U.S. Chamber of Commerce criticizes Apple for departure

[AppleInsider]

After Apple resigned from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in protest of its stance on climate change, the Chamber has fired back at the Mac maker, stating the company "didn't take the time to understand" its position.

Chamber President Thomas Donohue fired a letter to Apple co-founder Steve Jobs Tuesday in which he chastised the company over its departure from the Chamber, according to The Wall Street Journal.

"It is unfortunate that your company didn’t take the time to understand the Chamber’s position on climate and forfeited the opportunity to advance a 21st century approach to climate change," Donohue wrote in his letter to Jobs.

On Monday, Apple announced it was leaving the chamber in protest of statements recently made against the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to limit greenhouse gases. The chamber recently threatened litigation if the EPA enacts such regulations; it would rather see Congress set policy through legislation.

In his letter, Donohue also reportedly criticized the leading proposal to limit greenhouse gas emissions that is currently in the U.S. Congress. He said that the government plan "will cause Americans to lose their jobs and shift greenhouse-gas emissions overseas, negating potential climate benefits."

In its own letter Monday, Apple noted that it has worked hard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at its facilities, and is also designing more energy-efficient consumer products. Catherine A. Novelli, vice president of Worldwide Government Affairs for the company, said the work has been done without any mandates from the government because "it is the right thing to do."

"We would prefer that the Chamber take a more progressive stance on this critical issue and play a constructive role in addressing the climate crisis," Novelli said. "However, because the Chamber's position differs so sharply with Apple's, we have decided to resign our membership effective immediately."

The spat between the chamber and Apple comes weeks after the Mac maker began reporting carbon emissions of its hardware on its Web site. The "Apple and the Environment" Web site notes that a majority of the company's emissions come from consumer products, while less than 5 percent are as a result of manufacturing facilities.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Damn_Its_Hot]

I would expect them to be upset at losing Apple.

I think the Chamber's record is pretty clear - business over environment. Apple is to be applauded for their work and stand.

[Mazda 3s]

Where's the link to the Journal article so we can read it in full? I hate it when AI doesn't post links to the stories they cite.

[Tofino]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"It is unfortunate that your company didn’t take the time to understand the Chamber’s position on climate and forfeited the opportunity to advance a 21st century approach to climate change," Donohue wrote in his letter to Jobs.

i'm surprised to learn that Donohue understands the chamber's position. from what i've read so far, there seems to be more than one. i guess it depends on what hat he's wearing when he opens his mouth. what a tool...

[SneakE]

Well, good for Apple! The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is anti-environment, anti-consumer, anti-employee, anti-union, anti-public health and safety - anti-anything that impedes on corporate profits and encourages corporate responsibility.

[CurtisEMayle]

Originally Posted by Tofino

i'm surprised to learn that Donohue understands the chamber's position. from what i've read so far, there seems to be more than one. i guess it depends on what hat he's wearing when he opens his mouth. what a tool...

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a strong opponent of climate legislation even though the vast majority of the major businesses on the Chamber’s board who have publicly stated their position on climate legislation support strong action.

In July, Donohue echoed the House GOP in pushing a petroleum industry falsehood designed to scare the public into opposing even modest climate and clean energy legislation.* In a column for the Chamber’s online magazine, Donohue wrote: "The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost impact could be as much as $0.77 per gallon for gasoline, $0.83 per gallon for jet fuel, and $0.88 per gallon for diesel fuel–all ultimately borne by the consumer."

That scary charge is a complete falsehood. It comes from the American Petroleum Institute, (see here) which decided to ignore the actual CBO analysis and offer its own instead, claiming it is what CBO found. The API is a strong opponent of the Waxman-Markey bill and has been pushing disinformation on global warming for more than a decade.

The USCOC's public posturing of support for effective climate change legislation is a ruse. They have no record of support. Contrary to Donohue's self-serving statement, Jobs and Apple most certainly have taken "the time to understand the Chamber's position on climate" and have taken a principled stand for what they feel is in the best interest of our planet and humanity … over the USCOC's special interest politics.

[bartfat]

21st century take on climate change?? What the hell is he talking about? The chamber has done nothing but spill out 19th century takes on climate change. You've got to be kidding me about how much this guy is lying to try to badmouth Apple for a responsible action.

[xwiredtva]

I would expect someone with the passion that those at Apple have for the environment to read something as serious as the statements more than once.

They left. We agree.

Keep in mind this is the same arm of the government that started Drill Baby Drill and tore down the solar panels at the white house (which btw Mr. Obama doesn't seem to interested to have them put back up yet - or I missed it...). The same leg that as of 2008 did not admit MAN had anything to do with global climate change, increased green house emissions... But now the lady who used to run our 50th state admits we have SOME IF LITTLE to do and then preaches around the globe on how to curb it. I hope she can drill her way out of that flip.

You ask me: Tax all fuels at $1.00/gal, Tax snack food at $1.00 per serving and tax the hell out of oil, gas, drilling companies. Of course they'd call that socialism because that's what all the other REAL DEVELOPED countries are doing.

I wouldn't be surprised it Apple moves OUT of the USA... In fact the wife and I were talking about it last night. They could do it, leaving retail and support behind and any country in the world would saw off their left arms to have them.

[elliots11]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

In his letter, Donohue also reportedly criticized the leading proposal to limit greenhouse gas emissions that is currently in the U.S. Congress. He said that the government plan "will cause Americans to lose their jobs and shift greenhouse-gas emissions overseas, negating potential climate benefits."

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

So they say Apple doesn't understand, then follow it up with a statement that is pretty straightforward and easy to understand, and probably exactly what Apple disagrees with. Sounds like its time for some new leadership or the jettisoning of old interests. Or both.

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by Tofino

i'm surprised to learn that Donohue understands the chamber's position. from what i've read so far, there seems to be more than one. i guess it depends on what hat he's wearing when he opens his mouth. what a tool...

On the contrary, I think his position is rather clear. Congress should mandate limits, not the agency in charge of safeguarding the environment. Oh, and any viable proposal moving through congress should be fought tooth and nail as well. Makes perfect sense if nothing changing is what you want (well, nothing but sea levels...).

[Tonkin]

Energy corporation Pacific Gas and Electric (PGE) has also withdrawn from the COC, citing similar concerns for the COC's policies/positions on climate change realities.

Echo that the COC cares of and for big money.

[dasein]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

The "Apple and the Environment" Web site notes that a majority of the company's emissions come from consumer products, while less than 5 percent are as a result of manufacturing facilities.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

Come on. This is like a murderer's defense saying his victims were done in by the gun in his hand, not he himself. The reason Apple and so many other companies don't manufacture in this country anymore isn't because of labor costs (balance highly automated production against putting the final product on a carbon belching ship across the Pacific that lands in the arms of the longshoreman's union for first step distribution). It's because of the environmental policies enacted in this country (I'm not saying those laws are good or bad). All Apple did, as did so many other companies in this country, and now in Europe, is move the source of pollution off shore (along with jobs), conveniently and publicly washing their hands of any environmental guilt. Now they're opting for sainthood...and people love it. It's true: Apple's a genius at marketing. What they argue is correct. What they did was abdicate responsibility as a corporation. Tomorrow morning what difference will their departure have made other than one less opposing voice at the CoC? ...an equally inconvenient truth. You stay and fight for what you believe, not walk away.

[k2director]

I'm glad the Chamber of Commerce is there to guard against the Socialism-Run-Amuk state of affairs in this country.

By the way, Apple is a rare company these days that's thriving in a horrendous recession. It's easy for Apple to smugly talk about all its investments in green tech, when the money is rolling in and it's sitting on a vast wad of cash. I wonder: if Apple were in the financial state that it was in the mid-90s--ie, barely hanging on--would it have been quite so committed to all these expensive green efforts? I doubt it.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by Tonkin

Energy corporation Pacific Gas and Electric (PGE) has also withdrawn from the COC, citing similar concerns for the COC's policies/positions on climate change realities.

Echo that the COC cares of and for big money.

As has Exelon, PNM Resources, and Nike (although Nike only resigned from the CoC board). The Chamber's weasel-y statement regarding its position on climate change can be found here: http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ohue&st=Search

+1 if you can decode it!

[MrShow]

Originally Posted by k2director

I'm glad the Chamber of Commerce is there to guard against the Socialism-Run-Amuk state of affairs in this country.

By the way, Apple is a rare company these days that's thriving in a horrendous recession. It's easy for Apple to smugly talk about all its investments in green tech, when the money is rolling in and it's sitting on a vast wad of cash. I wonder: if Apple were in the financial state that it was in the mid-90s--ie, barely hanging on--would it have been quite so committed to all these expensive green efforts? I doubt it.

ha ha you sound like you know what you're talking about.

[virgilisleading42]

Glad the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is doing the right thing. Hope they don't get swindled by the "World is flat" sudo science crew. It's interesting that often the people that speak so vitriolically against those who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, haven't done any scientific research. I mean at least look at both sides openly before you make a stand.

http://www.viddler.com/explore/micheleforan/videos/2/

[souliisoul]

Originally Posted by virgilisleading42

Glad the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is doing the right thing. Hope they don't get swindled by the "World is flat" sudo science crew. It's interesting that often the people that speak so vitriolically against those who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, haven't done any scientific research. I mean at least look at both sides openly before you make a stand.

http://www.viddler.com/explore/micheleforan/videos/2/

Agreed so I would check out the info provided in Monday discussion on subject,since some very good points were posted on climate change.
I think it is better to do something now, then to wait and see. Humans do not own earth, there are other species on this planet and if we screw it up for them and future children, then we are behaving like what Mr. Smith described us in the first Matrix movie 'a virus'.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...hreadid=103579


P.S. When I said agreed, I meant agreed that people look at both sides openly! Maybe your one that got swindled by one programme and not looking at it openly

[CurtisEMayle]

Originally Posted by virgilisleading42

...

1. Hope they don't get swindled by the "World is flat" sudo science crew.

2. It's interesting that often the people that speak so vitriolically against those who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, haven't done any scientific research.

3. I mean at least look at both sides openly before you make a stand.

http://www.viddler.com/explore/micheleforan/videos/2/

1. FYI, it's pseudoscience. But, you make a good analogy of deniers to flat-earthers ... simply reversed.

2. That's quite presumptuous and the attempt is not to impose belief in the absence of facts and logic, but to state research and data from credible sources.

3. Due to the anonymity of my alias, this is more presumption. But, I can categorically state that it has no factual basis.

[LTMP]

Originally Posted by virgilisleading42

Glad the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is doing the right thing. Hope they don't get swindled by the "World is flat" sudo science crew. It's interesting that often the people that speak so vitriolically against those who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, haven't done any scientific research. I mean at least look at both sides openly before you make a stand.

http://www.viddler.com/explore/micheleforan/videos/2/

I'll bet if you watch this you'll instantly believe that evolution is a lie too.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...28567394&hl=en

[pws]

Originally Posted by LTMP

I'll bet if you watch this you'll instantly believe that evolution is a lie too.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...28567394&hl=en

Please, anyone with at least a college freshman level of competence in biology, chemistry, earth science and corresponding mathematics understands the hypothesis that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is responsible for global warming, or rather lack their of over the past decade, is implausible; and if anything the replenishing of atmospheric CO2 is necessary for the continuation of life on earth as enabled through the photosynthesis of carbon compounds forming the basis of our food chain.

[CurtisEMayle]

Originally Posted by pws

Please, anyone with at least a college freshman level of competence in biology, chemistry, earth science and corresponding mathematics understands the hypothesis that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is responsible for global warming, or rather lack their of over the past decade, is implausible; and if anything the replenishing of atmospheric CO2 is necessary for the continuation of life on earth as enabled through the photosynthesis of carbon compounds forming the basis of our food chain.

You're alluding to Co2 Fertilization, but recent studies and experiments refute your assertion. Sorry.

[dasein]

Originally Posted by Tonkin

Energy corporation Pacific Gas and Electric (PGE) has also withdrawn from the COC, citing similar concerns for the COC's policies/positions on climate change realities.

Echo that the COC cares of and for big money.

They did that because they and a number of other big corps (e.g., GE) struck a back door sweetheart deal with Congress and the White House and its regulators over this...they stand to make a ton of cash on the legislation. The fix was in some time ago. It's not a stretch to believe something like this was part of the deal. We're talking Chicago style politics here...not pizza. As long as they're making money... well, as long as they're making money.

[joeblowjapan]

It's great to see companies pulling out of the US Chamber of Commerce. The American Petroleum Institute is finding some members rethinking their positions too. US industry and the US right wing are fast becoming isolated in the developed world with their insistence on pushing "socialist conspiracy" theories and pseudo-scientific propaganda. Yes, some companies will make more money in the future if restrictions on CO2 output are put into place in the USA: the smart companies betting on the growth of cleaner technologies. Right now it seems like the majority of those smart companies are European and Asian. The US needs to grow up and catch up.

[pws]

Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle

You're alluding to Co2 Fertilization, but recent studies and experiments refute your assertion. Sorry.

And you believe the carbon otherwise locked in fossil originally fuels came from where? And that a fraction of a percent replenishment of CO2 originally previously extracted from the atmosphere itself will cause the destruction of mankind, although originating within an environment having several times higher CO2 concentration? And being a significant contribution to the greenhouse effect itself, although as water vapor dominates all other greenhouse gasses combined by an order of magnitude? And the most strongly correlated to earths temperature is solar radiation, which in turn affects the surface temperature of the oceans, affecting its buffered solubility within the oceans, causing it's release from solution, being the greatest store of CO2 on the planet? Thereby with highest probability, solar radiation affects CO2 solubility increasing atmospheric CO2 as temperature rises, not the other way round.

[tonton]

Originally Posted by dasein

They did that because they and a number of other big corps (e.g., GE) struck a back door sweetheart deal with Congress and the White House and its regulators over this...they stand to make a ton of cash on the legislation. The fix was in some time ago. It's not a stretch to believe something like this was part of the deal. We're talking Chicago style politics here...not pizza. As long as they're making money... well, as long as they're making money.

So... there you have it. Proof, in the very words of a right winger that you can in fact be environmentally responsible, and still "make a ton of cash".

So what's the reason not to?

[CurtisEMayle]

Originally Posted by pws

And you believe the carbon otherwise locked in fossil originally fuels came from where? And that a fraction of a percent replenishment of CO2 originally previously extracted from the atmosphere itself will cause the destruction of mankind, although originating within an environment having several times higher CO2 concentration? And being a significant contribution to the greenhouse effect itself, although as water vapor dominates all other greenhouse gasses combined by an order of magnitude? And the most strongly correlated to earths temperature is solar radiation, which in turn affects the surface temperature of the oceans, affecting its buffered solubility within the oceans, causing it's release from solution, being the greatest store of CO2 on the planet? Thereby with highest probability, solar radiation affects CO2 solubility increasing atmospheric CO2 as temperature rises, not the other way round.

No, I don't believe. I accept the studies subjected to peer review from the climatologists until better evidence is corroborated. I've provided many links to information on the topics you've raised. If you wish to not read or believe them, that's entirely your prerogative.

[tonton]

Just a quick note. When slavery was abolished, it cost businesses a ton of money. When equal rights were pushed, that cost businesses a ton of money.

Sometimes, kids, doing the right thing costs businesses a ton of money.

Like universal healthcare.

Responsibility, or greed? Which of those do you think the right wing mindset is built upon?

[pws]

Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle

No, I don't believe. I accept the studies subjected to peer review from the climatologists until better evidence is corroborated. I've provided many links to information on the topics you've raised. If you wish to not read or believe them, that's entirely your prerogative.

With respect to the article cited, in geologic time, any coincidence between consumption of fossil fuels and average global temperature is irrelevant; as in case any may not have been aware, the whole world has been in the process of recovering from the latest ice age, obviously having nothing to do with man kind, or it's use of fossil fuels.

[newbee]

Originally Posted by k2director

I'm glad the Chamber of Commerce is there to guard against the Socialism-Run-Amuk state of affairs in this country.

By the way, Apple is a rare company these days that's thriving in a horrendous recession. It's easy for Apple to smugly talk about all its investments in green tech, when the money is rolling in and it's sitting on a vast wad of cash. I wonder: if Apple were in the financial state that it was in the mid-90s--ie, barely hanging on--would it have been quite so committed to all these expensive green efforts? I doubt it.

Fair enough comment, but how about this? What if we just target any company/industry that has a good balance sheet, like Apple does, and tell them all to "toe the line" on investing in green technology. That would , at least, be a start.

[souliisoul]

Originally Posted by pws

With respect to the article cited, in geologic time, any coincidence between consumption of fossil fuels and average global temperature is irrelevant; as in case any may not have been aware, the whole world has been in the process of recovering from the latest ice age, obviously having nothing to do with man kind, or it's use of fossil fuels.

Can you prove evidence to support the comments, you are making, I found this discussion very interesting, But I perfer to some kind of link to the comments you are stating and not just your own opinion e.g. CurtisEMayle provided with his comments.

I learned longtime ago not beleive anything coming out from both sides of the camp, unless supported with some factual evidence that tells the truth. I am supporter of ensuring, we have a planet that supports all habitants and not just the humans at present.

[mr O]

Originally Posted by pws

With respect to the article cited, in geologic time, any coincidence between consumption of fossil fuels and average global temperature is irrelevant; as in case any may not have been aware, the whole world has been in the process of recovering from the latest ice age, obviously having nothing to do with man kind, or it's use of fossil fuels.

hey pws, you go tell this to the flooded people in India …

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by tonton

Just a quick note. When slavery was abolished, it cost businesses a ton of money. When equal rights were pushed, that cost businesses a ton of money.

Sometimes, kids, doing the right thing costs businesses a ton of money.

Like universal healthcare.

Responsibility, or greed? Which of those do you think the right wing mindset is built upon?

I'm pretty sure that in the long term, abolishment of slavery and pushing equal rights has earned business a lot more than it has cost.

I agree that gradual change is to be preferred over revolution when it comes to economical interests, but no change or too slow change can be just as costly.

It's at least short-sighted to suggest that people who are propagating environmental values and universal healthcare are "kids" lacking the real-world business perspective.

Sometimes companies are so busy watching out for dog poop that they don't see the abyss they're heading for.


This is not to say that I don't think Apple is moved by PR interests at least as much as the environment. But that's pretty much Apple and it tends to work...

[cnocbui]

This move by Apple would be admirable, if anthropogenic Global Warming was something factual, rather than myth.

The use of science for political and social ends is one of the most terrible things that has happened in recent times. Once a science based theory is seized upon by a political or social movement, political correctness arises, stifles free and open debate and short circuits the usual self-correcting nature of scientific theory formation by skewing funding mechanisms.

As a myth, global warming is up there with 'cholesterol causes heart disease' and 'eating saturated fats is unhealthy and makes you fat'.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by tonton

Just a quick note. When slavery was abolished, it cost businesses a ton of money. When equal rights were pushed, that cost businesses a ton of money.

Sometimes, kids, doing the right thing costs businesses a ton of money.

Like universal healthcare.

Responsibility, or greed? Which of those do you think the right wing mindset is built upon?

Wacko.

Actually, when slavery was abolished, the entire economy of the South grew far more than it did under Slavery. That's one of the reasons why the South got its clock cleaned during the Civil War--ie, the North, driven by a free labor market and all that entails, was much more of an economic dynamo. Whatever value Southern businesses lost via emancipation was made up for in economic growth. In other words, abolishing slavery was good for business.

And how has bestowing "equal rights" (other than your inane slavery example) "cost businesses a ton of money". Please name some examples.

Another thing: hearing a present-day liberal wacko claim that Universal Heathcare is a moral imperative (ie, "doing the right thing") reminds me of earlier liberal wackos who thought that the Welfare system from Johnson's Great Society was "the right thing to do." But with 50 years of hindsight, we can see that providing unlimited hand-outs (much to the black community in America, which welfare was designed to help) in fact stunted the recipients' growth, and kept many of them poor and perpetually dependent on the state's hand-outs. What a brilliant idea from liberal wackodom!

The only "right thing" this country can do is work to make people less--not more--dependent on the government, which means emphasizing personal responsibility and accountability. We became the richest and most powerful country in the world precisely because we attracted people who came here and made their own way in the world, instead of sitting around waiting for yet another government entitlement, paid for by taxing other people.

We didn't seem to need Universal Healthcare to lead the world in economic growth over the last hundred years, why do we need it now? Liberal wackos keep talking about the "rest of the developed world" offering Universal Healthcare, as if we should aspire to be more like Europe or Japan. Anyone want to compare the economic growth rates of the US to those cradle-to-grave Socialist societies? The US creates far more economic opportunities for *everyone*. Also, those Socialist countries have barely spent a dime on national defense in the last 60+ years, which historically speaking is a very large line-item in a country's expenditures. The US has been paying that tab for everybody (Europe, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Taiwan, etc., etc.), but it's not going to last much longer. As we put down the burden of being the world's cop (man, I can't wait to do that!), I wonder how many perks those Socialist countries will be able to keep when they have to spend real money on their own defense....

[eyeless]

But I guess they are in the corner and have to try and do what they perceive as being politically correct.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by cnocbui

This move by Apple would be admirable, if anthropogenic Global Warming was something factual, rather than myth.

The use of science for political and social ends is one of the most terrible things that has happened in recent times. Once a science based theory is seized upon by a political or social movement, political correctness arises, stifles free and open debate and short circuits the usual self-correcting nature of scientific theory formation by skewing funding mechanisms.

As a myth, global warming is up there with 'cholesterol causes heart disease' and 'eating saturated fats is unhealthy and makes you fat'.

I think not using science for political and social ends is no option. You can't stop it and it would be a waste of knowledge. It's of all ages.

Scientific insight changes (and moves forward in my view), and so does political insight - beit in a much more hysterical way.

It's a necessary evil. Science and public hysteria are the only way humanity can deal with truths like the world being a sphere, and myths like blood-letting being a remedy.

Besides, accusing advocates of any opinion of being politically motivated, is usually politically motivated itself - otherwise different arguments would have been used.

[tsa]

If Apple plays this right in the media, which I'm sure they will, this will get them a lot more customers.

[brucep]

Originally Posted by k2director

I'm glad the Chamber of Commerce is there to guard against the Socialism-Run-Amuk state of affairs in this country.

By the way, Apple is a rare company these days that's thriving in a horrendous recession. It's easy for Apple to smugly talk about all its investments in green tech, when the money is rolling in and it's sitting on a vast wad of cash. I wonder: if Apple were in the financial state that it was in the mid-90s--ie, barely hanging on--would it have been quite so committed to all these expensive green efforts? I doubt it.

you dare to question the holies from apple !!
good point but your wrong
its far cheaper to go green than not .
EXCEPT everyone has too do it at the same time to mitigate the pain/

america with a level playing field can compete . un fair trade practices is our real problem .

going green now will give our great grand children a slim chance at saving our world from a green house explosion like venus

[Beauty of Bath]

Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle

No, I don't believe. I accept the studies subjected to peer review from the climatologists until better evidence is corroborated. I've provided many links to information on the topics you've raised. If you wish to not read or believe them, that's entirely your prerogative.

You protest too much, you do believe. No one knows at best people base their judgments on balance of probabilities.You even state uncertainty in your belief, "until better evidence is corroborated', and thereby admit that you are not certain of what you are talking about.

You believe in the per review system, many people see it as a means of censoring conflicting opinion.

You believe in New Scientist magazine.

You have a really bad attitude where you emphatically claim to be right in your beliefs and put people with other opinions down.

If you really cared for the environment you would be worried about all the other stuff we are shoving in to the atmosphere rather than CO2. CO2 is a natural part of our atmosphere, essential for life for biochemical not energy reasons. There is a whole host of other dangerous chemicals being put in to the environment that have known risks and a greater potential for significant harm.

Apple's environmental concern has primarily focussed on reducing harmful chemicals in their products which is absolutely the right way to go. Apple's more recent targeting of CO2 emissions is correct too but to a lesser extent and does not necessarily contend that CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. CO2 emissions can be used as a measure for energy consumption due to the absurd fact that most energy used by humans comes from burning fossil fuels. Virtually all energy used by humans bears with it a chemical impact on the environment so as it stands more energy use equals more harm to the environment yet the advancement of mankind is apparently predicated on consuming more energy. This is the conundrum to be solved and again Apple should be applauded for making their products as energy efficient as is possible.

Apple is amazingly proactive in making our world a better place. Apple took a lead role in developing PVC-free cables, which are expected to be the norm starting with the next round of new products the company announces. Rather than just depend on its supply chain to do the work, Apple appointed employees to work full-time on the project, including engineers to help design the product as well as manufacturing experts to help Apple’s contract manufacturers understand how to produce them in high volumes.

More in the article:

http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...wins_kudo.html
.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by k2director

I'm glad the Chamber of Commerce is there to guard against the Socialism-Run-Amuk state of affairs in this country.

This country has only just started to recover from the results of eight years of your attitude ... it's a bit early to discuss anything as being 'run-amuk' since most of the efforts have been repairing the catastrophic damage done through the greedy, selfish, care for no one but your personal bank account attitudes of 'W's administration.