At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/03/at-apple-shareholders-meeting-tim-cook-tells-off-climate-change-deniers/

by dsirijus • 12 years ago

93 99 12 years ago

arstechnica.com

loceng• 12 years ago

Odd. I really hope this isn't related to a possible buy of Tesla for a huge amount.

ueqirat• 12 years ago

it is possible to disagree with apple's investment in "sustainability" and not be a climate change denier

thesimpsons1022• 12 years ago

No one said it wasn't. But this conservative advocacy group did both.

jpgvm2• 12 years ago

Maybe, but a bullshit loaded question is a bullshit loaded question - no matter wether or not you deny climate change.

protomyth2• 12 years ago

Probably not since it is such an effective dismissal.

This isn't really about Apple, it is more about the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) of which Apple is a member and the NCPPR going after them. NCPPR isn't some new organization, so they have a lot of things on their agenda (consider nuclear missiles were once an item on it).

Not saying their right or wrong on this one, mostly just saying Ars Technica did its usual crappy job on anything with a political bent. They don't seem to do much research into the who or even try to interview anyone.

flgb3• 12 years ago

Yes, but a lot of people who like to put the word sustainability in scare quotes are against action on climate change. And a lot of people who preface mentions of the phrase climate change with "so called" are deniers.

hawkharris4• 12 years ago

Apple should disclose at least basic information about the scope of their investments. This is just common sense, and it's especially important at a time when investors are panicked about the future of the stock.

cgriswald3• 12 years ago

Given that, among actual shareholders, only 2.95% voted for the proposal, I do not think they are especially panicked about the future of the stock.

hawkharris4• 12 years ago

This proposal is only one manifestation of investors' concerns. It doesn't follow that because 3% voted for it, only 3% are concerned about the stock, which has been downgraded for the first time in 10 years.

enraged_camel• 12 years ago

>it's especially important at a time when investors are panicked about the future of the stock.

Correction: some investors are panicked about the future of the stock. This is my favorite cartoon that describes how those investors operate: http://imgur.com/vuDioSI

hawkharris4• 12 years ago

I do appreciate that cartoon :), but I wouldn't be extremely confident about Apple stock in either direction, positive or negative. This is a period of great risk, uncertainty and — to be fair, opportunity — for the company. [0][1][2]

(Disclosure: I don't have a position in Apple.)

[0] http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/talking-numbers/why-apple-cou...

[1] http://invezz.com/news/equities/9079-apple-share-price-barcl...

[2] http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/247768001.html

wlesieutre2• 12 years ago

Oh my...

"Too often investors look at short-term returns and are unaware of corporate policy decisions that may affect long-term financial prospects. After today's meeting, investors can be certain that Apple is wasting untold amounts of shareholder money to combat so-called climate change. The only remaining question is: how much?" [1]

Let's all ignore climate change. Clearly that would give us better long-term financial prospects. And will definitely not be a huge economic disaster.

[1] http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Apple_Tim_Cook_Climate_0228...

downandout3• 12 years ago

"Climate Change Denier" is a term coined by radical environmentalists in an attempt to paint their opponents as crazy and stupid. Most rational people don't deny that climate change is occurring. Many people simply side with scientists that have examined the facts and determined that human attempts at trying to control climate change are about as effective as Indian rain dances.

That said, Tim Cook's response was correct. The measure this group proposed was actually very broad. They wanted the company to base all decisions on ROI only. Had it been adopted by the board, it would have instantly opened the company up to a flood of shareholder lawsuits over any number of expenditures that don't directly generate profits.

Johnie• 12 years ago

They simply side with scientists that...

Which scientists?

jpgvm2• 12 years ago

Any scientist worth the oxygen they breathe all seem to be in agreement of 3 things. a) Climate change is real and happening. b) It's most definitely the impact of our utilisation of natural resources. c) That we can take measures to minimise it's effects.

ry0ohki• 12 years ago

All true, but I think there is a misconception that if we all just recycle more and drive hybrids that climate change will stop. We are accelerating climate change, but even if we stopped all carbon now Bangladesh will still be under water in 150 years or less.

Narkov• 12 years ago

[Citation Needed]

codeka• 12 years ago

No, NCPPR categorically are crazy and stupid. No need to coin terms to paint them as such when their own words do a perfectly good job of it on their own.

nailer• 12 years ago

Including the founder of Greenpeace http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/gree...

downandout3• 12 years ago

Interesting..."There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," he told a US Senate Committee "If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists."

Retric• 12 years ago

You find crazy on both sides of any major issue. NCPPR and Greenpeace are both nut-job organisations which are best ignored. Not because nothing they say is true, but rather the fact they said something has little to do with how true it is.

Think of it like a horoscope sound and bluster, signifying nothing.

vacri• 12 years ago

Rather amusingly, that article quotes Moore as chewing someone out for using weasel-words, yet he's using plenty of them himself.

epistasis• 12 years ago

No one, including this group, denies that climate change is occurring.

I'm sorry, what planet are you living on? This is regularly argued an national cable news all the time. You can't be taken the least bit seriously when you put such an obvious falsehood as the first argument supporting your ridiculous claim.

jjoonathan2• 12 years ago

this group [does not deny] that climate change is occurring

But their press release says

Apple is wasting untold amounts of shareholder money to combat so-called climate change.

which sounds like denial to me. Would you prefer to call them "Climate Change Skeptics," the term coined by radical conservatives to attempt to paint themselves as not crazy and anti-scientific?

Everyone plays the "name yourself according to something non-controversial, name your opponent according to something controversial" game. I wouldn't get too upset about it.

downandout3• 12 years ago

"Climate change" used to be "global warming" until that term became so strongly associated with extremists that it instantly damaged the credibility of anyone that used it. "Climate Change Skeptics" communicates the same thing as "deniers". You are missing the point. Most people agree that climate change (aka global warming) is occurring. The argument is over whether we can cause it or stop it.

tn13• 12 years ago

Both parties do not to seem to present any kind of evidence to their claim. At least to me Apple's impact on environment does not some anything significant that there is need to waste a lot of money optimizing it.

pyrrhotech• 12 years ago

you should try living in the south, where TC is from. There are a lot of climate change deniers. I mean, 60% of the state believes the world is less than 10,000 years old

kzrdude2• 12 years ago

This is a failure of education.

Steko• 12 years ago

"No one, including this group, denies that climate change is occurring"

This is absolutely false. There are denialists that deny the earth is warming, there are more that deny humans have anything to do with it and then more that deny that carbon emissions are worth it and then more still that deny it's a bad thing. Many of them contend all of these points in a throw everything at the wall strategy.

phillmv• 12 years ago

They simply side with scientists that have examined the facts and determined that human attempts at trying to control climate change are about as effective as Indian rain dances.

To say this is to deny the established causes behind climate change - excess carbon emissions. I doubt the relationship is linear, but the solution is to emit less carbon emissions. This should no longer be controversial.

ww520• 12 years ago

From NCPPR's release statements, Climate Change Denier is a fair description of them.

Based on pure ROI is pure crazy.

peterwoo• 12 years ago

Wrong. Look at the Environment section of their website. Read the PRs and the blog posts they link to.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/eptf.html

"Here's the bottom line: Apple is as obsessed with the theory of so-called climate change as its board member Al Gore is,"
After today's meeting, investors can be certain that Apple is wasting untold amounts of shareholder money to combat so-called climate change.

... etc

Every single mention of climate change is prefixed with "so-called", in this PR and every other one. If you read through these articles you'll find that they believe climate change stopped in 1997.

Aloha• 12 years ago

I agree! A focus on sustainability is a good one, carbon sequestration sounds like a great way to spend untold amounts of money.

That said, I'm pretty sure climate change is happening - but I'm not really certain its anthropogenic, and even if it is, I don't think the genie can be put back in the bottle anyhow.

I think focusing on carbon seemingly alone is a distraction, Using less resources to do a thing is a good thing anyhow, its cheaper in the long run, carbon alone doesn't get us there.

mrtron• 12 years ago

Attempts to control climate change?

Most environmentalists aim to reduce known human impacts on climate change. This is actually closer to reducing human control on climate change than doing nothing.

singingfish4• 12 years ago

Sorry, climate change deniers are stupid and crazy and/or evil. I prefer to call them climate delusionals. Right now we have a choice to either try to ameliorate climate change, or ignore it and watch civilisation collapse over the next century or so. It's a hard problem scientifically and politically, and the delusionals and their loby groups should receive nothing but contempt and derision.

lukifer• 12 years ago

I recently ran into a NOAA [1] scientist and talked to him briefly on the subject. He claimed that was there was effectively no one in the field that had any doubt about anthropogenic climate change, although there were many disputes about details. The few who do argue against it (he knew them by name) are very respected and intelligent, but have contrarian personalities, and tend to dispute specific models and argue in favor of uncertainty, rather than arguing that human behavior is definitively unrelated.

Scientific communities are far from immune to taboos and group-think, and I think every idea deserves scrutiny and (true) skepticism, no matter how "settled". But while the science continues to iterate and refine, policy decisions should be based on weight of evidence, which is vastly in favor of human-caused climate change.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheri...

rayiner2• 12 years ago

It has always struck me as rather ridiculous to make a big deal about the distinction between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic climate change. Whether or not climate change is anthropogenic, it is going to require a response. The argument might be that efforts should be directed at mitigating the negative effects of climate change, because it is futile to try and avert it, but climate change deniers aren't making that argument either. Indeed, if they really did concede that climate change is happening, but believed that it wasn't anthropogenic, then they should be even more worked up about it than the "radical environmentalists," because that would mean that Illinois is going to have the climate of Texas and there is nothing we can do about it other than figure out how to live with the resulting fallout.

danielweber2• 12 years ago

Among my conservative friends, quite a few say "well, it's happening, but we don't know humans are causing it." So they are already there. "Adaptation, not mitigation" is one of their sayings, and it gets the environmentalists really mad.

FWIW, I agree with you that the cause matters less than the effects.

brc4• 12 years ago

But the cause is important, because that dictates the response. If people continue to think that failed policy ideas like the Kyoto protocol are the effective response, then all we are doing is wasting resources and doing untold damage for no reason. Kyoto and its ilk are the equivalent of throwing virgins at volcanoes.

Adaptation should be about increasing water storage, storm defense and concentrating on uninterrupted energy supply. Research money should be spent on new energy technology and better climate forecasting.

Right now we have billions being spent on innefectual or worse solutions, because the responses are based on 20 year-old understanding of climate sensitivity, which has proven to be incorrect by several orders of magnitude.

If Illinois does turn into Texas, what you absolutely dont want is having sent the previous fifty years wasting your productive capacity on worthless solutions.

rwallace• 12 years ago

You're getting a lot of disagreement with parts of your first paragraph, but I think it's worth dwelling for a moment on the good point you make your second paragraph. There are two claims the NCPPR are disputing:

1. Climate change is a big problem, if not for the present then at least for the near future, unless we do something about it.

2. Given that, we should all make an effort to do what we reasonably can about it, instead of caring about nothing whatsoever except money.

If the NCPPR disagree with the first claim, then they should present their best case for that disagreement. I think they're mistaken, but if they have evidence for their position, then let's hear it.

But instead of making that case, they mixed it in with disagreement with the second claim, which is a bad way to argue (mixing empirical questions and value judgments) and makes them come across like sociopaths to boot.

redthrowaway• 12 years ago

"Climate change denier" refers solely to those who deny the scientific fact of anthropogenic global warming. It's not used to describe those who accept the science but doubt the efficacy or wisdom of the proposed solutions.

I'm actually with you on doubting the ability of public policy to deal with it. We aren't going to stop it, and we will suffer from it. Our only option is to figure out how to adapt to it.

fit2rule• 12 years ago

human attempts at trying to control climate change are about as effective as Indian rain dances

I suppose we shouldn't try, then. Not even a little bit.

dmckeon• 12 years ago

Anyone interested in trying to explore the topic of climate change at NCPPR could probably apply for a summer internship in 2014 - here's a 2013 version:

http://www.theihs.org/koch-summer-fellow-program/host/nation...

Oh, btw: consider the source...

protomyth2• 12 years ago

Yes, given the Koch brothers spent money supporting gay marriage legalization, decriminalize drugs, and repealing the Patriot Act you might want to be careful[1]. Does anyone actually look at what these groups actually fund or do we just go by the pundits on TV?

1) or not

Tycho• 12 years ago

It seems that we've now shifted fully from 'global warming' to 'climate change.'

singingfish4• 12 years ago

It's a more accurate term. While climate change will cause increased temperatures, it also causes increased variability in weather.

lttlrck• 12 years ago

More accurate yet at the same time less specific.

yeukhon• 12 years ago

NCPPR demanded that Apple discontinue the programs and commit only to projects that are explicitly profitable.

The word demanded seems to be a very very strong statement. It's almost like a command. I'd be really surprised if that was really the word NCPPR used in the letter. encouraged, or suggested would be better. What power does NCPPR has over Apple to demand Apple to take action X?

To climate change deniers out there: while there is a natural part of climate change (as Sun continues to burn, the surface temperature continues to increase and eats the golden green zone between Earth and Sun and eventually will boil Earth one day), wastes produced by humans are also contributing climate eliminate changes.

And even if climate change is a scam, I'd rather to feel safer, knowing we are using clean energy than breathing air full of hazardous particles and wait for disaster to come. A lot of the changes and proposed changes to defend climate change actually makes life better. Just think about ways to protect underground subway system and electricity from flooding and securing the harbor from potential sea level rise. Use recycled papers rather than cutting down new trees all the time. Conversing water and finding new reusable energy resource to sustain the on-growing population. All these shits (excuse my Chinese here) are either directly or indirectly a result of learning about climate change and Earth sustainability. And guess what? They are new business opportunity.

mikeyouse• 12 years ago

Page 63 here has the precise language:

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/2993150551x0x717...

RivieraKid• 12 years ago

I'm really sceptical and suspicious to the type of environmental policies that Apple and other companies do.

The effect on global warming is near zero, possibly even negative. The decision to use green energy decreases the price of non-green energy, so other companies will buy more of it.

I really don't like how unsystematic and non-transparent this approach is. A clean solution would be a tax on non-green energy. It would make the economy-environment tradeoff very clear.

Daishiman• 12 years ago

And the use of green energy goes towards investment in green energies that will lower the price of it, with the difference that the supply of nonrenewables is limited, whereas the others are not.

specialist• 12 years ago

It's also risk mitigation. Supplying your own electricity from solar farms is a pretty good way to avoid price volatility.

flgb3• 12 years ago

Apple isn't in a position to implement new taxes. Where the Government isn't showing leadership, it's beholden on corporations to show the way where they can.

By implementing these policies Apple can show leadership and influence their peers and support the clean energy industry. This is the right thing to do.

wpietri3• 12 years ago

The effect on global warming is near zero, possibly even negative. The decision to use green energy decreases the price of non-green energy, so other companies will buy more of it.

That's a first-order effect. But second-order effects of the price changes include encouraging investment in green energy and discouraging investment in non-green energy. That will shift the long-term incentives for all market participants.

akjj• 12 years ago

But purchasing renewable energy also drives down its price, by allowing the industry to develop economies of scale and streamline its operations. This strategy is essentially the way most technology innovations work, by first selling to early adopters who are willing to pay a premium and then pushing prices down to mass-market acceptance.

Considering that the market for fossil fuel energy is so much larger than that for renewable energy, I'm going to say that Apple's choice will have a bigger positive effect on the renewable sector than on prices for non-renewable energy.

brc4• 12 years ago

There are already plenty of taxes on 'non-green' energy, but the demand curve is inelastic so they make little difference. Nearly every country on the planet has taxes on liquid fuels, for example.

Heavily taxing energy for any reasons always leads to lower economic growth and unemployment. That is because no tax applies globally, so there are always places to move to access the cheapest energy. And usually the places that production one to have lower environmental controls on energy production, leading to a net-worse position for the environment and the people where the production used to be.

Australia implemented the highest 'carbon tax' in the world in 2012. This contributed to the closing of several heavy industry factories within 12-18 months, including aluminum shelters. These factories have all been relocated to places like china and Saudi Arabia, with net-worse outcomes for the environment as a result, and a weaker economy in Australia. A region-specific energy tax is a bad idea because it achieves none of its goals, and measurably makes things worse.

flgb3• 12 years ago

I'm curious about the factories that are supposed to have closed due to Australia's carbon tax and I'd be especially interested to see some evidence if these factories 'relocating'.

Trade exposed heavy industry was largely sheltered from the tax. In fact some argued the free permits were actually going to deliver windfall profits. There was a story recently about the closure of Alcoa's Point Henry aluminium smelter, but the company denied there was any link to the carbon tax.

jleader• 12 years ago

Was anyone else amused by the reference to "the Al gore contingency in the room"? For non-native English speakers, I'll note that there's a noun "contingency" with a meaning related to the adjective "contingent" (meaning roughly "conditional"), but not directly related to the noun "contingent" (meaning roughly "faction").

nirnira• 12 years ago

Hah I didn't see that, nice catch!

Adrock2• 12 years ago

Another take is that these kind of sustainable practices are desirable to Apple's high-value employees. By acting in a way that increases the retention of those employees and helps with recruiting new ones with similar priorities, they are investing in the company's future.

brc4• 12 years ago

A better way of achieving that would be to set aside a bucket of money to direct towards work that staff would like to see. The staff could then vote for where that money could be spent. It might be solar energy, or it could be cancer research. That would be much more direct and measurable. Berkshire Hathaway does the same thing with its investors - gives them the say where the company spends its charitable contributions.

Adrock2• 12 years ago

It's not obvious to me that what you describe is a better way. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive and what I described is not about charitable contributions. It's about actual business processes and business decisions, which are difficult to argue should be made using votes.

joshuaheard• 12 years ago

If liberals really cared about climate change, we would all be using nuclear power and Obama would not have cut Bush's program to develop fuel cell cars.

jodrellblank• 12 years ago

Do you think:

- "Liberals" is a group of people who all think the same way.

- The only reason nuclear power isn't widely used is "Liberals not caring about climate change".

Geekette• 12 years ago

How much of Apple stock does NCPPR own anyway? Amusing to see that nowhere in its long whiny press release does it announce that it will divest itself of AAPL. Whatever happened to putting your money where your mouth is or voting with your feet?

justin66• 12 years ago

These companies invest specifically so they can get stuff on the ballot at shareholder meetings and it often doesn't take very much at all. I believe it depends in part on the bylaws of a given corporation.

There's a similar group with a similar agenda who trolled GE after GE announced some kind of wind power initiative. I don't know how much stock they owned but given GE's market cap at the time, I'm sure it wasn't a lot of the company on a percentage basis...

mikeash• 12 years ago

It's always hilarious to watch supposed champions of the free market fail to let the money do the talking.

salgernon• 12 years ago

It seems to me that these folks are using the shareholder meeting - and Tim cooks response - as theatre to get in the public eye. I'd never heard of them before (and now I know to avoid them) and they've succeeded in getting their message in front of many more people.

This is the reason greenpeace and similar target apple publicly, even though apple was already doing much of what they were asking for.

tostitos1979• 12 years ago

I'm not a big fan of TC. But this quote (from the article) gave him a +10 in my books:

"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI."

prestadige• 12 years ago

The reason deniers exist generally is because there's a problem they don't want to face. Another, equally fatal approach to any problem is to attempt to jump to a solution. The correct approach is to try to understand the problem better which requires thinking -- in societal terms, it means research.

So, by all means, let's tell off the deniers, expand solar and wind, reduce coal, even make lifestyle gestures -- but put the bulk of effort into researching safe nuclear power and researching geo-engineering. (Unless I'm misreading the situation, there seem to be taboos around both at present.)

bfe• 12 years ago

This group, NCPPR, has a long history of not only denying climate science [1] by misconstruing their sources [2], but also defending the tobacco industry [3] and denying involvement in corruption scandals [4].

1. http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA388.html

2. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5554/476.abstract

http://web.archive.org/web/20050414163144/http://www.nature....

http://web.archive.org/web/20050414163147/http://www.nature....

3. http://web.archive.org/web/20030930182136/http://www.prwatch...

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA198.html

4. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a9s0n...

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Think-tank-he...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23indian.html?_r=...

zheshishei• 12 years ago

Is anybody else really annoyed by the image banner on their site[1]?

Not only is it broken into two images, there's a br tag causing most of the misalignment. Also, the two splices don't have the same height. I've checked this in chrome, firefox, and ie 7-10 and it doesn't work in any of them.

[1]http://www.nationalcenter.org/

At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

Related Stories