Apple Resigns from U.S. Chamber of Commerce over Climate Change Stance

[mafwoj]

I wouldn't blame anyone for taking their business to a shop that's more closely aligned with their views on these topics. You just might want to be aware before you pull the trigger on those Windows-box purchases that MS also has a history of weighing in on social issues, including gay rights.

Although I'm not sure climate change qualifies as a social issue.

Although it looks more like a religious issue every day*
(*only Half joking)

Monetary-wise this decision is probably neutral to beneficial
(depending on USCOC membership dues)
Politically it's Statist
Which I find disappointing and short-sighted
One would think that the "green"* Progressives* @Apple would be happy enough with the USCOC's acceptance of the AGW/"Climate Change" line

(* I call them watermelons, think about it)

 

[tetravus]

This move actually makes sense

For those who criticize this move as a gimmick; you forget that there are tangible benefits from cleaner and more efficient products.

1st, you see the benefits in a lower electricity bill. Lower energy consumption IS a tangible benefit

2nd, encouraging recyling not only reduces waste; it also reduces the cost of raw materials that go into products. This means that if all manufacturer's products are highly recyclable, the net production cost of new product is lower. This translates into price reductions, maybe not for Apple products, but in general. So there's another cost benefit for you

3rd, environment friendly materials and solutions require research, new infrastructure and new technical knowhow which translates into new systems, new manufacturing lines, and new employment opportunities. These will create a new ecosystem that benefits the economy.

4th, reduction of hazardous chemicals usage will lower the incidence of pollution related illnesses, including cancer. This in turn results in healthier people and less money spent on health care for pollution related diseases.

5th, Reduction of reliance on fossil fuels and focusing on renewable energy will improve air quality. Reduction of hazardous chemicals will improve water quality. Establishing forested areas provide a good recreational environment and conserve timber resources for future generations. Cleaner air, cleaner water, more places where you can relax and commune with nature improves your overall quality of life.


Regardless of whether you believe in climate change or not; you can't argue that the steps being taken to clean up the planet are not producing tangible benefits for all of us to enjoy. Even if the premise is "debatable" the benefits are real; and I applaud Apple for taking these steps which I hope we all realize, will end up benefiting everyone.

 

[NiteWaves77]

For those who criticize this move as a gimmick; you forget that there are tangible benefits from cleaner and more efficient products.

You just engaged in classic fallacious reasoning. (Anyone remember the actual name for this?)

 

[carfac]

Good for Apple. I bet they had a big board meeting to discuss their position, and all the board members flew in on their jets to vote to take this eco-friendly position. I wonder if any board members bothered to car pool from San Jose International over to Sunnyvale, or to dinner after?

My point is that I think it is rather silly for a corp to take a position that maybe even it's board members approve of, but don't back up in their life styles. As a few other posters here have pointed out, Apple does plenty- and that is good, because they DO, not just SAY. This move, however laudable it's intentions may be, just reeks of "Me, too" speech with no actions behind it. It is good in as far as it went, but how far did it really go?

 

[macus3r]

as much as I applaud and salute this stance that Apple has taken, I can't stay this was an entirely honest move on the company's part.

Most companies today attempting to add lofty status symbols such as the gold star ratings to their profile are doing so at a very hefty cost. I would venture to say that Apple is leveraging the EPA's regulating power to ensure other companies step forward and begin a transformational, almost "green" compliance movement. A Sarbanes-Oxley for "Green" or "Greening," if you will.

The point obviously is to ensure that the company's competition joins them and levels off the general cost of operating the business "green"

Side effect? Great PR

 

[carfac]

The Chamber and all its state and local conclaves are just a bunch of rich people who oppose anything that might prevent them from becoming richer people.

You say that like you think it is a bad thing. I see nothing wrong with actively opposing things that could potentially cost you money. Do you spend a lot of time trying to get poorer, or is it only rich people you think should not be allowed to try and extend their savings?

That doesn't mean that they're wrong on every issue... only the ones where there are two opposing sides, one of which is more moral than the other.

This makes so little sense on so many levels, but I will take a whack at it anyway. First, who defines absolute morals in your universe? And from there, are you espousing that morals should always trump any other factor in making any decision?

 

[DisMyMac]

Big companies love establishing regulatory standards with government, in order to raise the barriers of entry into the marketplace for small companies. That leaves them already in compliance with the law, and small companies struggling or unable to comply whatsoever.

Apple just wants to lock out competition from anyone that's even slightly behind their own "green" standards.

 

[MacbookSwitcher]

I'm a huge Apple fan and always will be.

..but there has to be an ulterior motive to this story. Perhaps some tax regulation or other dispute, and Apple is using the environmental angle as the official reason to get out of the Chamber of Commerce, while in the background there is something else?


"Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists." - Michael Crichton

 

[X38]

Foolish, pointless, and misguided. Apple should stick to being a consumer electronics company and skip being a political advocacy group.

 

[MacDSmith2]

Think about it for a moment... Chamber of COMMERCE. What is the function of such a group. Promote COMMERCE; i.e. promote business activity. Environmental regulations cost money and inhibit business activity, hence, a Chamber of Commerce would naturally oppose regulation that will cost business money and decrease trade. Now why did Apple get it's back up over this? I think publicity, Al Gore, and perhaps Jobs brush with death has made him a little more thoughtful about what to do with Apple during the rest of his possibly short time left on earth. Not a bad thing to get some wisdom in your old age.

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

Fortunately, Apple's politics aren't my politics.
Hopefully, Apple's products remain my products.

I pray this stance brings about less expensive hardware.

 

[jlanuez]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7C144 Safari/528.16)

Good. I have no idea about the climate change stuff but I do know that I like to live in a clean environment. I'd like to be able to breath clean air, eat healthy non-toxic food and drink clean water.

Classic! This says it all -lol.

 

[nickarmadillo]

Perhaps if Apple spent as much time working on their products as they did making political statements, they would have a competitive line of computers out right now.

Personally, Apple's behavior is really turning me, a life-long Mac user, off on the company as a whole.

 

[Earendil]

Could it be that after his health issues and recent transplant Steve has found that there are more important things than making his 9th billion dollars. This could be real.

I've never gotten the impression that Steve does what he does for the money. The money might be a huge incentive, and he may not do it for free, however I have the funny feeling that he could make just as much and do a lot less, and he doesn't.

 

[munkees]

just BS on Apples part, They do most manufacturing in a country with no green standards (china), just like Nike, it to appear green backing, when in reality they no greener than before. even in the Chamber of commerce was to go away, it make no difference on the so called BS green gas used to manufacture Apple computers in China. In my books, if apple want me to see them green, which they are doing on better materials etc, then they would manufacture, 100% to green standards, instead of hiding it in China.

 

[Aron Peterson]

just BS on Apples part, They do most manufacturing in a country with no green standards (china), just like Nike, it to appear green backing, when in reality they no greener than before. even in the Chamber of commerce was to go away, it make no difference on the so called BS green gas used to manufacture Apple computers in China. In my books, if apple want me to see them green, which they are doing on better materials etc, then they would manufacture, 100% to green standards, instead of hiding it in China.

Please stop calling efficent technology 'green'. All technology takes humans on a course towards liberated post-humanism, not back to the jungle beating on bongo drums and smoking weed while some authoritarian nut regulates your life. The Green movement has nothing to do with technological advancement otherwise we'd see them actually producing the tech.

It's typical for authoritarian activists to hijack mere words in order to further their agendas. They hijacked the words community, society, liberal, progressive and then green. If they were brave they should tell it like it is instead of draping themselves in conceited hyper-morality.

green-spirit.com, wattsupwiththat.com, climateaudit.com

 

[edesignuk]

Climate issues and personal positions on global warming aside....this is nothing more than perceived good PR on Apple's part.

 

[fifthworld]

I commend Apple for it's commitment to reduce environment pollution and energy consumption. At the same time I would like Apple to go a step further and apply it's green principles to design: what a waste of energy and components not to have the internals user-replaceable and upgradable.

I believe much more can be done on this front than reducing packaging size, etc. and no one is stopping Apple to do so... sometime I wonder if the green Apple is a small reality that mostly serves a marketing purpose.

 

[Porco]

I think this is very good of Apple. I think it's a shame so many people are willing to play politics with the planet, and even if climate change is not man-made at all (not my view, but anyway...), it's still not bad to reduce emissions.

I do agree Apple should make their computers more upgradable and look at ways of reducing the damage caused by production in China etc though, very good points.

 

[pmjoe]

A public corporation is responsible to its shareholders. Its shareholders' interests should be represented -- not its board's political views. Green party litigation is not in the best interest of the shareholders (or any American business).

It's not "refreshing" to see a corporation polarize its customers. That's BAD for the shareholders. If Apple's liberal agenda continues they're going to lose their conservative customers. Social politics have NO BUSINESS in a public corporation.

It's only "BAD for the shareholders" if your belief is that greed and short term gratification are the only things that are good for shareholders.

Sadly, that's the whole problem with the stock market today, an emphasis on short term gains over long term investment. Apple has a strong investment in being a more environmentally friendly company than many of its competitors. If you assume climate change regulation is coming, which is certainly likely (even if slowly in the US and Apple is a global company), then this stance puts it at a long-term competitive advantage, which is GOOD for shareholders.

Your viewpoint is basically an absurdly naive one where Apple may as well pump out the cheapest junk it can possibly sell to maximize short term profits, so shareholders can cash in before customers realize they and/or the environment are getting screwed. If that's what you want, maybe investing in a different company would be in order.

 

[niuniu]

Well done Apple for publicly smacking down the CoC (sounds dirty when you say it like that).

Sure Apple have practices that could be greener, so do all companies. But they should be applauded for moving in the right direction. Same goes for any company.

 

[sishaw]

Seeing the posts prior to this, I guess the other Apple fanboys (like me) are saluting this move. Frankly, as both an Apple owner (3 computers & an iPhone & an iPod) as well as a shareholder (a ton), I feel this is terrible.

Why? What does being a member of the Chamber do for your stock price? Or your Apple computers? This post makes no sense as written.

 

[kingtj]

Meh.... I will shrug and not care either way .....

Apple's business is computers and related technology. Anything they do that directly affects the quality of the product they release is newsworthy to me, as a customer and fan of many of their previous offerings.

Anything else, such as this posturing about climate change, has no bearing on Apple's products, so I just don't care.

Any time a business gets too involved in "environmental issues" - they're simply playing a P.R. game, trying to look better in the public eye, or trying to appease some group that was previously attacking them. The fact is, ANY company producing a product for profit is already weighing the pros and cons of different aspects of production. They're always going to choose the most profitable option, when all is said and done. Sometimes that means doing things that please the "green" activists, and other times, it means running afoul of what they'd prefer a business do.

Apple evidently thinks it's more helpful than harmful to profits to pander to "green" advocates right now. Changes like going to aluminum and glass instead of plastic happen to work out well for them. (It may cost more, up-front, but it differentiates their products from the competition, making the extra cost worthwhile. The fact it aligns well with the whole "recycle!" agenda is a nice bonus angle for them.)

But it's really a double-edged sword. As Kermit the Frog used to sing, "It's not easy being green!" You can package your products in recyclable cardboard boxes and get rid of the plastic CD/DVD jewel cases easily enough, but one day - you're going to want to offer something that just isn't possible to build without having a "negative environmental impact". Then, you're stuck losing money and passing on something great, all to "save face" to the environmentalists you aligned with - OR you have to make excuses and "betray" them.

Good for Apple - many Apple customers will applaud this move as a responsible one.

 

[TimmyDee]

Kudos, Apple. The Chamber has been an absolute joke in their stance. Even other staunch deniers of climate change have modified their stance (they accept that it's happening, at least), but they've been completely backwards.

 

[pauldy]

Pretty sad that Apple continues to involve itself in politics. I'm seriously considering dropping my mobile me account and moving my iphone over to T-Mobile. I don't want to be funding political activism.