The problem is that we tax payers can no longer afford these pie in the sky polices that only benefit a few rich companies like Apple. I'll bet if you look real close, there are a bunch of kickbacks to Apple that are being repealed at the same time. This has nothing to do with protecting the environment, it never did. Tis all about money, money we Americans no longer have. If Cook wants cheap energy let him buy it, not use taxpayers money for a free or nearly free ride.
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
The problem is that we tax payers can no longer afford these pie in the sky polices that only benefit a few rich companies like Apple. I'll bet if you look real close, there are a bunch of kickbacks to Apple that are being repealed at the same time. This has nothing to do with protecting the environment, it never did. Tis all about money, money we Americans no longer have. If Cook wants cheap energy let him buy it, not use taxpayers money for a free or nearly free ride.
Or, you know, you could use the recyling program Apple has had in place for years, which helps them work toward a closed-loop supply chain.
https://www.apple.com/recycling/
[doublepost=1523046157][/doublepost]
Wars which his predecessor started. One of which was solely predicated on lies, resulted in the death of a million innocent civilians, cost trillions of dollars, and made Iran a regional powerhouse overnight. Don't try to rewrite history. Facts matter.
My "values"' may or may not align. My point is allocation of resources. Tired of a distracted Apple.
[doublepost=1523046278][/doublepost]
Good. Then why worry about the CPP?
There are legal and monetary penalties for not having car insurance as well, yet no conservatives harp about it. This is such a lame, tired argument which shows a total misunderstanding of basic math as it relates to underwriting, cost sharing, and risk exposure in the insurance market. Sure, insurance companies could not engage in spreading risk exposure across the population, but your individual health insurance rates would be astronomical.
This is bloody nonsense. Reducing the burning of fossil fuels has everything to do with the environment, and federal policy provides plenty of opportunities for ordinary taxpayers to benefit financially.
Last edited:
So you truly think that Apple's Office of Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives is the reason the Mac Mini hasn't been updated? And really, the Apple statement is about Apple's overall expenditure exposure as it relates to regulation. That's just a normal part of operating a corporation.
Looks like they'll have to switch to Google or Microsoft... Oh wait, most of their "political" stances agree with most of Apple's.
Probably the most stupid thing Trump has done and by God that’s saying something, I mean global warming doesn’t exist according to him, meanwhile I’m sure he’s had a lot of money, I mean lobbying ditected at him from the coal and gas and oil companies...
When will humans wake up to the fact things need to change? On a GLOBAL LEVEL! I am with Apple in this one.
In a couple of years or so you will be able to paint chemicals on your windows that will make them act like solar panels, wouldn’t it be nice if all buildings could use that? Oh but the **** storm from governments and coal and gas and oil companies will be ridiculous..
When will humans wake up to the fact things need to change? On a GLOBAL LEVEL! I am with Apple in this one.
In a couple of years or so you will be able to paint chemicals on your windows that will make them act like solar panels, wouldn’t it be nice if all buildings could use that? Oh but the **** storm from governments and coal and gas and oil companies will be ridiculous..
The greatest generator of high paying jobs, environmental regulations. Look at the car tail pipe. The amount of products, industries, cool technology, and jobs, fixing this one issue, amazing. The nay sayers when this started, the auto industry doomed. Results, millions of jobs created, auto industry doing very well, more cars being sold then ever, and we get to see the buildings on our way past. Another example, power generation. Sure coal jobs took a hit, but solar and wind now employing more then coal lost at good wages. Again we get to see the buildings on our way past. Environmental laws awesome job creators.
Last edited:
This is not correct. Coal and nuclear are becoming non-competitive because natural gas fired production is so much cheaper. It has nothing to do with renewal sources.
I am not certain, I think its because apple feeds back into the grid in a lot of places it generates power so that offsets the fossil fuels used to power other apple retail locations.
It’s pretty much ended up like that in several countries, humans have definitely gone backwards in ideology and progressing forward as a race, we still have nukes and those without are trying to make them, and then being told not to by the ones who already have them.. we all want a weapon that can annihilate the majority of life on this planet... yeah what great progression the human race has made.. let alone the poverty and death in third world countries...
Funny considering how utterly insignificant in the universe we are. We even have mad liberalists in education literally rewriting history and spreading their extreme views in pupils, oh and the rights of criminals are treated higher than those of victims.
It's 18% now, not 24%. See, the US share of total consumption is shrinking. Isn't that what people are screaming for?
This is 100% true. Gas is on the margin in every major US wholesale power market and cheaper than coal.
I don't understand your point. Trump has been all about regulation reduction. Doesn't that help everyone who's trying to change and, in this case, toward renewal source energy?
Even sadder state of affairs when an engineering company with enormous resources thinks that junk science supporting the CPP and underlying theory of AGW is true.
[doublepost=1523049550][/doublepost]
There's a huge flaw in your example: the word "believe". Science is not "belief", it is proof. Think about it. If you need this distinction to be more clear, I highly recommend Michael Crichton's address to Caltech from 2003 (that would the Michael Crichton of Jurassic Park fame, among other movies and novels):
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07...arming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/
[doublepost=1523049874][/doublepost]
Not really. I have a bunch of Apple gear, and I hope they continue to make good products. That's why I value them. Their political views? Sorry, but Apple's impact on politics in this country is pretty much nil. I couldn't care less.
I generally agree with your comment.
Keep in mind: the EPA was originally formed in the early 70's during the Nixon administration to address very valid environmental concerns, like when the Cuyahoga River/Lake Erie famously caught on fire due to pollution. There was a valid need for the EPA back then, but when a lot of the real environmental concerns that existed were addressed and taken care of, or at least showed evidence of being on the mend, EPA only continued to find more environmental issues to "solve". These "problems" (the ozone hole, AGW) were increasingly supported by a lot of junk science, which is supported when government agencies like EPA and others give grants to scientists who go out and produce "evidence" of the problem, which in turn is used to argue for more money and higher budgets for the agencies. It's one big self-licking ice cream cone.
[doublepost=1523050632][/doublepost]
Please see my reply above to the same post you replied to. The EPA outlived its usefulness a long time ago.
[doublepost=1523050832][/doublepost]
Absolutely spot on! Sad to see a lot of forum members posting their general pro-environmentalist comments that are severely ill-informed. Yours cuts through the BS and hits the nail on the head.
[doublepost=1523050993][/doublepost]
So what's your point? Your post only supports the original post you replied to, and undermines Apple's argument entirely. If "green energy" is truly economical, as you claim, then why should Apple care about what the CPP may or may not do to their energy investments?
It's very interesting how there's never any mention of the effects of over-population anymore, including mass migration from areas of the world that effectively just export people.
What's the environmental impact of man-made climate change and pollution by increasing the number of people so drastically? All those extra mouths to feed, people to transport, houses to heat/cool, garbage, waste, etc...
The reason for big penalties for those without car insurance (who get caught) is not in the same league than those without health insurance. I had a great health insurance plan until a few years ago. I dont care what conservatives or liberals harp or don’t harp about.
What I care about, not paying higher premiums and deductibles when those that refuse health coverage rack up six figure health bills. Their choice their expense, no excuses or ways out of paying the entire bill. Young are the worst, I am healthy so who needs the expense. They do, that stupid thing you did with the BASE jumping that broke half your bones. Keeping Healthcare managable, all need to be in the pool.
Sure, if that floats your environmentalist boat. What's that got to do with them opposing the CPP? If green energy works for them, why should they give a crap about whether or not the CPP gets repealed?
[doublepost=1523054124][/doublepost]
Wow. You have zero clue about this topic. There is no way that solar ever could, or will, power the US's energy needs based on today's technology. Please, go do some research.
1.......98% of scientists agree. I always have a healthy suspicion about general statements expressed in percentages. 98% of 100 scientists is 98. I imagine that there are at least 98 university scientists funded by EPA grants who are willing to "agree".
2.......18% of the world's energy consumption. Of course we consume more energy as a first world country. Is anyone proposing that we go back to living in log cabins; eliminating air conditioning; returning to the horse and buggy; or living like those in Africa, Afghanistan, or North Korea? The only way to reduce our percentage of use vs. the rest of the mostly undeveloped world is to force us back into a more undeveloped status. Personally, I like my smart home and Apple devices
3. Finally, if wind and solar saved consumers money, without taxpayer (you and me) subsidies, they would be more prevalent and would sell without the heavy promotion. We have personally looked at using solar power since we built our first home in the early 80's. As recently as 3 years ago, I got a bid for solar power for our house, which has a great south-facing rooftop. It was over $50,000; and even with utility credits, we would be $1700 short of breaking even on our utility bill savings over a 20 year period; and that is without the interest paid to finance the cost; and that is assuming that nothing goes wrong with the panels in that time. A good friend who is a retired engineer for AEP told us that solar panels are still not a reasonable option for the average consumer, even after all these years.
2.......18% of the world's energy consumption. Of course we consume more energy as a first world country. Is anyone proposing that we go back to living in log cabins; eliminating air conditioning; returning to the horse and buggy; or living like those in Africa, Afghanistan, or North Korea? The only way to reduce our percentage of use vs. the rest of the mostly undeveloped world is to force us back into a more undeveloped status. Personally, I like my smart home and Apple devices
3. Finally, if wind and solar saved consumers money, without taxpayer (you and me) subsidies, they would be more prevalent and would sell without the heavy promotion. We have personally looked at using solar power since we built our first home in the early 80's. As recently as 3 years ago, I got a bid for solar power for our house, which has a great south-facing rooftop. It was over $50,000; and even with utility credits, we would be $1700 short of breaking even on our utility bill savings over a 20 year period; and that is without the interest paid to finance the cost; and that is assuming that nothing goes wrong with the panels in that time. A good friend who is a retired engineer for AEP told us that solar panels are still not a reasonable option for the average consumer, even after all these years.
I wonder if your ideal approach to any problem is to fix it when it gets bad enough? Your point here seems to be hospitals are unnecessary if everyone in a community is healthy at the moment. Forget about health screening, dental cleaning, or vaccines. As long as the population isn’t seriously ill, any of those efforts is just inventing issues to solve.