Apple Opposes Proposed Repeal of Clean Power Plan in United States

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

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.

You're a climate denialist and you're talking junk. I didn't spend thousands of Euros studying climate science only to be told by some random rightwing science denier how the planet works.

I highlight one of your lines in bold to make an example of what an ignorant person you are.

 

[Altis]

People have been talking about it for at least 250 years. That’s how long population based catastrophe has been right around the corner.

I'm not talking at all about "population based catastrophe"... simply pointing out that more people means more harm to the environment.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

The policy's elimination is said to remain a priority of the EPA's administrator Scott Pruitt.

Bannon had a point; the US needs to be destroyed to install an idealistic 17th centruy utopia in its place. And if you're going to go through the trouble of burning the place down, you might as well grab whatever you can on your way out. It's the American Way.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

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.

Which bit am I rewriting?

 

[hudson1]

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

The Fraser Institute are the only ones who have exposed this 97% thing. The fact remains there never was a real poll of climate scientists... only a subjective survey of papers written on the subject.

 

[unobtainium]

The Fraser Institute are the only ones who have exposed this 97% thing. The fact remains there never was a real poll of climate scientists... only a subjective survey of papers written on the subject.

“The fact is there never was a real poll of scientists on whether or not the Earth is flat.”

Again, this is the Tobacco Strategy of sewing just enough doubt in the minds of the public that they will ignore the scientific consensus. It worked for tobacco in the 1950s (when smoking rates actually rose despite conclusions that it caused cancer) and it’s working now for the fossil fuel industry. The Fraser Institute receives funding directly from Exxon. In reality, there is no doubt at all in the scientific community about the existence of man-made climate change. The only debate is whether there’s still any chance of capping it at 2C, or if we’re looking at an even warmer future. Any “controversy” you read about is cooked up by industry paying for their own studies, a la the “Tobacco Research Council” of the 1950s.

 

[TheRealTVGuy]

So how does EPA not requiring Apple to use wind & solar power prevent Apple from using wind & solar power if they want to? It's not like the EPA is proposing a rule change that says anyone is prevented from using wind & solar power. If Tim likes his windmills, Tim can keep his windmills.
Unless there is some implicit corporate welfare gift for using wind & solar power in the current EPA rule that Apple will loose if the rule changes?

I haven’t read the legislation, but I assume there are some tax incentives and other financial benefits included. I’m assuming THAT’S Apple’s primary interest, along with the environmental/worldwide benefits.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not talking at all about "population based catastrophe"... simply pointing out that more people means more harm to the environment.

That doesn't necessarily follow either. How people treat the environment is the main variable, not the numbers.

My point here is it's been fashionable to agonize about population growth one way or another since at least the time of Malthus. Perhaps we don't talk about it quite so much today, because we now we understand these issues more fully.

 

[JGRE]

Totally irrelevant what Apple thinks about this. This rule is applicable to power plants, not ivory tower companies like Apple. I very much doubt Apple really spends time understanding this rule or its impacts. And if they do, those resources should be spent thinking about Apple products or perhaps environmental rules that actually are relevant to them. This is very obviously an opportunistic statement by Timmy and company.

Total bunk and nonsensical language: "Repealing the Clean Power Plan will subject consumers like Apple and our large manufacturing partners to increased investment uncertainty," the California-based company said in a filing to the agency.Apple, which says it runs its U.S. operations fully on renewable energy such as wind and solar power, added that repeal of the plan would also threaten development and investments that have already been made in renewable power."

Anopportunistic statement by Timmy and company??? What about the nonsence Trump and his administration say?
[doublepost=1523125102][/doublepost]

Tim Cook for president! And then he could bring all of his Apple clowns with him to the cabinet. Couldn't be any worse than the past four or five administrations.

Those Apple clowns make more money than anybody else including Mr 'Chapter 11' Trump.

 

[Altis]

That doesn't necessarily follow either. How people treat the environment is the main variable, not the numbers.

My point here is it's been fashionable to agonize about population growth one way or another since at least the time of Malthus. Perhaps we don't talk about it quite so much today, because we now we understand these issues more fully.

No, people don't talk about it because it isn't politically correct.

If you have more people, you have more strain on the environment. It's really as simple as that.

Every family added to the country is another home to heat/cool/power, vehicles on the road, food/meat consumed, water/waste/garbage, etc.

 

[RedKite]

Sad state of affairs when the US government gives up trying to protect the environment such that a corporation feels the need to step in.

Too true! It’s a nice reminder that idiots are in charge of the country right now

 

[flyinmac]

Tim Cook for president! And then he could bring all of his Apple clowns with him to the cabinet. Couldn't be any worse than the past four or five administrations.

If Tim Cook was elected president, your post would have been outsourced to China.

Everything would be to the lowest bidder. If someone in another country would do it for less, then they would have them do it.

Pretty sure tax revenue would be held in offshore accounts too. Congress and Senate would probably be replaced by Foxconn staff. Though we could probably speak to them easier on a support line.

 

[Black Tiger]

I don't understand Apple's contention. The USA represents 4.4% of the world's population so what we do here in the States has very little impact from a global basis. More important, if renewable energy makes any economic sense (and it does in many cases) then investors will line up to make it happen and the government obviously isn't standing in the way. That's capitalism at work.

That 4.4% population vastly overuses the planet’s resources. North American consumerism is destroying the planet, and it is the responsible thing todo to try and fix this.
[doublepost=1523140135][/doublepost]

renewable energy may, currently, be more expensive than non-renewable but the idea is to start mass producing it to lower costs for the rest of us. Apple was/is leading the way. By removing these requirements tRump is making it harder to lower costs. Polluting the environment is not forward thinking. America doesn't lead the way into the future by living in the past. We don't create new industries by relying on old technology. These rules are in place for a reason - our environment is polluted and people's lives/health are affected by it. Our economy also benefits because we create the new technologies that power the next wave of economic growth. If we don't do it some other country will - do we really want that?

Fortunately the largest states in the US are simply bypassing everything Russia’s puppet comes up with. California, for example, has their own climate plan negotiated with other countries. All these policies do is force responsible states to take action independent of the federal government. And it’s a brilliant solution.

 

[madrag]

It still entertains me to no end that we as a people debate if we should protect the environment. WHO CARES about climate change.....even if it isn't real, why trash the place we live? Who are we to trash this place for future generations in the name of making things easy for us now or saving money now? I appreciate that Apple tries to push us forward in this area and I am glad a company with as much money as they have takes up the fight. Lets be honest, big business with money is the only force that can defend the planet. We can protest all we want, but it is companies like Apple that can help influence change. If we all voted with our money, now that might help.....

Bloody well said!
Your comment expresses in words exactly what I believe and think, thank you.

If it weren't for the money and greed this wouldn't happen and we would be heading to a cleaner environment. The USA's president hopefully will regret this one day, but surely too late (I doubt he has any regrets, he doesn't seem human or even normal).

 

[Flight Plan]

Wow, eight pages of drivel! And of course I won't be happy until I've added to it...

I think Apple's bloomers are showing here. If this really were about the environment and saving natural resources, wouldn't Apple just say they're going to forge the way ahead and continue to be a leader in ecological matters? I mean, why not? They've already got the most expensive smartphone and the most expensive tablet. If Apple's way is the best way and Apple is confident in its marketing plan, then why not shout proudly from the mountain tops "stay the course!", huh?

But no, Apple's concern is that OTHER COMPANIES can choose what's right for them, and that's bad because, why...it's different than Apple's way? If wind and solar power REALLY ARE economically doable for everybody, then why not just say, "we're doing more of it".

But instead, the message is, "you all must do what we do!", and Apple wants to FORCE smaller companies into a more expensive way of doing business. And force them into that fishy scheme called "Energy Credits". Scheme, or scam? You decide!

Sounds suspiciously as though Apple isn't interested in bettering the environment, but instead just wants to punish/bring down the little guy, or at least make him pay for suspicious money-trading schemes.

Apple needs to spend more time improving Siri, and they need to go back to making computers that people really want to buy.

 

[I7guy]

Wow, eight pages of drivel! And of course I won't be happy until I've added to it...

I think Apple's bloomers are showing here. If this really were about the environment and saving natural resources, wouldn't Apple just say they're going to forge the way ahead and continue to be a leader in ecological matters? I mean, why not? They've already got the most expensive smartphone and the most expensive tablet. If Apple's way is the best way and Apple is confident in its marketing plan, then why not shout proudly from the mountain tops "stay the course!", huh?

But no, Apple's concern is that OTHER COMPANIES can choose what's right for them, and that's bad because, why...it's different than Apple's way? If wind and solar power REALLY ARE economically doable for everybody, then why not just say, "we're doing more of it".

But instead, the message is, "you all must do what we do!", and Apple wants to FORCE smaller companies into a more expensive way of doing business. And force them into that fishy scheme called "Energy Credits". Scheme, or scam? You decide!

Sounds suspiciously as though Apple isn't interested in bettering the environment, but instead just wants to punish/bring down the little guy, or at least make him pay for suspicious money-trading schemes.

Apple needs to spend more time improving Siri, and they need to go back to making computers that people really want to buy.

My comment is, Apple is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If Apple doesnt have an active environmental plan they will get negative publicity even if the “little guy” is worse. And why should Apple be held to different standards?

And interestingly you don’t think Apple has the resources to simultaneously:

• Lobby for the environment
• Work on Siri
• Create emojis

All four people at Apple are multitasking on the same three items?

 

[2010mini]

No. US is not even in the top 10 of global petrol exporters, and US dollar is certainly not "petrol based".

Oil is traded in US dollars is it not? The price of oil directly affects the US dollar. Ever notice how the US reacts whenever any oil producing country threatens to trade oil in non US dollars?

 

[IJ Reilly]

No, people don't talk about it because it isn't politically correct.

If you have more people, you have more strain on the environment. It's really as simple as that.

Every family added to the country is another home to heat/cool/power, vehicles on the road, food/meat consumed, water/waste/garbage, etc.

No, it is hardly as simple as that. Political correctness is cliche that becomes more meaningless every day. The fact that it’s pretty much your entire argument speaks to the quality of your argument.

 

[Altis]

No, it is hardly as simple as that. Political correctness is cliche that becomes more meaningless every day. The fact that it’s pretty much your entire argument speaks to the quality of your argument.

It isn't my argument at all -- read the rest of my post, which you've ignored ENTIRELY.

Or are you being dishonest on purpose?

 

[rtomyj]

Uh, might want to check your logic on this one. How exactly do we "lose a planet" if there's no global warming?

Sorry mobile. If global warming is true and we don't do anything we are screwed.

 

[IJ Reilly]

It isn't my argument at all -- read the rest of my post, which you've ignored ENTIRELY.

Or are you being dishonest on purpose?

No, I addressed it, you simply disliked the answer. You are the one doing the ignoring, but pretty soon I am going to be do some of it myself if you persist in your argument by insult approach.

 

[Altis]

No, I addressed it, you simply disliked the answer. You are the one doing the ignoring, but pretty soon I am going to be do some of it myself if you persist in your argument by insult approach.

Where did you address my actual point, which is highlighted in what I had said:

If you have more people, you have more strain on the environment. It's really as simple as that.

Every family added to the country is another home to heat/cool/power, vehicles on the road, food/meat consumed, water/waste/garbage, etc.

Instead, you focused on the political correctness part which isn't my point at all. Calling out you falsely claiming that was my point isn't "argument by insult." As a reminder, this was your reply to my post, which didn't address my point at all, but was an attempt to discredit mine by focusing on the part that wasn't my point and pretending you defeated it (even though you hadn't even defeated the part about political correctness).

No, it is hardly as simple as that. Political correctness is cliche that becomes more meaningless every day. The fact that it’s pretty much your entire argument speaks to the quality of your argument.

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

I would love to understand how 96% of their retail facilities are using renewable energy. So many of these are located inside malls and other buildings owned by others with little to no way to get access to wind, solar, etc.

Not arguing... just would love to see how they do that.

If their stores' locality includes nearby solar or wind sources, then they can claim to be using renewables. Even if they can't track which electrons they're actually using. It's pretty much an accounting trick.
[doublepost=1523218899][/doublepost]

It still entertains me to no end that we as a people debate if we should protect the environment. WHO CARES about climate change.....even if it isn't real, why trash the place we live? Who are we to trash this place for future generations in the name of making things easy for us now or saving money now? I appreciate that Apple tries to push us forward in this area and I am glad a company with as much money as they have takes up the fight. Lets be honest, big business with money is the only force that can defend the planet. We can protest all we want, but it is companies like Apple that can help influence change. If we all voted with our money, now that might help.....

"Climate Change" and "Protecting the Environment" are not at all the same thing.

Pollution can be objectively measured, dealt with, and you can then objectively measure the change. See the difference between the air of Los Angeles in 1960 vs. today. Or the rehabilitation of the Charleston Bay. These are excellent examples of controlling pollution.

"Climate Change" is a psedo-religious mantra that's being pushed by financial institutions so that they can create obligatory financial instruments based on how much carbon you're supposedly using. So that you're forced to buy off your imagined guilt by handing over money to someone who supposedly uses less carbon, while the banksters take a cut. If ever enacted, it would serve no more real purpose than the indulgences that the Popes used to sell in the middle ages to wipe away your sins.

Remember the Deepwater Horizon spill? Here's a concrete, measurable pollution event that not only poisoned the Gulf of Mexico, but arguably diverted the Gulf Stream for at least 2-3 years afterwards (real climate change!). But did anyone get punished for it? Nope. Because cleaning up actual pollution is hard, expensive work, and it can't be easily monetized into a financial scheme that enriches the banksters. Better to spray the oil with even more poisonous substances so that it would sink out of sight.

Ditto with the disaster at Bayou Corne, where a huge salt dome that had been used as a below-ground methane tank ruptured and formed a sinkhole. Spilling an untold amount of Methane (a much, much worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide) into the air. But that didn't make the headlines for long, did it? Did anyone see jail-time for it? Did the company at least get fined into bankruptcy? Nope.

And what about Fukushima? Seven years on, and those three reactors are still open to the air. With their cores having melted who knows how far into the earth (literally, they can't be located). Billions of gallons of contaminated seawater has been dumped into the ocean. But where is the international effort to contain it properly with seawalls and a sealed dome? Why are TEPCO executives not doing jail time?

"Climate Change" is nothing but the political blanket of moral posturing that you throw over real pollution problems in order to hide them. They're also the magic words that any researcher who wants government funding has to parrot. In actuality, the earth's climate is constantly changing, and there's not a lot that we can do to stop say... the next ice age. Or a volcano eruption that's equal to 50 years of human CO2 production.

But we can clean up our towns and cities. We can go after polluters, and punish them. We can focus on the real and measurable problems around us. That would do more to make the world's environment livable than chanting a meaningless phrase like "Climate Change" over and over again like a medieval monk.

 

[orev]

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.

OK, you don't "seem" to be misunderstanding, at this point you are intentionally either misunderstanding or completely have no idea what you're talking about. You can still use green power even if you are in a mall, as long as you pay the power company the rates for green power. The power company then buys the equivalent power from a green supplier. It would be completely stupid to have to run separate wires for each "type" of power just for billing purposes.

 

[Sedulous]

OK, you don't "seem" to be misunderstanding, at this point you are intentionally either misunderstanding or completely have no idea what you're talking about. You can still use green power even if you are in a mall, as long as you pay the power company the rates for green power. The power company then buys the equivalent power from a green supplier. It would be completely stupid to have to run separate wires for each "type" of power just for billing purposes.

Malls are likely to buy the cheapest power they can. It is unlikely “green” energy would be always the least expensive. I know that in the state where I live, the vast majority of power is derived from natural gas and nuclear sources. I know this because my cousin writes energy policy for the state. The point was that Apple probably only includes energy sourcing data for property that Apple owns... this isn’t an outrageous idea.