U.S. Chamber of Commerce criticizes Apple for departure

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
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.
«134567

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 127
    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.
  • Reply 2 of 127
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,560member
    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.
  • Reply 3 of 127
    tofinotofino Posts: 697member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post




    "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...
  • Reply 4 of 127
    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.
  • Reply 5 of 127
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tofino View Post


    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.
  • Reply 6 of 127
    bartfatbartfat Posts: 432member
    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.
  • Reply 7 of 127
    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.
  • Reply 8 of 127
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    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."





    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.
  • Reply 9 of 127
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 1,747member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tofino View Post


    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...).
  • Reply 10 of 127
    tonkintonkin Posts: 42member
    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.
  • Reply 11 of 127
    daseindasein Posts: 139member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    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.



    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.
  • Reply 12 of 127
    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.
  • Reply 13 of 127
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tonkin View Post


    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!
  • Reply 14 of 127
    mrshowmrshow Posts: 150member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by k2director View Post


    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.
  • Reply 15 of 127
    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/
  • Reply 16 of 127
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by virgilisleading42 View Post


    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
  • Reply 17 of 127
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by virgilisleading42 View Post


    ...



    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.
  • Reply 18 of 127
    ltmpltmp Posts: 204member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by virgilisleading42 View Post


    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
  • Reply 19 of 127
    pwspws Posts: 10member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LTMP View Post


    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.
  • Reply 20 of 127
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pws View Post


    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.