

It's not only the lack of charging station, but more the required loiter time. Until I can get 100% charge in tank fill time, I'm not willing to consider it. And if I drove a Tesla the way I drive, my charging stops would double (based on very quick calculation). I would keep that thing in ludicrous mode.

Okay, but maybe the need for ”aggressive driving” isn't something most people need? So they can move over to electric cars and you can wait until they have developed and is capable enough of what you wish.

 

[canadianreader]

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

I'm an atheist second I don't believe everything scientists say especially mainstream science lot of them paid by big corporations to say what they want them to say.

 

[BaldiMac]

I'm an atheist second I don't believe everything scientists say especially mainstream science lot of them paid by big corporations to say what they want them to say.

Except, in this case, the science is supported by academic, peer-reviewed research, as well as government studies. In both cases from across the world.

 

[You are the One]

Obviously Apple is going all in on the liberal globalist agenda. Climate change, change of principles of morality and ethics. Michelle Obama, in a fire side chat at a dev form. What's next?

It's really getting harder and harder to buy Apple's message about Privacy, it doesn't rhyme with their political position. Doesn't add up.

At least the new iMac Pro is going to be perfect for intelligence services that produce fake terrorist attack movies. Like fake beheadings and fake chemical attack productions.

 

[BaldiMac]

Obviously Apple is going all in on the liberal globalist agenda. Climate change, change of principles of morality and ethics. Michelle Obama, in a fire side chat at a dev form. What's next?

It's really getting harder and harder to buy Apple's message about Privacy, it doesn't rhyme with their political position. Doesn't add up.

It's so much easier to add things up when you keep pushing everyone into your stereotypes. If you don't think of people you disagree with as individuals, you can pretend that they are all brainwashed into saying the same thing.

Oh, the horrors of renewable energy, tolerance, morality and ethics!



(And accusing a multinational corporation of being globalist is like ridiculing a fish for liking water. )

 

[You are the One]

If you don't think of people you disagree with as individuals, you can pretend that they are all brainwashed into saying the same thing.

Oh, the horrors of renewable energy, tolerance, morality and ethics!



(And accusing a multinational corporation of being globalist is like ridiculing a fish for liking water. )

Baldi, I accuse them of lacking morality, ethics and integrity. I criticise the globalists for selling sewer for water. And if the public can't see the difference there must be reasons. I think you must have misunderstood me.