Uh, might want to check your logic on this one. How exactly do we "lose a planet" if there's no global warming?
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
Uh, might want to check your logic on this one. How exactly do we "lose a planet" if there's no global warming?
It is difficult to tell if this is mere "white-knighting" on Apple's part, or if they are serious.
Tim licks his lips as greater profits stroll in, despite the profits being obscene as they are... not that I have a problem with their profits.
Tim licks his lips as greater profits stroll in, despite the profits being obscene as they are... not that I have a problem with their profits.
Precisely.
You've fallen hook, line, and sinker for the Tobacco Strategy. If you're not sure what that is, do some research.
There is no scientific debate about the existence of man-made climate change. No more than there is debate about whether or not the Earth is flat. A gullible public + industrial/lobbyist money = "reasonable doubt." There is NO actual doubt. Zero.
Utterly false. And we give several more billions to subsidize green energy. That's straight from the EIA. Scroll down to Myth #2 and read through the end of the article:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/08/the-economist-fossil-fuel-subsidies-and-climate-disaster/
And since we're talking taxes, note that oil companies pay well more than the average S&P 500 company.
[doublepost=1523055331][/doublepost]
What kind of garbage are you believing? Because the US has some of the best environmental qualities, in terms of cleanliness, in the world. "Our environment is polluted"????? What kind of blind statement is that? And guess what, the CPP, which is what this article is about, has never taken effect. It's rules have never been put in place, thank goodness. It is grossly full of government overreach and red tape. Go get educated. And follow the money, not the green hype.
[doublepost=1523055728][/doublepost]
Please read the post right before yours. You have no clue what you're talking about. Follow the money, not the green hype.
[doublepost=1523056779][/doublepost]
Please explain: how was the invasion of Iraq, or Afghanistan (not sure which one you're referring too), illegal?
[doublepost=1523056948][/doublepost]
Good for Apple! please can all of the other big players do the same.
What is with trumps anti-Earth policy's ???
Spoken like a truly uneducated greenie that's following the herd. This is about money, not the environment.
[doublepost=1523057167][/doublepost]
Then let a free, undistorted market decide. If green energy is so competitive, then let it go unsubsidized.
Last edited:
The EPA you remember, which I assume was the one that existed under the prior administration, outlived its usefulness a long time ago. If anything, Pruitt is returning it to its rightful place. EPA has easily been the worst regulation creating office in the US government for some time. It was not that way when it was first created in the early 70's, when real environmental concerns existed and were solved fairly quickly. The EPA's been using junk science for decades to prop up false environmental stories (the ozone hole, AGW) to try and remain relevant.
[doublepost=1523058134][/doublepost]
Wrong. It's completely on point in regards to healthcare (but not really this article, but I digress). Your premise is false: car insurance is an invalid comparison to health insurance because driving is a privilege and not a right. No one is forced to buy car insurance; you buy it to legally operate a vehicle on the road. I shouldn't be forced to buy a good from anyone just for being a living citizen.
I agree and disagree. Natural gas is much cheaper than coal and nuclear, but even the gas industry is struggling. Renewable generation can operate in the red yet still compete with gas plants.
Oh, this is so rich! Ever heard of Paul R. Ehrlich????? Might want to read about his massively wrong predictions about population size before you go making your own.
So the fact that renewables get 75% of the tax incentives from congress has no bearing on this?
Uh, your reply doesn't make sense. Please explain how hospitals, health screenings, and so forth, has anything to do with what I said? Are you trying to say that pollution causes health problems?
[doublepost=1523058855][/doublepost]
This is for
npmacuser5:
If you're referring to tax credits that Apple won't get as a result of repealing the CPP, then yes, I agree. Which only goes to show that Apple is far more concerned about money than the environment. This is corporate green-washing.
The fact you quoted that site tells me all I need to know. In other words, ignore everything you say regarding climate. I imagine you also spend a lot of time over at Infowars. They are both about as accurate.
WOW!!! Sorry to break it to you bro:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/art...-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many
As long as you are willing to pay when stuff happens to you or your family, no problems. Just used it as an example.
Last edited:
The fact that you didn't actually read the article, which sites data directly from the US government, tells me that you'd rather argue against a straw man than against facts.
Tax incentives are powerful business tools. Like cities spending billions to attract a sports team. Is the sports team bad because they take the best deal? Sorry to burst your image, business is always about business first.
Fyi, that’s hardly an objective source. The Fraser Institute has received millions of dollars in donations from the Koch brothers and oil companies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute
Even liars tell the truth some of the time - doesn’t make them trustworthy. It’s irrelevant if they occasionally tell the truth or use actual data when their end goal is to deceive people about climate change. That’s the oldest trick in the book for conspiracy nuts. Sprinkle in just enough facts to sound credible to trick people into believing the BS that follows.
The other article you linked was by Ross McKitrick, another climate denier who uses similar tactics.
If these are your sources, then I stand by my original comment: nothing you say should be taken seriously regarding climate.
LOL Fraser Institute.
Did you see what I said about the Tobacco Strategy?
Do you know what the Fraser Institute is? It's a conservative thinktank founded by a logging baron. They specialize in creating media narratives for industry. It's the Tobacco Strategy in a nutshell. It is NOT a scientific foundation.
Let me state plainly: I could not care less what non-scientists, industry lobbyists, political pundits, or internet commenters have to say. There is ZERO scientific uncertainty that man-made climate change is real
Last edited:
No way! If Tim Cook was president, the world would be forced to run *Apple's way* only. Keep it limited.. and have options. Everyone would cave in overnight.
Was trying to make a juxtaposition to make it easier for you to understand the necessity of EPA. Pretty simple concept there. After fixing those serious issues, EPA’s mission at the moment would be the prevention of environmental devastation.
NO, I don't seem anything. Just common sense when Apple has many stores that are in large shared spaces like malls. It is very unlikely all these malls use 100% green power.
Well, you gotta wait until next week, when the new episode airs.
On a serious note, i don’t even remember, what point I wanted to make. It made sense in my head at first but then I realized, that he probably would have a too easy comeback to that, so I deleted it. Well, some of it....
It might be if he was also about reducing the favorable tax treatment for the extraction industries. Which of course he is not.
[doublepost=1523073861][/doublepost]
People have been talking about it for at least 250 years. That’s how long population based catastrophe has been right around the corner.
Because global warming is just one of the many ways our planet is already being compromised
Species extinctions, ocean acidification, habitat loss (and loss of biodiversity), nuclear waste that's slowly leaking into the Columbia River, smog in the developing world, synthetic hormones that don't break down and have now infiltrated almost every water source, etc. etc.