Apple's Lisa Jackson says environmental regulation is essential

AppleInsider

Talking at a climate conference, Apple's environment executive Lisa Jackson said the company believes in regulation, and also in how sustainable design requires working directly with communities.

Lisa Jackson, Apple's VP of Environment, Policy, and Social Initiatives

As vice president of environment, policy and social initiatives, Jackson is one of several Apple executives who have been tipped to succeed Tim Cook. At Climate Week NYC, she's been talking to entrepreneur leaders across all industries, and according to Inc. magazine, advised them all to work with communities.

"If you design an answer in a vacuum away from the community that's impacted and away from the people who have to live with it and use it, it's not going to be a solution," she said. Specifically regarding Silicon Valley, she added that "we're so smart [there], but communities know what they need, as well."

Jackson also said that regulation over environmental issues was both welcome and essential. She said that it levels the playing field for all companies.

"For companies who are stepping up to do more, to do things that they aren't required to do by law," said Jackson, "it shouldn't be at a disadvantage because another company isn't even doing the minimum."

"I believe strongly in the role of regulation [and] in the idea that equity, justice, health, rely on somebody who's going to enforce the incredibly important regulations around air and water and land and pesticides and toxics and all the things that [the Environmental Protection Agency] is tasked to do under law," she added.

Asked for careers advice for people looking to follow her lead in working in environment and sustainability, she said simply, "Do science."

"But then I also say you don't have to be 'environmental' anything. I was a chemical engineer," she added, and recounted how Tim Cook had said during her interview that he liked that she was an engineer.

Jackson said that to be able to change people's minds, you need to be able to think the way they do, and to understand the complex topics.

Lisa Jackson does not give many interviews, but in a separate 2023 one she also touched on how Apple sees "education is the ladder, the way to equity," in her role with the company's Racial Equity and Justice Initiative.



Read on AppleInsider

mike123

Oh wow. Based on those two snippets of interviews I hope she doesn’t become the next CEO. They need someone who will innovate at the helm, a visionary. 

hmurchison

Sounds good for PR but when workers of large corporations are upset about the end of Hybrid work it sounds like the commitment to sustainable, lower emission practices only extends to what is under the media spotlight. 

Amazon ends Hybrid work 

Walmart ends Remote work positions  

You can be sure that any regulations that the Fortune 100 want will NOT involved Hybrid/Remote Position work as a more efficient way to combat traffic gridlock and unnecessary emissions.  

beowulfschmidt

Maybe if Apple and other corporations supported and encouraged actual safe and efficient power generation, like nuclear, and usage, like wired versus wireless charging, I'd be more inclined to listen.  As it is, it's lip service only.

Regulation also tends to be very exclusionary.  Large companies like Apple can afford nearly any cost such regulation incurs, while smaller companies cannot, so of course Apple favors regulation.

namethespruce

Yeah, just like Sam Altman wants AI regulation. Regulatory capture. Apple would almost definitely get a seat on whatever commission of industry leaders contribute to these regulations and could influence them in their favor. That being said, Apple's sustainability initiatives are admirable... but just looking at how they respond to pro-consumer regulations by the EU (namely: "No, you can't make us use USB-C!"... 2 years later: "Check out the all-new AirPods Max! What's new? USB-C!")... it makes a lot of sense to cozy up to the idea of regulations that they would actually have a hand in writing.

timpetus

"Woman wants job security. News at 11."

Regulation always favors big business, so of course one of the biggest companies in the world is in favor of it. IP laws have the same effect. The big companies can afford to comply with regulations that often have a fixed cost that is a drop in the ocean to them, but several times the operating budget of small competitors. Patents are the same thing, plus the biggest corporations have massive war chests that they generally cross-license with their same-size competition to avoid all-out war in the courts, but if a small startup is trying to do something similar they get crushed. So much for freedom to create.

Alex_V

Where do you champions of the little man get this b.s. idea that regulations “always favour big business”? It is patently not so. Much regulation is designed to reign in monopolies, i.e. favour small over big. Other, notable, forms of regulation are intended to reduce harms or bads, e.g. worker rights, health and safety, and pollution reduction, with greater consequences on the big offenders. Other regulations might be applied to attain specific economic or geo-political outcomes, such as the Inflation Reduction Act hopes to, same thing, big companies will find it harder to adapt, etc. etc. 

DAalseth

For companies who are stepping up to do more, to do things that they aren't required to do by law," said Jackson, "it shouldn't be at a disadvantage because another company isn't even doing the minimum.

This is why you need regulation. Without minimum standards you have a race to the bottom, the worst wages, the worst working conditions, the most polluting, the most wasteful, whatever is cheapest. That’s the way business works. 

AppleZulu

She’s right, of course. Without environmental regulation, we’d still have flammable rivers, smog-wrapped cities, and leaded gasoline running cars that get eight mpg. The business world attracts too many sociopaths who will gladly take the shortest route to a buck, no matter who it harms or kills. 

Not all companies are run that way, but Jackson is correct that the economic penalties for doing the right thing are greater when there are no rules preventing sociopathic competitors from doing the wrong thing. 

Just remember, we are the ones who pay costs externalized by companies that pollute the environment. 

Climate change is about increased retention of solar heat in the atmosphere. That added energy comes back on us in the form of more extreme weather systems. For instance, in five days’ time, an atmospheric disturbance near Yucatán turned into a category four hurricane that rammed the Florida coast and penetrated inland to dump massive amounts of rain in the mountains of western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee. Major roads, bridges and interstate highways have been washed out, five hundred miles from the gulf coast. Asheville has only been accessible by air. We are all going to pay for that. 

While some companies try to do the right thing, others will change practices to reduce carbon emissions only when forced to do so by regulations. So do you want to pay now in the cost of things you buy, or later in the form of taxes, insurance and personal loss when the storm or drought or fire wipe you out personally?

Yucam

Just close the business and stay home then…

beowulfschmidt

Alex_V said:

Where do you champions of the little man get this b.s. idea that regulations “always favour big business”? It is patently not so. Much regulation is designed to reign in monopolies, i.e. favour small over big. Other, notable, forms of regulation are intended to reduce harms or bads, e.g. worker rights, health and safety, and pollution reduction, with greater consequences on the big offenders. Other regulations might be applied to attain specific economic or geo-political outcomes, such as the Inflation Reduction Act hopes to, same thing, big companies will find it harder to adapt, etc. etc. 

Regulations aren't just regulations in isolation.  They are often accompanied by license, certification, inspection, monitoring, and sometimes hardware and software requirements, or extra costs just to meet the regulations.  All of which cost money, which the big guys can easily afford, while the little guy might not.

Alex_V

beowulfschmidt said:

Regulations aren't just regulations in isolation.  They are often accompanied by license, certification, inspection, monitoring, and sometimes hardware and software requirements, or extra costs just to meet the regulations.  All of which cost money, which the big guys can easily afford, while the little guy might not.

With apologies for the delayed response.

Fair enough, but it goes both ways, and it depends on the nature of the regulation. Large organisations are complex affairs with inordinate amounts of bureaucracy. Thus regulation changes can result in armies of workers being hired to handle the new requirements, paperwork etc. Small organisations and one-man-bands might be able to absorb the new requirements into their daily work. 

Regulation is of utmost importance to ensure that private enterprise, large and small, provide us with the goods and services that we want without killing too many people or destroying all life on earth, etc. etc.