Energy Secretary, Greenpeace praise Apple for Chamber departure

[AppleInsider]

Both the U.S. Secretary of Energy and Greenpeace have praised Apple's decision to abandon its membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over its stance on climate change.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu commented Thursday on the numerous companies that have left the chamber because they disagree with its stance on climate change. He spoke to reporters at a solar energy event in Washington D.C., according to Reuters.

"I think it's wonderful," Chu said, adding that the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are "part of our economic future."

The chamber recently made comments opposing the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to limit greenhouse gases, and Apple does not agree with that stance. The Mac maker made headlines this week when it declared its departure. Preceding the Cupertino, Calif., company were Nike, Pacific Gas & Electric, PNM Resources, and Exelon.

In his comments, Chu reprotedly urged the chamber to reconsider its stance on the issue. The chamber would rather see Congress set policy through legislation.

"I would encourage the Chamber of Commerce to realize the economic opportunity that the United States can lead in a new industrial revolution," he said.

After Apple announced its departure this week, the chamber fired back, accusing the Mac maker of not taking the time to understand the consortium's stance on the issues. Chamber President Thomas Donohue accused the company of forfeiting the chance to "advance a 21st century approach to climate change."

Also Thursday, the international nongovernmental organization Greenpeace came out in support, declaring "Bravo Apple!" in a news item on its Web site. The group took the opportunity to encourage two other big-name technology companies to do the same.

"Apple has stormed out of the biggest lobby group in the United States," Greenpeace said. "At issue is the US Chamber of Commerce's use of funds to oppose climate change legislation. Apple has done the right thing, and IBM and Microsoft should think different too."



It's quite a change from just a few years ago, when Greenpeace was targeting Apple over the use of toxic chemicals in its products. Since then, the company has made a concerted effort to improve its image. Just weeks ago, Apple began reporting its carbon emissions on its Web site.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[coolfactor]

Bravo Apple! I'm very impressed by their tremendous efforts at demonstrating and publicizing their environmental efforts. But there's still more work to be done. Go go Apple!

[anantksundaram]

Chu: (OK, how about the government now purchasing some Macs?)

Greenpeace: (You guys need to give it a rest).

[frugality]

Apple has appeased the Chicken Little demographic. Way to go, Apple.

[pats]

I agre with the premise, but what really matters? Apple cares about their affect about the environment, but they are a bit player in the market, Good luck

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by frugality

...Chicken Little demographic...

How so?

Read much?

[Trajectory]

Good! The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has just become a shill for corporations who only care about putting millions of dollars into the pockets of their CEOs. Might as well move their offices to K Street.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by Trajectory

Might as well move their offices to K Street.

US Chamber of Commerce
www.uschamber.com
1615 H St NW
Washington, DC 20062
(202) 659-6000

You're off by just two blocks...... .

[BuzDots]

I am for doing what is good for the environment - not at the expense of everything, or everyone on the planet mind you - but Greenpeace are just attention whores.

[VinitaBoy]

I'm with you, Trajectory! Send those jobs around the world to China, India, Malasia, Mexico, et al. That is, any other growing economy that will NOT, I repeat N-O-T, endorse this sky is falling mantra of global warming.

Cripple the US! Down with the old regime! Long live 20+% unemployment! Hail the workers' paradise that is the US . . . and ignore all those impenetrable brown clouds that are wafting from the east.

Down with the old guard, and damn the US CEO's to hell!

P.S. What should we do with all those US Senators (95-0) that refused to ratify Kyoto back in the 90's? Sick Eric Holder on 'em? Sounds like a good idea to me. Meanwhile, I'm going to sit back, relax, and (to quote the Dear Leader), wait for my electricity bill to "skyrocket"! Bang! Zoom! It's off to the moon, Alice!

[kellya74u]

I'm not sure an endorsement from Greenpeace is a good thing for Apple. Greenpeace could be a great organization if they wanted to. However, even when they can do things the right way & just film things they believe are wrong, they have often resorted to criminal conduct because they felt it was necessary, as if they alone, were the sole holders of truth. They are right in their own eyes. Maybe Apple will get an endorsement from the Taliban, as they too are trying to reduce the carbon footprint of infidels' burning of gunpowder & machinery. How about endorsements from Khadaffe & ?. Apple should have stayed on the board, logged their "no" votes, which would have been on public record, & lobbied other members to do the same. Quitting is more convenient than staying in the game. I see kids quit school,teams, clubs & other organization because things aren't going they way they want them to, & won't stay to improve things. They learn this stuff from the adult world.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

How so?

Read much?

Nah. Little tough when you're busy doing that ostrich thing with your head.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Nah. Little tough when you're busy doing that ostrich thing with your head.

Yes, when you're burying dead organic matter in the sand.... I mean sequestering carbon....

[GordonPrice67]

Originally Posted by frugality
...Chicken Little demographic...

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

How so?

Read much?

Yes, but not the big words?

Gordon

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by GordonPrice67

Yes, but not the big words?

Gordon

Yeah, 'anthropogenic' is indeed a big word.

Unnecessarily so, when the IPCC could simply have used 'human-caused.'

[frugality]

The climate is changing. That's probably pretty well agreed upon.

Humans are a cause. (i.e. it's partly anthropogenic) And that, too, is pretty well agreed upon.

However, it's not a problem.

[PaulMJohnson]

Wow, lots of vitriol from the crowd on this one. I actually think this move by Apple is tremendous, and I think the response from Greenpeace is gracious.

Greenpeace must be very pleased with how Apple are operating. Having drawn attention to their frankly poor practices previously, Apple really have turned the page. It just shows that negative publicity can make a difference. Let's hope they can get IBM, Microsoft, Nintendo et al to do the same.

[PaulMJohnson]

Originally Posted by frugality

The climate is changing. That's probably pretty well agreed upon.

Humans are a cause. (i.e. it's partly anthropogenic) And that, too, is pretty well agreed upon.

However, it's not a problem.

Wow, I love that argument, since I've never heard it before. I've always thought it was:

Climate change is not happening, and it's not a problem.
Cimate change is happening, and humans are causing it, and it is a problem.

It had never occurred to me there was a third option!

Not that I agree with you!!!

[frugality]

Irrational fear is never a good motivator for the formation of policy.

[ascii]

Hmm... I don't know if I'd be too happy if a government bureaucrat and a bunch of hippies were praising me

[Roc Ingersol]

Originally Posted by ascii

Hmm... I don't know if I'd be too happy if a government bureaucrat and a bunch of hippies were praising me

Take a stand on anything and people you're not entirely too comfortable with will try to co-opt your stand to imply that you agree with *them*.

Also: if you're calling Steven Chu a bureaucrat, you need to do some reading.

[Roc Ingersol]

Originally Posted by frugality

However, it's not a problem.

If it's happening and we're a factor, then not changing our behavior is guaranteed to make it worse. So the question isn't just "Is it a problem" but "When will it be a problem" and "When will we have to change our behavior to avoid multiplying our own suffering from the problem?"

Therein lies the call to action.

What we've got is analogous to dumping toxic waste onto the tundra and calling it 'not a problem' just because not many people would be directly and adversely affected. But if we just kept dumping waste there, it certainly would grow into a problem so large in scope that it is unavoidable, undeniable and untenable.

So do you wait until half the tundra is glowing, the melt water is irradiated and then start cleaning things up at massive expense? Or do you recognize the inevitability of the situation and choose an ounce of prevention over a pound of cure?

I don't think you can honestly argue that it's happening, we're causing/contributing/exacerbating things and we shouldn't do anything.

[iReality85]

Well, considering that Chu is a nut job, (Seriously, have you heard/read some of the wacky left-field things he has said while being Energy Secretary? He's an enviro-nazi and a global warming kool-aid drinker.), and Greenpeace is a bunch of tree hugging liberals, I don't think their praise for Apple should be painted in a good light.

EDIT:

Haha, I must have missed this one:

Originally Posted by ascii

Hmm... I don't know if I'd be too happy if a government bureaucrat and a bunch of hippies were praising me

So true!

[airspeed]

Originally Posted by frugality

Humans are a cause. (i.e. it's partly anthropogenic) And that, too, is pretty well agreed upon.

Pretty well agreed upon by who? Yes climate change is occurring, but most rational scientist who are not on a Govt pay packet agree that an odourless, Colourless gas (IE CO2) cannot act as a greenhouse gas. In fact plants need it to survive.

True we have to limit and reduce the amount of other pollutants, but to say the sky is falling then say the solution is to tax the crap out of society. Is only rational if you stand to benefit from the billions of tax dollars that will be raised from taxation of carbon and carbon trading.

The Earth has been heating up an cooling down long before man got here. How else did massive ice ages disappear before the dawn on the industrial revolution. It's called cycles friends and the earth has gone through them for millennia.

As for the chamber of commerce arguing against the Govt stance on global warming. They're probably not doing it for the same reasons I've stated, and only have their own members vested interests at hand. That said, it's still childish for companies like Apple to run off like little childrens just because they don't agree with the a stance and are blinded by the Govt's rhetoric.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by iReality85

Well, considering that Chu is a nut job.....

Wow, a Nobel laureate in Physics, a professor of physics and molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is a "nut job"?

I wonder where that would put you. (No, don't answer that).

[MacGregor]

Originally Posted by VinitaBoy

I'm with you, Trajectory! Send those jobs around the world to China, India, Malasia, Mexico, et al. That is, any other growing economy that will NOT, I repeat N-O-T, endorse this sky is falling mantra of global warming.

Cripple the US! Down with the old regime! Long live 20+% unemployment! Hail the workers' paradise that is the US . . . and ignore all those impenetrable brown clouds that are wafting from the east.

Down with the old guard, and damn the US CEO's to hell!

P.S. What should we do with all those US Senators (95-0) that refused to ratify Kyoto back in the 90's? Sick Eric Holder on 'em? Sounds like a good idea to me. Meanwhile, I'm going to sit back, relax, and (to quote the Dear Leader), wait for my electricity bill to "skyrocket"! Bang! Zoom! It's off to the moon, Alice!

Yea!!! We have a winner for the Ayn Rand Memorial OverHype the Issues Award!!

I know, VinitaBoy, that we should not do anything unless China does it too - BTW, why is a communist country out-competing the world's largest capitalist economy ... hmmm? - but sometime being a responsible, independent and ethical society means doing things that are not always popular or puts money in your pocket. My question for you is this: are you a true objectivist who believes everything should be done with self-interest in mind and that money is the only truly value-neutral measure of success and "good" or are you merely a conservative who just is blindly pro-business and anti-government in the intellectually shallow sense.

Moral authority is just as important as moral hazard and I, as a responsible capitalist, know that you can not expect individual freedoms unless you take on individual responsibilities. And I know that as important as CEO's are to our economic capital, they are not the ones who should be sole arbiters of our ecological capital. No one is damning CEO's to hell, just holding them responsible in ways that they can not or do not hold themselves responsible. That is the point.

You may feel no moral responsibility, but most Americans do and that puts you in a small, angry, self-righteous minority.

[Bobby Dale]

Why do they manufacture most of their products in China?

[MacGregor]

Originally Posted by frugality

Irrational fear is never a good motivator for the formation of policy.

So why was your first post so full of "irrational fear" and hyperbole, then?

[MacGregor]

Originally Posted by airspeed

Pretty well agreed upon by who? Yes climate change is occurring, but most rational scientist who are not on a Govt pay packet agree that an odourless, Colourless gas (IE CO2) cannot act as a greenhouse gas. In fact plants need it to survive.

Reading your comments on science is like listening to Steve Ballmer discuss the market success of Vista.

CO2 DOES act as a greenhouse gas, that is the most unambiguous part of the whole discussion. The uncertainty comes from how much we can actually and responsibly reduce and how much of an economic shock we can take. That is really the only debate left and because the ecological shock is global, the economic shock should be spread globally.

[beefeater999]

Originally Posted by airspeed

Pretty well agreed upon by who? Yes climate change is occurring, but most rational scientist who are not on a Govt pay packet agree that an odourless, Colourless gas (IE CO2) cannot act as a greenhouse gas. In fact plants need it to survive.

The Earth has been heating up an cooling down long before man got here. How else did massive ice ages disappear before the dawn on the industrial revolution. It's called cycles friends and the earth has gone through them for millennia.

Careful there, my friend, you're stepping on something rotten. If you really want to patronise other people, get your facts straight will ya? Carbon dioxide is and always will be a GHG. Google scholar for proof, I'll link you one that is free. Pretending otherwise makes you sound like a fool.

It is perhaps not the most efficient and effective GHG (methane and NOx are for example more efficient at it), if that's what you meant, but CO2 is definitely the most emitted GHG, by volume.

Originally Posted by frugality

The climate is changing. That's probably pretty well agreed upon.

Humans are a cause. (i.e. it's partly anthropogenic) And that, too, is pretty well agreed upon.

However, it's not a problem.

I tend to agree, if you look at the carbon cycle of the last couple centuries, one can suggest that the present climate change event started before the industrial revolution. The human influence has probably amplified it by a lot, but it was already occuring. But that's just my opinion, take it with a grain of salt.

[MacGregor]

Originally Posted by Bobby Dale

Why do they manufacture most of their products in China?

Seems like the perfect opportunity to get China to move on their own greenhouse gas emissions, doesn't it! We opened up to China to get them to liberalize their economic and political systems, they will need to be engaged in environmental responsibilities as well.

It is going to take time, one outsourcing corporation at a time.

[Bobby Dale]

Do you think that the Chinese leadership will be willing to mothball the hundreds of coal fired electrical generating plants built in the last decade so that Western consumers can feel good about the products they buy?

[iReality85]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Wow, a Nobel laureate in Physics, a professor of physics and molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is a "nut job"?

I wonder where that would put you. (No, don't answer that).

I will answer that, thank you. Please do not insult me and denigrate me, it just makes you look like a smug asshole. Considering Obama just received the Nobel Peace Prize for having done practically nothing in regards to world peace, being a Nobel laureate means absolutely nothing now. Are you trying to impress me with Chu's titles? I judge people like Chu by what they say publicly, and frankly some of his opinions on remedies for reducing environmental pollution are wacky.

[MacGregor]

Originally Posted by Bobby Dale

Do you think that the Chinese leadership will be willing to mothball the hundreds of coal fired electrical generating plants built in the last decade so that Western consumers can feel good about the products they buy?

I don't, but the US went from agrarian to industrial to post-industrial faster than Europe did, and I expect China will go through that evolution even faster.

They are dependent upon coal plants b/c they have little oil and natural gas, but they also are ahead of us in fuel efficient cars and green village/city designs. China will be creating from scratch cities that are far more sustainable than anything that exists today and in the end those will do more to limit global effects on all of us than almost anything any other country on Earth.

Unfortunately they need to go through a decade or two of coal plants, inefficient steel production and the Three Gorges Dam issues before they find a balance.

The fact remains, do we use China as a justification for not doing things ourselves or do we lead?

[copeland]

Originally Posted by Bobby Dale

Why do they manufacture most of their products in China?

Because that will put all the CO2 that is produced to make aluminium on the bill of chinese companys and Apple keeps its green vest.

That's what the car manufacturers do. They put alumninium parts in their cars, that are produced in Asia or South America.

Then they calculate the energy savings for the recycled parts that come effective in 30 years into this years balance. --> Voila ... green car manufacturer

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by iReality85

I will answer that, thank you. Please do not insult me and denigrate me, it just makes you look like a smug asshole. Considering Obama just received the Nobel Peace Prize for having done practically nothing in regards to world peace, being a Nobel laureate means absolutely nothing now. Are you trying to impress me with Chu's titles? I judge people like Chu by what they say publicly, and frankly some of his opinions on remedies for reducing environmental pollution are wacky.

Insult and denigrate you? There is no need for it.

(Do you also hear voices coming from your molars?)

[CurtisEMayle]

Originally Posted by iReality85

...Considering Obama just received the Nobel Peace Prize for having done practically nothing in regards to world peace, being a Nobel laureate means absolutely nothing now. ...

At a minimum, your statement sounds remiss of the knowledge of multiple categories of Nobel prizes. Obama's the Peace prize for, "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples, ... vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons ... hope for a better future ... diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population"; Chu's the Physics prize for cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light.

The emphasis on hope was mine, but I'd suspect it to be key to the Committee's judgement versus actual accomplishments of the efforts which will be judged in time.

As Lech Walesa, the 1983 Peace prize winner and Poland’s president from 1990 to 1995, “... sometimes the Nobel Committee awards the prize to encourage responsible action."

EDIT: I later read the Nobel Committe statement. The last paragraph reads, "For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”"

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by iReality85

Well, considering that Chu is a nut job, (Seriously, have you heard/read some of the wacky left-field things he has said while being Energy Secretary? He's an enviro-nazi and a global warming kool-aid drinker.), and Greenpeace is a bunch of tree hugging liberals, I don't think their praise for Apple should be painted in a good light.

What about all of us conservative tree huggers? I'm in favor of market-based solutions, and I'm in favor of any company that leaves things in better shape than the time before they arrived on the scene. I'm not really in favor of top-down government solutions.

[tsa]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

What about all of us conservative tree huggers? I'm in favor of market-based solutions, and I'm in favor of any company that leaves things in better shape than the time before they arrived on the scene. I'm not really in favor of top-down government solutions.

If the market had decided we now would not have cars with seat belts as standard, we would not have emission regulations, we would not have the fantastic roads we drive on every day, and so on and so forth. The current economic recession is caused by an almost unregulated market. Top-down government solutions are absolutely necessary to keep the world habitable and safe.

[frugality]

Originally Posted by tsa

Top-down government solutions are absolutely necessary to keep the world habitable and safe.

Our government can keep this world habitable?

Therein lies the largest fallacy of the environmental movement.

Our scientists are smart people, and our government officials often do have good intentions. However, we have way too much faith in humanity if we think we can actually control this planet's environment. We know much less than we claim to. The earth is much more complex than what we think we can sum up in theories and computer models.

Even Stephen Hawking doesn't think we'll be able to sustain the planet, and urges us to start looking at colonizing other planets. (which is funny, because if we can't take care of this one....)