Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Let's find out if Apple and Tesla are getting government subsidies to reduce their carbon footprint. If they do, why should they? If they don't, why do they care if Trump is withdrawing from the Treaty? They can continue doing what they are doing to reduce their carbon footprint whether the US is in the Treaty or outside the Treaty.

Obviously, you're ignorant of what will happen if we don't take vigorous action. I don't think Apple get subsidies. But they get enormous savings through efficiencies. Siri, iCloud, cost much less because they are mostly powered by the sun. The entire of Apple Park is fueled by renewable energies. It cost some money to install panels, etc., but the yearly maintenance is near zero. Yes, you can take away the $7,500 tax credit from electric car buyers. But it's stupid. Because of that tax credit, we've seen a lot of cars with increasingly better (clean) engines that are fun to drive, fast, and cheaper to run in the past years. The price of the cars has fallen. Now Chevy has a plug-in electric, and others are coming on the market. Sooner or later, that subsidy will be withdrawn. I'd like you to explain to me how Silicon Valley came into being: it was through government grants and subsidies, many through the Defense Department -- heard of the Internet? -- that were then applied to civilian use. Government regulations and tax rules helped too. Otherwise, all they'd have in Cupertino would be apple trees, not Apple Inc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redbeard331
Do a little research on the Vostok Ice Core Samples. CO2 tends to follow a warming, not the other way around. Temps go up, plant life increases, plants produce CO2.
I'm not sure where you heard that plants produce carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, but that's objectively wrong.

There's no physical reason why warmer temperatures would increase carbon dioxide more than negligibly. There's a lot of physical reason why increased carbon dioxide would result in non-negligibly warmer temperatures. We've seen it happen and continue to.
 
You know what I love about the mighty powerful and there Green initiatives to save the planet? The bulk (not all) are above this initiative themselves. They've created a multi billion dollar industry launched from the biggest hypocrite of all of them, Al Gore. After he was done inventing the internet, he invented global warming after the global cooling that was going to take us all into the ice age didn't hold traction back in the 70's.

Al Gore's book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm

We went through the coldest winter in history 2 years ago, it was global warming. We went through a mild winter this year.....that's also global warming. It's a day before June it is 65 degrees in NJ and yesterday it was in the 50's....yep, somehow we can equate this to Global Warming too.

A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm

I know, you'll all shake your heads and think about how ignorant I am, as I read more about those emails the scientists that supported Gore's research passed around emails manipulating temperature data to hype global warming even further.

A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
 
  • Like
Reactions: ErikGrim
I'm not sure where you heard that plants produce carbon dioxide, but that's objectively wrong.

There's no physical reason why warmer temperatures would increase carbon dioxide more than negligibly. There's a lot of physical reason why increased carbon dioxide would result in non-negligibly warmer temperatures. We've seen it happen and continue to.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=826

UC Santa Barbara disagree with you. You should give them a call and set them straight for the good of the environment.
 
Its ok to reduce whatever for the planet but we dont need the governments of the world demanding it and forcing people or companies by fines or stupid regulations. Its a big money grab .
 
Having just come from an extended stay in the Appalachian Mountains in Pennsylvania, in the middle of "coal country," I must say there is nothing anyone can do to save those towns. They are either dying or already abandoned, relics of a bygone era. Windows on storefronts and homes are shattered, and what few residents remain along Pennsylvania State Highway 61 through "Coal Township" basically spend their days on their porches, watching the cars go buy. Otherwise, there is no life in Shamokin (unless of course you happen to work at the nearby Correctional Institution).
On a positive note, the skies were very clear and blue the entire time I was there. Why bring back a dying industry when there is no future demand for it? Leave the mountains alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redbeard331
Do a little research on the Vostok Ice Core Samples. CO2 increases tend to follow a warming, not the other way around. Temps go up, plant life increases, plants produce CO2.
They aren't gonna admit any of your points that don't agree with their views.

Let's hope the MODS shut down this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TechGeek76
This is an unquestionably good thing for Cook to do. The reality of climate change will affect us all.

Apple is more than the products they build-- they're a model for how organizations should function. It's not just about the bottom line... it's how they're contributing to humanity and the world at large. But the fact is that having that vision will attract people to your products, and contribute to your bottom line because they stand behind your philosophy.

We need to think about how we solve problems as a collective, and not just for ourselves.
Afraid you used the word that triggers the Trumpsters: "collective." There are no "groups," you know? There's just brave, lone individuals, who see the truth based on their unique individual insights, which they all just happen to agree with to the syllable. In the same way that they think they can understand what insurance is without considering that covering everybody is the way you make premiums (or taxes, if it's single-payer), SMALLER, not larger. I'm sure they all believe that, if their theories of global warming are real, all it will mean is that they, who will be the wealthy "winners," will just have to turn up the air conditioning in their fabulous mansions, and in the hot luxury sedans. And the superior individuals will survive in the bubble that they construct on the principles of Fox News.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redbeard331
Having just come from an extended stay in the Appalachian Mountains in Pennsylvania, in the middle of "coal country," I must say there is nothing anyone can do to save those towns. They are either dying or already abandoned, relics of a bygone era. Windows on storefronts and homes are shattered, and what few residents remain along Pennsylvania State Highway 61 through "Coal Township" basically spend their days on their porches, watching the cars go buy. Otherwise, there is no life in Shamokin (unless of course you happen to work at the nearby Correctional Institution).

That area is unique and yes it is desolate but I think it has more to do with the coal fire (why PA61 takes some odd turns) in the area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire than economic times. Nearby Sunbury and Selinsgrove are expanding.
 
Yeah let's trust a site that promotes the man made global warming agenda. Real unbiased source. Again, Mother Nature has built in feedback loops. Plants and CO2 are that such loop. Wasn't too long ago that scientists were trying to figure out the balance of algae (a plant) to combat the rise of CO2 levels...

What would be a good source for this topic according to you? A site or individual that has an agenda of rejecting man made global warming, I guess?
 
  • Like
Reactions: redbeard331
Actually both would be poor sources as both have an agenda to push....

Seems difficult to find a valid source then? I mean we can always claim that the source has an agenda if we don't like what it claims, because "there's an agenda behind it".

Opinion is fact? :-/

Got to sleep – it's late here...
Be kind to each other while I'm away, okay? ;)
 
I really wish I hadn't read through this thread. Some of the opinions expressed here make me despair for humanity's future. People are so greedy, so self-absorbed, so obsessed with a few more zeros on the end of their bank balance, they can happily damn the rest of it.

Whether or not you think global warming is a myth – and boy, there really are some of you out there – I simply can't understand the aversion to leaving the world better than you found it. I'm genuinely unable to wrap my head around why there's so much opposition to renewable energy and these sorts of pacts.
 
If you follow the money - you will realize there is a carbon credits exchange and it means big money to those running it - including the UN.

Mostly this is just a way to fleece you - wake up.

P.S. I've been alive a long time - the climate is about the same, maybe a bit cooler actually.
 
Yeah let's trust a site that promotes the man made global warming agenda. Real unbiased source. Again, Mother Nature has built in feedback loops. Plants and CO2 are that such loop. Wasn't too long ago that scientists were trying to figure out the balance of algae (a plant) to combat the rise of CO2 levels...

1. Mother Nature has positive AND negative feedback loops. For instance, if artic ice melts, more heat from the sun is absorbed by the ocean, which accelerates the warming of the ocean. Ice would have reflected that heat back into space.

2. Why do we need to rely on Mother Nature to clean up after us? Following your logic we shouldn't filter sewage water or clean the smoke coming from our factories.

3. There are many buffers regarding the climate that have dampened the rise of temperature in the last decades. These buffers are getting full, and when this happens (not IF, but WHEN), the true consequences of climate change will be visible. One of these buffers are the oceans. And yes: algae and plants consume CO2 and take it out of the atmosphere, but the rate at which we put it back into the atmosphere is unprecedented. And totally unnecessary.

disclosure: I'm a climate scientist, working at a European university. I don't have any financial gain in claiming climate change is real. If it is or isn't, I won't be out of a job as many think.

If you have a scientific question about climate and climate change, I'm happy to answer them.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.