Energy corporation Pacific Gas and Electric (PGE) has also withdrawn from the COC, citing similar concerns for the COC's policies/positions on climate change realities.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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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...
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'.
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....
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.
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
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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...
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'.
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....
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.
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
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
.
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.
1. FYI, it's pseudoscience.
I dunno, "sudo science" has a certain comic ring.
"Carbon emissions are fine."
"What?"
"Sudo, Carbon emissions are fine."