Shareholder motion asks Apple to aim for net-zero greenhouse gases by 2030

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in AAPL Investors
A measure coming up for voting by Apple shareholders asks Apple to explore options for achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions -- for both its own operations and major suppliers -- by 2030.




If approved, the Apple board of directors would have to issue a report to shareholders by June 30 "assessing the feasibility and setting forth policy options" for Apple hitting the net-zero target. As noted in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the measure's core backer is an investment firm, Jantz Management, which argues that targeting zero emissions is "crucial for both the safety of the environment and for shareholder value."

The firm specifically points to December's Paris Agreement on climate change, which settled on limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial temeratures, and 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) if at all possible. Most researchers agree that the latter cap will involve reaching zero anthropogenic emissions between 2030 and 2050, according to Jantz.

Though often eager to promote a "green" image, Apple recently recommended voting against the proposed report, claiming that it would be "largely duplicative of Apple's existing public disclosures." Jantz dismisses this view, suggesting that the document is needed to augment Apple's brand and credibility, and hence stock value.

The company further says that Apple's current plans for reducing manufacturing emissions will offset less than 20 percent, even after factoring in solar power projects installed by both Apple and its primary manufacturer, Foxconn. It notes that Siemens -- another major multinational corporation -- has announced plans to hit a net-zero carbon footprint by 2030, even claiming it will save tens of millions per year after its initial investment valued at about $108.6 million.

Apple's annual shareholder meeting is scheduled for Feb. 26. The iPhone maker is also recommending that shareholders vote against a measure that would require more racial diversity in its elite ranks.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 37
    bobschlobbobschlob Posts: 1,074member
    Man! AI really chumming the political waters a lot these days.
    I don't know why. Plenty of other topics that always generate good user comments.   

    Edit: Oops, almost forgot: Que climate change denier rants in 3... 2... 1...
    (you're welcome)
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 2 of 37
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    nice photo!

    here is another one I like:


    edited January 2016 curtis hannah
  • Reply 3 of 37
    steviestevie Posts: 956member
    Apple should do this if and only if it will maximize their total profits. Apple is not a public charity.


  • Reply 4 of 37
    exceptionhandlerexceptionhandler Posts: 354member
    I don't deny climates change.  They do all the time.  But it is mans contribution is what I would take issue with.  The amount of carbon dioxide we pump into the air today, as far as green house gases are concerned, is like spitting into the ocean of climate change.
    tallest skilstevie
  • Reply 5 of 37
    jz1492jz1492 Posts: 41member
    It will not be nice if all of a sudden we come to the end of the present Interglacial Period, of which we know is well past its middle or Climatic Optimum and close to be over, and come to the realization that we need MORE greenhouse gases, not less. o


    edited January 2016 tallest skil
  • Reply 6 of 37
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,618moderator
    Whether or not humans are significantly altering the climate, we certainly have a major impact on the environment.  I'm in the camp that says, if you can identify or develop means of producing, packaging, and delivering your products and services that have less impact on the environment, that create lower amounts of pollution, that are more energy efficient, and that don't put you either out of business or at a significant disadvantage relative to your competition, then by all means a business should give serious consideration to such initiatives.  Which, I think, is exactly what Apple is currently doing, and is one among the leading companies in such efforts.  This shareholder proposal is self-aggrandizing on the part Jantz Management, whomever they are.  Bunch of twerps, it sounds like to me.
    fastasleeptallest skil
  • Reply 7 of 37
    leavingthebiggleavingthebigg Posts: 1,291member
    I want to know what Jantz Management is doing to decrease it's greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2030 and more importantly, what has it done and is currently doing to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. is Jantz Management leading by example?
  • Reply 8 of 37
    irelandireland Posts: 17,794member
    The Paris agreement is too little too late.
  • Reply 9 of 37
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    I don't deny climates change.  They do all the time.  But it is mans contribution is what I would take issue with.  The amount of carbon dioxide we pump into the air today, as far as green house gases are concerned, is like spitting into the ocean of climate change.
    This is not true.

    Human activity is contributing about 60% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Of the common greenhouse gases CO2 makes up about 70% and can last 100 years before the molecules are absorbed or break down. When combined with the effects of deforestation, the rate of CO2 being reabsorbed is decreasing. CO2 is the scientific benchmark for heat absorption so over a 100 years timespan it is given a heat index of 1. On the other hand, methane CH4 makes up about 10% of the accumulated atmospheric greenhouse gases. Methane is a much more potent heat absorbing molecule with an index of 15. Fortunately methane molecules break down in about 15 years. Much of the climate change discussion has been about CO2 sources but much more attention should be given to the sources of methane because it is so much more potent as a heat absorber. Some of the sources of methane emissions are wetlands, ocean vents, volcanos and wildfires, but other major sources are from human activity especially fossil fuel production, landfills, livestock and agriculture which some reports say contribute around 50% of worldwide methane emissions.
    edited January 2016 fastasleepJamesBBRayz2016dysamoriastevie
  • Reply 10 of 37
    echosonicechosonic Posts: 462member
    I am so sick to death and tired of these Envirochondriac nutbag leftist climate change buttholes. None of this is anything more than an attempt to force people to submit to a particular dogma using "THE FATE OF THE PLANET" as some sort of ultimate moral authority by which to levy their taxes and control your behavior. Such garbage, every last bit of it.

    Look at this cack right here:

    "December's Paris Agreement on climate change, which settled on limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial temeratures, and 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) if at all possible."

    So they're going to limit the temperature of earth, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE?!

    Guess what? IT ISN'T. It isn't at ALL possible to affect the temperature of earth short of global thermonuclear war, and even then, Earth will return to right where she was eventually.
    edited January 2016 tallest skil
  • Reply 11 of 37
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,373member
    While climate change is pretty much scientific fact -- for anyone with a reasonable education and the ability to process fairly rigorous and undeniable empirical evidence founded on strong theoretical foundations -- Apple is already doing plenty on this front. It is CO2-free in all of its Scope 1 (direct emissions) and Scope 2 (emissions embedded in electricity purchases) in its two most important markets, US and China. More will come, including more countries, and importantly, Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions, associated with everything from raw material extraction for its products all the way through to disposal) in due course. 

    The company -- a clear leader on this issue -- does not need some stupid, vapid, self-serving shareholder resolution to force its management's hands to do anything. 
    edited January 2016 JamesBB
  • Reply 12 of 37
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,373member
    ireland said:
    The Paris agreement is too little too late.
    It's on the 'too little' side, and there certainly is a strong need to get in front of it ASAP, but it's far from too late. It'll help a lot if the UN can get out of this process (all they do is slow it down interminably), would instead recognize/state an unambiguous role for a price on carbon (a phrase that appears nowhere in any of its agreements or documents), and facilitate a process whereby a handful of countries -- the US, the EU, China, Russia, India, Mexico, Japan, S. Africa,  and Brazil, who together account for 75% of global emissions -- get together and agree to solve the problem. It can all be made to happen within a few years. 

    "Too little too late" is typical Al Gore-type exaggeration....
    dysamoria
  • Reply 13 of 37
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    volcan said:
    I don't deny climates change.  They do all the time.  But it is mans contribution is what I would take issue with.  The amount of carbon dioxide we pump into the air today, as far as green house gases are concerned, is like spitting into the ocean of climate change.
    This is not true.

    Human activity is contributing about 60% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Of the common greenhouse gases CO2 makes up about 70% and can last 100 years before the molecules are absorbed or break down. When combined with the effects of deforestation, the rate of CO2 being reabsorbed is decreasing. CO2 is the scientific benchmark for heat absorption so over a 100 years timespan it is given a heat index of 1. On the other hand, methane CH4 makes up about 10% of the accumulated atmospheric greenhouse gases. Methane is a much more potent heat absorbing molecule with an index of 15. Fortunately methane molecules break down in about 15 years. Much of the climate change discussion has been about CO2 sources but much more attention should be given to the sources of methane because it is so much more potent as a heat absorber. Some of the sources of methane emissions are wetlands, ocean vents, volcanos and wildfires, but other major sources are from human activity especially fossil fuel production, landfills, livestock and agriculture which some reports say contribute around 50% of worldwide methane emissions.
    Are you serious? Human activity does not even come remotely close to contributing 60% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Human output is 29 gigatons of CO2 a year. Nature produces 750 gigatons of CO2 a year. 
    edited January 2016 tallest skilstevie
  • Reply 14 of 37
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,373member
    boltsfan17 said:
    volcan said:
    This is not true.

    Human activity is contributing about 60% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Of the common greenhouse gases CO2 makes up about 70% and can last 100 years before the molecules are absorbed or break down. When combined with the effects of deforestation, the rate of CO2 being reabsorbed is decreasing. CO2 is the scientific benchmark for heat absorption so over a 100 years timespan it is given a heat index of 1. On the other hand, methane CH4 makes up about 10% of the accumulated atmospheric greenhouse gases. Methane is a much more potent heat absorbing molecule with an index of 15. Fortunately methane molecules break down in about 15 years. Much of the climate change discussion has been about CO2 sources but much more attention should be given to the sources of methane because it is so much more potent as a heat absorber. Some of the sources of methane emissions are wetlands, ocean vents, volcanos and wildfires, but other major sources are from human activity especially fossil fuel production, landfills, livestock and agriculture which some reports say contribute around 50% of worldwide methane emissions.
    Are you serious? Human activity does not even come remotely close to contributing 60% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Human output is 29 gigatons of CO2 a year. Nature produces 750 gigatons of CO2 a year. 
    Um... You really should not display your scientific illiteracy by confusing a cumulative number (750 gigatons, the atmospheric part of the 'carbon pool') with the net changes -- human-caused and natural -- that happen annually. Net human-caused changes are, indeed, larger than the natural. You may wish to look up "the carbon cycle," if you'd really like to learn the facts. 

    Also, human-caused activity emits not 29 gigatons of GHGs annually, but 49 gigatons (happy to give you specific cites if interested). Earth's systems (plants, forests, oceans) absorb about 16-20 gigatons of that annually, and the rest gets thrown out into the atmosphere, where it stays for well over 100 years. 

    It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the many tens of gigatons extra per year, over the course of the last century (when since 1970 alone, we've emitted over a trillion tons of CO2, I.e., more than half of the entire cumulative emissions since the industrial revolution) adds up cumulatively to quite a sizable piece of the atmospheric carbon pool. 
    fastasleepmuppetryJamesBBdysamoriastevie
  • Reply 15 of 37
    exceptionhandlerexceptionhandler Posts: 354member
    bobschlob said:
    Man! AI really chumming the political waters a lot these days.
    I don't know why. Plenty of other topics that always generate good user comments.   

    Edit: Oops, almost forgot: Que climate change alarmist rants in 3... 2... 1...
    (you're welcome)
    FTFY
    tallest skil
  • Reply 16 of 37
    exceptionhandlerexceptionhandler Posts: 354member
    The ice sheets are actually growing, contradicting previous assumptions:

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/11/03/new-study-finds-antarctic-ice-growing-countering-earlier-studies.html

    I'm all for reducing pollution, don't get me wrong, but I fail to see the alarmists view point as reality.
    tallest skilstevie
  • Reply 17 of 37
    ac1234ac1234 Posts: 138member
    bobschlob said:
    Man! AI really chumming the political waters a lot these days.
    I don't know why. Plenty of other topics that always generate good user comments.   

    Edit: Oops, almost forgot: Que climate change denier rants in 3... 2... 1...
    (you're welcome)
    Thank heavens for global warming - you don't even want to contemplate the disaster driven by an ice age:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090903-arctic-warming-ice-age.html

    We really do live in a dynamic world - being critical of global warming has been the popular view amongst many - after digesting the report, who would have thought.....
    tallest skil
  • Reply 18 of 37
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,373member
    The ice sheets are actually growing, contradicting previous assumptions:

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/11/03/new-study-finds-antarctic-ice-growing-countering-earlier-studies.html

    I'm all for reducing pollution, don't get me wrong, but I fail to see the alarmists view point as reality.
    Fox News? ROTFLMAO. 

    I think you accidentally misssed the "/sarcasm" tag?

    (You do know they're talking about the Antarctic ice sheet, right?)
    edited January 2016 stevie
  • Reply 19 of 37
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,257member
    exceptionhandler said:

    http://www.foxnews.com/
    And there it is.
    dysamoria
  • Reply 20 of 37
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    exceptionhandler said:
    The ice sheets are actually growing, contradicting previous assumptions:

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/11/03/new-study-finds-antarctic-ice-growing-countering-earlier-studies.html

    I'm all for reducing pollution, don't get me wrong, but I fail to see the alarmists view point as reality.
    Right... Please a god damn link direct from the source that didn't go through Fox News.
    Then I'll look at it.
    Right now, the arctic is near the lowest maximum ever so you're behind the news  bud.
Sign In or Register to comment.