U.S. Chamber of Commerce Reacts to Apple's Withdrawal Over Climate Change Policies

[ChrisA]

And here we have a textbook example of someone who doesn't understand the scientific method. NOTHING is 100% provable.

Very few people really understand this: A theory is only valid if both
1) It could be some how dis-proven and
2) No one has disproven it yet.

One other thing: You don't have to believe the Earth has heated. Even if I were to think that is has not happened yet. I would still think it a very bad idea to add an in-balance of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Same argument for using sunblock. You say "I am not sunburned." Well maybe, maybe not. The redness is not that bad and it could be natural but either way we know that in the near future you WILL be sunburned if you stay in the sun without sunblock. It's stupid t say "I don't need sunblock because I am not now sunburned." So right now a lot of people are saying "we see warming" but it could be natural, hard to tell. We can argue about the data from the last 100 years but who cares it's the next 100 years we are worried about, and we all know there WILL be warming later if you don't do something.

 

[Rot'nApple]

If Apple really cared about the environment, they'd pull out of China, and not the US Chamber of Commerce.

And what, bring back jobs to America?! Now there is a novel idea!

400th post... yeah!!!

100 more and I can have an Avatar... Can't wait!

 

[RazHyena]

And here we have a textbook example of someone who doesn't understand the scientific method. NOTHING is 100% provable.

That's what he was saying in the first place.

Good god....

 

[Balin64]

"Por que las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tienen segunda oportunidad sobre la faz de la tierra.'

 

[dcranston]

Maybe if we all stopped focusing on the ridiculous arguments of whether or not global warming exists, what role humans play, etc etc blah blah, we could look at some basic truths:

1. The Earth is a finite resource, whether we like it or not.

2. While we may continue to find more oil, or our carbon emissions may have only a small impact, etc., there will come a point in time where this is no longer true. Maybe that isn't this year, but is it in 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? Do we care so much about ourselves and not our futures (kids futures?) that we're unwilling to spend some extra money on better sources of energy?

3. We should absolutely be good citizens of this earth, minimize our consumption and emissions, and generally treat the planet like, you know, you would your home. (Or is everyone here living in a dump in their parents basement? )

4. It would be pretty freaking awesome to stop exploiting cheap labor and cheap resources, regardless of whether or not you believe it's something we could continue. If we continue at this rate, our country will go bankrupt with crazy under-inflated prices at the expense of cheap resources and cheap labor. This is crazy.

Bring back jobs to the US, and be better earth citizens while we're at it. How novel. Is this really a political issue?

 

[X38]

[...]
We can argue about the data from the last 100 years but who cares it's the next 100 years we are worried about, and we all know there WILL be warming later if you don't do something.

Nonsense!
We do NOT all know that there will be warming later if we don't do something. Some people believe they know that. Other people disagree with them. Who is right is a matter of unsettled scientific debate.

What IS certain is that you are being intellectually dishonest by asserting that there is no disagreement with your theory. That is the fundamental flaw in the arguments of so many proponents of global warming theory - making an absurdly false claim as the root of your argument discredits all else that you say.
See my previous post #100.

 

[CFreymarc]

yada?

Quit whining. Sure you can support climate change and oppose a bill, but everyone knows that a step in the right direction for the environment is better then no step at all. With that being said, everyone knows that the Waxman bill is no in the best interest of cheap U.S. business.

Trying to figure out if this is a publicity stunt or just a yada.

 

[miketcool]

Agreed. But they do here and here.

You posted 2 links that are based off human activity influenced greenhouse gas climate change. Both links use that as their base argument, so the soon to be weather doctor proves my point. IPCC is only interested, like the UN climate body, in how the climate is altered by CO2, aerosols and nitrous byproducts. There is no talk of other influences, by other scientific fields, with conflicting data.

For anyone wanting to skip the large PDFs, here is an excerpt:

"Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Con- vention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indi- rectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods."

Both focus on human activity. There needs to be independent panels that explore each possible scenario, so they can be used to study the planet, not "save it". Apple, again, should be focussed on people first. I think we can all agree, that Apple building factories back here at home would be higher priority then a politicized, criticized debate. I support and buy more American made items as I get older. Apple should say something more about civil rights.

 

[X38]

Maybe if we all stopped focusing on the ridiculous arguments of whether or not global warming exists, what role humans play, etc etc blah blah, we could look at some basic truths:

1. The Earth is a finite resource, whether we like it or not.

2. While we may continue to find more oil, or our carbon emissions may have only a small impact, etc., there will come a point in time where this is no longer true. Maybe that isn't this year, but is it in 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? Do we care so much about ourselves and not our futures (kids futures?) that we're unwilling to spend some extra money on better sources of energy?

3. We should absolutely be good citizens of this earth, minimize our consumption and emissions, and generally treat the planet like, you know, you would your home. (Or is everyone here living in a dump in their parents basement? )

4. It would be pretty freaking awesome to stop exploiting cheap labor and cheap resources, regardless of whether or not you believe it's something we could continue. If we continue at this rate, our country will go bankrupt with crazy under-inflated prices at the expense of cheap resources and cheap labor. This is crazy.

Bring back jobs to the US, and be better earth citizens while we're at it. How novel. Is this really a political issue?

Well, if you propose to impose your concept of how other people should live their lives as espoused in your four points above, then yes, it ABSOLUTELY FREAKING IS a political question regardless of how laudable your points are.

That being said, I generally agree with you that we should develop alternative sources of energy, reduce emission of pollutants and localize industrial production. Which is why I propose that we achieve those goals by REDUCING government control and regulation.

We can do drastically more to reduce consumption of oil and emission of pollutants by increasing our use of nuclear power than by all other proposed means combined. All that is necessary to achieve that goal is to reduce politically generated impediments to development of the nuclear power industry. Which means sticking a sock in Al Gore's fat mouth for starters.

We can achieve increased localization of industrial production by reducing government regulations on employment and industry, openly contending with foreign governments that secretly manipulate international trade by artificial means such as fixing supposedly free market currency exchange rates, reducing taxation and government borrowing, reducing government control of education, etc.

Trying to impose your vision on society through increasing government control and reduction of individual freedom will only back fire in the long run.

 

[X38]

[...]
I think we can all agree, that Apple building factories back here at home would be higher priority then a politicized, criticized debate. I support and buy more American made items as I get older. Apple should say something more about civil rights.

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!
And we as voters should be focused on influencing the government to create the business environment which will make it desirable for Apple to do so.

 

[specialbuddy]

I recommend that everyone watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

 

[libertyforall]

Global Warming is a joke, and so is cap and trade, and carbon footprints. I mean we are MADE OF CARBON. What a scam.

Get the real FACTS here:
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/

Al Gore is a one-worlder, so what do you expect? Just say NO to the U.N.! The U.N. was founded by Communists! Don't believe me? Do your OWN research -- it is TRUE!

 

[Macmel]

I think the Darwin Pontificators are sadder! And the Climate Change fanatics are unrealistic dreamers. Weather is something that changes in both directions over eons. What man does in the next 50 years is hardly going to make a dent in it one way or the other...

And you know that for a fact because... Sorry I forgot where you got your PhD in Physics.
It's curious how human mind works. If this was a discussion about particle movement according to quantum dynamics, nobody woud say anything. BUT as it is an argument over climatic change (say medicine, biology, etc) everybody feels that they know what they're talking about. Sorry to blow your bubble, but those are scientific areas too and you need some training.
I don't really know the facts about climate change (as most of you I guess, as you don't go to scientific resources to get the info and only get it from newspapers, etc). I know that most climatologists support the idea, but there has always been some argument. One thing is for sure: polluting can't be good, so anything we can do to reduce it, is welcome.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Quit whining. Sure you can support climate change and oppose a bill, but everyone knows that a step in the right direction for the environment is better then no step at all. With that being said, everyone knows that the Waxman bill is no in the best interest of cheap U.S. business.

Give me Quality over Cheap. The US was an innovator in products that used to last decades. Not any more and it's been outsourced by products design to fail far sooner.

This goes across all fields and isn't targeted at the IT industries.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Global Warming is a joke, and so is cap and trade, and carbon footprints. I mean we are MADE OF CARBON. What a scam.

Get the real FACTS here:
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/

Al Gore is a one-worlder, so what do you expect? Just say NO to the U.N.! The U.N. was founded by Communists! Don't believe me? Do your OWN research -- it is TRUE!

Tell me you're not a Chemist.

 

[gibbz]

There is no talk of other influences, by other scientific fields, with conflicting data.

Section 2.7 directly addresses Natural Forcing, including 2.7.1 Solar Variability, which is one topic you touched on earlier. The IPCC of course is investigating human factors, but in doing so, they have numerous times considered other factors in their attribution studies.

For anyone wanting to skip the large PDFs, here is an excerpt:

"Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Con- vention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indi- rectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods."

Both focus on human activity.

Both include human activity. My added emphasis above in the quote you referenced highlights their own definition of climate change and what influences they consider. You'll see they consider more than human influences.

Apple, again, should be focussed on people first. I think we can all agree, that Apple building factories back here at home would be higher priority then a politicized, criticized debate. I support and buy more American made items as I get older. Apple should say something more about civil rights.

I agree whole-heartedly.

 

[Bubba Satori]

I don't think you want Apple to pull out of China as some have suggested, unless you want to pay triple what you pay now for a Macintosh computer, which is already twice what comparible PC systems cost. Like it or not, the US and China are economically locked together and neither can risk breaking away from the other.

Bingo.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Give me Quality over Cheap.

Only your koolaid makes you think they are mutually exclusive. They aren't.

 

[fifthworld]

Unfortunately the US business model is rapidly depleting worldwide resources... while not bringing happiness to it's citizens, it's just making a bunch of people super reach and the majority of the other obese and obtuse.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Only your koolaid makes you think they are mutually exclusive. They aren't.

England or Alabama?

 

[Full of Win]

Donohue went on to note that the organization does support climate change legislation, but opposes currently proposed legislation that the organization claims would hurt American businesses and simply transfer greenhouse gas emissions to other countries rather than directly addressing the issue.

This is exactly what Apple fears - that someone will do some critical thinking and see that they produce MASSIVE amounts of gas by doing production in China, where energy is quite dirty compared to the United States. If Apple moved production here, then they could use cleaner energy, and release less gas. However, Apple thinks a better approach is to make grand sound press releases extolling how they are 'sticking it' to the CoC, hoping the mind numb masses will not see the truth and be fooled into thinking that Apple actually cares about the issue.

God, Apple are a bunch of magnificent bastards!

 

[space1nvaders]

Misleading

I agree... Apple is penalizing American business and patronizing Chinese polluters by their petty spat with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce... Green Hell Blog has more pertinent detail on this topic including comparing photo illustrations of air quality of Apple HQ in Cuppertino, CA compared to the pollution in Shenzhen, China where Apple products are manufactured.

Does Apple wish to really compare our air quality with China's air quality? By its action Apple is rewarding China and penalizing United States...

I did a quick google maps lookup and the air quality does look as bad as that picture from the Green Hell site. Misleading?

http://www.google.com/maps?q=Shenzhen,%20China&lci=com.panoramio.all&iwloc=lyrftr:com.panoramio.all,5731688329796939333,22.548788,114.050531&ll=22.548788,114.050531&z=9&ei=x1zMSoydHqKetwfCjbHlAQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=photo-link&cd=5&resnum=1

 

[dr34mc4st3r]

I did a quick google maps lookup and the air quality does look as bad as that picture from the Green Hell site. Misleading?

http://www.google.com/maps?q=Shenzhen,%20China&lci=com.panoramio.all&iwloc=lyrftr:com.panoramio.all,5731688329796939333,22.548788,114.050531&ll=22.548788,114.050531&z=9&ei=x1zMSoydHqKetwfCjbHlAQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=photo-link&cd=5&resnum=1

that blog post is misleading. i was in shenzhen this summer and most of the days the air quality was really decent. besides, even if the air quality is bad, you can't just blame foxconn alone. how about the other tons of factories in the city? apple can't be responsible for all of them

 

[vstephenson]

Im confused

I dont know if all this means the leaders in the world are...

a) doing a very BAD job of educating the population about what could be a critical period in human history

b) doing a very GOOD job of polarising the debate to the extent that it is impossible for us to find a consensus of opinion because, at some point, some interest group or another will lose out

Either way, it makes me sad

 

[pcorajr]

Who is in the board of directors?? Al Gore

Get a clue people. This was a political move by Apple courtesy of Mr Al Gore.

I am for Climate Change Legislation, One that makes sense. No this ******** Carbon Credit trading. If everybody was governed by the legislation then... maybe then but not everybody is going to follow these rules!!! EVERYBODY need to contribute EVERYBODY. No just the US. Why the hell should we slap steep legislation on our own companies while China and India pollute 10 x more? And you telling methat buying Carbon Credits i going to fix this? Seriously GET A ****ING CLUE.

Force china and the other poluters to fix their act. Sanction them or put a god damn embargo until they start following pollution regulations. **** we did it to Cuba and Iran because of Nuclear weapons, why the hell cant we do it for climate change. something that can prove to be as catastrophic as a Nuclear Weapon.............