Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Opposes Proposed Repeal of Clean Power Plan in United States
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can confidently say that many utilities are struggling. First Energy just declared bankruptcy and plans to close 3 nuclear plants in the next couple years. Westinghouse Electric, while not a utility, filed for bankruptcy last year as well, due to the move away from nuclear energy. Coal mines are going bankrupt as well. Fossil plants just can't compete with renewable energy prices because of the swing is subsidies.
Here’s my problem. As someone who doesn’t have a lot of money, would this repeal make energy cheaper? I really wish renewable energy was cheap. I’d love to have clean everything, but it’s just too costly for the majority of consumers. Even things like solar panels on roofs, despite paying for themselves eventually, most people don’t have the upfront cost to spare.
That misses the point in a few respects, though....
Ask yourself why Apple is so concerned about this policy being repealed. It has NOTHING to do with Apple caring about the environment. It's all about concerns that their plan to invest in all the solar panels to power their buildings might not make economic sense anymore, if they can't get a govt. mandated payout for using them.
This has been an issue with solar panel investments even at the residential level, but obviously far more significant when you scale it up to the levels businesses purchase for commercial use.
There are various "schemes" out there at Federal, State or even local levels. Look into solar SRECs if you need an explanation of one of them that happens on a state by state basis. Basically, they're telling power companies that if they don't generate a certain percentage of all the electricity they produce using "Green" methods, they can still "meet that mandated percentage" by purchasing SRECs to offset the penalties. Realistically, no power company would want to try to actually meet these demands by investing in "clean energy" methods of production. Like ANY smart business, they're going to try to get their money's worth out of their substantial existing investments, AND they're already going to use those "Green" options any time it makes good financial sense to switch to them. The sun doesn't shine at night though, and you only have so many places suitable for hydroelectric power. Wind farms are only profitable in some strategic places too. So SRECs really just amount to a tax, forcing them to subsidize other people's solar installations (since often, they don't add up to making good financial sense to buy otherwise).
What I'm saying is, Apple would have just spent the money to go all solar from the get-go, without a care what government policies do to power companies, IF it just wanted to be proud to use clean energy. They make billions in profits so can easily afford those losses, in the name of marketing and goodwill.
Ask yourself why Apple is so concerned about this policy being repealed. It has NOTHING to do with Apple caring about the environment. It's all about concerns that their plan to invest in all the solar panels to power their buildings might not make economic sense anymore, if they can't get a govt. mandated payout for using them.
This has been an issue with solar panel investments even at the residential level, but obviously far more significant when you scale it up to the levels businesses purchase for commercial use.
There are various "schemes" out there at Federal, State or even local levels. Look into solar SRECs if you need an explanation of one of them that happens on a state by state basis. Basically, they're telling power companies that if they don't generate a certain percentage of all the electricity they produce using "Green" methods, they can still "meet that mandated percentage" by purchasing SRECs to offset the penalties. Realistically, no power company would want to try to actually meet these demands by investing in "clean energy" methods of production. Like ANY smart business, they're going to try to get their money's worth out of their substantial existing investments, AND they're already going to use those "Green" options any time it makes good financial sense to switch to them. The sun doesn't shine at night though, and you only have so many places suitable for hydroelectric power. Wind farms are only profitable in some strategic places too. So SRECs really just amount to a tax, forcing them to subsidize other people's solar installations (since often, they don't add up to making good financial sense to buy otherwise).
What I'm saying is, Apple would have just spent the money to go all solar from the get-go, without a care what government policies do to power companies, IF it just wanted to be proud to use clean energy. They make billions in profits so can easily afford those losses, in the name of marketing and goodwill.
He was also the only US President ever where every single day that he was in office America was at war:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/...estled-with-protecting-nation-and-troops.html
https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...roken-war-obama-hands-over-conflicts-to-trump
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-obama-at-war/
Nice fella.
It doesn't make renewable energy any cheaper by repealing measures to reduce green house gas emissions. Mandating that corporations deal with negative externalities of production is one way to boost innovation, and actively seek out new efficiencies and resources.
Centuries from now, if mankind survives, we will be known as the most selfish generations to ever stand upon the face of Earth.
And how many of those quagmires did he have handed to him by his predecessor?
Context is key.
On a side note I also find it funny when people like Apple, Facebook, Twitter, google, etc. talk about climate change and all that jazz while flying around in private jets
They are going for more renewable energy, and maybe their plans were based on the assumption that, due to the CPP, it would be more readily-available. If the CPP is withdrawn, it may become more difficult for them to reach their targets, in other words.
It's a very tangential point, but it seems more like a general call-to-action. More companies will likely do the same.
Actually no.
Only congress can declare war. Imperialism, overthrowing governments, and trying to police countries that don’t want us there, sure. But no war.
And he couldn't do anything about the situation in 8 years? Every other President enjoyed some period of piece; he handed "those quagmires" over to Trump.And how many of those quagmires did he have handed to him by his predecessor?
[doublepost=1523038005][/doublepost]
Reminds me of America, Harry Truman was President, referring to the Korean war of the fifties as "a police action" but definitely not a war oh no way sir Bob.
Not arguing against you but how would it not? Electric plants are subject to government oversight. Here in California PG&E has to go through the state before it can change almost anything. Even the amount of profit they can take.
For the sake of argument say they were able to produce cheaper energy, I don’t think the state would let them just take a bigger profit.
It's funny how men are "evil" for focusing primarily on gaining wealth .... yet many of those same men are praised as soon as they spend some of that wealth on some initiative that benefits many others, like a charitable foundation or donation to construct a new library, or they invest heavily in some medical research to cure a disease.
For a competitive free market to function properly, the "for profit" businesses competing with each other NEED to focus on maximizing their profit margins. I don't see anything wrong with that.
What you're talking about is also completely valid ... but the problem is that pollution is an "externality". Nobody really owns the atmosphere or the ocean as a whole. These shared resources need to be there for the benefit of everyone on the planet. Sometimes, that might even include polluting them a bit, if it results in a product that's a net benefit to society.
Right now, we do tend to be "reactive" about dealing with that. Everyone ignores pollution issues until they get bad enough to affect enough people negatively. Then they scream about it and try to "make somebody pay" for the damage.
Maybe someday, we'll come up with a universally agreed upon way to be more proactive.... calculating a true cost of whatever pollution a business does and adding that as an expense they pay to cover, so it's properly added into the cost of the end product? It just seems like that's going to be REALLY difficult to do in a fair way that everyone will agree on.
For a competitive free market to function properly, the "for profit" businesses competing with each other NEED to focus on maximizing their profit margins. I don't see anything wrong with that.
What you're talking about is also completely valid ... but the problem is that pollution is an "externality". Nobody really owns the atmosphere or the ocean as a whole. These shared resources need to be there for the benefit of everyone on the planet. Sometimes, that might even include polluting them a bit, if it results in a product that's a net benefit to society.
Right now, we do tend to be "reactive" about dealing with that. Everyone ignores pollution issues until they get bad enough to affect enough people negatively. Then they scream about it and try to "make somebody pay" for the damage.
Maybe someday, we'll come up with a universally agreed upon way to be more proactive.... calculating a true cost of whatever pollution a business does and adding that as an expense they pay to cover, so it's properly added into the cost of the end product? It just seems like that's going to be REALLY difficult to do in a fair way that everyone will agree on.
No it wasn’t a war. It was an illegal invasion of a foreign country. Which I’d argue is way worse.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not for any of this. The US should stay out of everyone’s business but to call it war is technically untrue.
Oh thanks for bringing up the fact that the US has 4.4% of the world's population but consumes 24% of world's energy. Now tell me about "little impact from a global basis".
Without government regulations and incentives/disincentives, do you think the power plants want to make themselves cleaner, or more profitable? That's capitalism at work.
China is pushing for renewable in a big way, with that incentive Chinese companies will invest and develop better renewable systems, meanwhile without the incentive in the US, US companies won't bother developing and will fall further and further behind and will lose out against competition from China
It’s a sad state of affairs when the government taxes you for not having health insurance.
That’s great. Now let’s make sure we are allocating sufficient funds to retrain displaced workers and continue the push toward sustainability.
It's OK. we'll just impose tariffs on Chinese equipment for renewable energy. It's all part of a master plan.
I never once said there is anything wrong with being wealthy. But it is inherently evil to become wealthy at the expense of other's health and well-being. Believe it or not, there are ways to become wealthy that are ethical. It just takes more work, research and planning—which most people aren't willing to put in. In the future, should mankind survive, we will be known as the most selfish generations. The problem is we tipped things too far in a bad direction before realizing what was happening. I understand that sometimes you need to make sure you don't turn the ship so hard to right it that it flips over in the other direction, but 32% over 25 whole freaking quarter of a century years is not excessive.
Clearly represents the interests conflict between the giant capitals and the regular civilians (plus those groups whose interests are nearer to regular civilians).