Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 105 posts

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#71

Post by akjj »

RivieraKid wrote: post #34

I'm really sceptical and suspicious to the type of environmental policies that Apple and other companies do. The effect on global warming is near zero, possibly even negative. The decision to use green energy decreases the price of non-green energy, so other companies will buy more of it. I really don't like how unsystematic and non-transparent this approach is. A clean solution would be a tax on non-green energy. It…

But purchasing renewable energy also drives down its price, by allowing the industry to develop economies of scale and streamline its operations. This strategy is essentially the way most technology innovations work, by first selling to early adopters who are willing to pay a premium and then pushing prices down to mass-market acceptance.

Considering that the market for fossil fuel energy is so much larger than that for renewable energy, I'm going to say that Apple's choice will have a bigger positive effect on the renewable sector than on prices for non-renewable energy.

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#72

Post by rayiner »

danielweber wrote: post #60
rayiner wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has always struck me as rather ridiculous to make a big deal about the distinction between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic climate change. Whether or not climate change is anthropogenic, it is going to require a response. The argument might be that efforts should be directed at mitigating the negative effects of climate change, because it is futile to try and avert it, but climate change deniers aren't making…

Among my conservative friends, quite a few say "well, it's happening, but we don't know humans are causing it." So they are already there. "Adaptation, not mitigation" is one of their sayings, and it gets the environmentalists really mad. FWIW, I agree with you that the cause matters less than the effects.

I know its widespread, but I find it irksome that climate change denial has become associated with conservatism. I want to avoid climate change because I'm worried about the ramifications of that change on our society and am worried that failure to mitigate or prepare for climate change could topple the U.S. from its position at the top of the global hierarchy. Changing climate and depletion of water resources in the heartland could make us tremendously vulnerable by making us dependent on other countries for food. Allowing a country like China or India to be the first to develop reliable, cheap, renewable energy would be a total game changer that could leave us as an also-ran country or vassal state. There's a mile long list of conservative reasons to be afraid of and want to address climate change and its potential impacts. To me its a no brainer to spend substantial, but predictable, resources to address what is potentially an existential risk.

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#73

Post by brc »

RivieraKid wrote: post #34

I'm really sceptical and suspicious to the type of environmental policies that Apple and other companies do. The effect on global warming is near zero, possibly even negative. The decision to use green energy decreases the price of non-green energy, so other companies will buy more of it. I really don't like how unsystematic and non-transparent this approach is. A clean solution would be a tax on non-green energy. It…

There are already plenty of taxes on 'non-green' energy, but the demand curve is inelastic so they make little difference. Nearly every country on the planet has taxes on liquid fuels, for example.

Heavily taxing energy for any reasons always leads to lower economic growth and unemployment. That is because no tax applies globally, so there are always places to move to access the cheapest energy. And usually the places that production one to have lower environmental controls on energy production, leading to a net-worse position for the environment and the people where the production used to be.

Australia implemented the highest 'carbon tax' in the world in 2012. This contributed to the closing of several heavy industry factories within 12-18 months, including aluminum shelters. These factories have all been relocated to places like china and Saudi Arabia, with net-worse outcomes for the environment as a result, and a weaker economy in Australia. A region-specific energy tax is a bad idea because it achieves none of its goals, and measurably makes things worse.

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#74

Post by brc »

Adrock wrote: post #37

Another take is that these kind of sustainable practices are desirable to Apple's high-value employees. By acting in a way that increases the retention of those employees and helps with recruiting new ones with similar priorities, they are investing in the company's future.

A better way of achieving that would be to set aside a bucket of money to direct towards work that staff would like to see. The staff could then vote for where that money could be spent. It might be solar energy, or it could be cancer research. That would be much more direct and measurable. Berkshire Hathaway does the same thing with its investors - gives them the say where the company spends its charitable contributions.

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#75

Post by kzrdude »

wpietri wrote: post #66
ry0ohki wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All true, but I think there is a misconception that if we all just recycle more and drive hybrids that climate change will stop. We are accelerating climate change, but even if we stopped all carbon now Bangladesh will still be under water in 150 years or less.

No serious environmentalist I've read believes that misconception. In my view, that's another form of denial. Not the organized PR-flack fraud in the style originated by the tobacco industry, but just the normal human kind of wanting to ignore anything personally inconvenient.

I absolutely do not want to put off anyone from environmental work or a global call to change and stop of pollution and other unsustainable activities. But the fact remains that enough damage has been done that the consequences will be felt for a century, even if we turn around this ship tomorrow.

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#76

Post by kzrdude »

pyrrhotech wrote: post #20
downandout wrote: post #8

"Climate Change Denier" is a term coined by radical environmentalists in an attempt to paint their opponents as crazy and stupid. Most rational people don't deny that climate change is occurring. Many people simply side with scientists that have examined the facts and determined that human attempts at trying to control climate change are about as effective as Indian rain dances. That said, Tim Cook's response was cor…

you should try living in the south, where TC is from. There are a lot of climate change deniers. I mean, 60% of the state believes the world is less than 10,000 years old

This is a failure of education.

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#77

Post by hawkharris »

cgriswald wrote: post #41
hawkharris wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This proposal is only one manifestation of investors' concerns. It doesn't follow that because 3% voted for it, only 3% are concerned about the stock, which has been downgraded for the first time in 10 years.

Investors are not panicked. I argue that a panicked investor will either: I) Sell his stock immediately. or II) Demand any information available. Since (I) is not happening on a large scale (even when it dropped in January volume was a small portion of total shares), it follows that if investors are panicked about the stock, (II) must be occuring. However, (II) is not occuring because only 2.95% of shareholders voted…

"Apple's stock price has fallen by 40% over the past six months, vaporizing almost $300 billion of market value."

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/two-charts-show-why-apple-sto...

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#78

Post by nirnira »

jleader wrote: post #35

Was anyone else amused by the reference to "the Al gore contingency in the room"? For non-native English speakers, I'll note that there's a noun "contingency" with a meaning related to the adjective "contingent" (meaning roughly "conditional"), but not directly related to the noun "contingent" (meaning roughly "faction").

Hah I didn't see that, nice catch!

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#79

Post by euroclydon »

rayiner wrote: post #72
danielweber wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among my conservative friends, quite a few say "well, it's happening, but we don't know humans are causing it." So they are already there. "Adaptation, not mitigation" is one of their sayings, and it gets the environmentalists really mad. FWIW, I agree with you that the cause matters less than the effects.

I know its widespread, but I find it irksome that climate change denial has become associated with conservatism. I want to avoid climate change because I'm worried about the ramifications of that change on our society and am worried that failure to mitigate or prepare for climate change could topple the U.S. from its position at the top of the global hierarchy. Changing climate and depletion of water resources in the…

We already have a highly efficient food production industry in the U.S.? It's market-driven too. Yes the Oglala is running out of water, but we knew that was a one shot deal. There may be a rough patch but if climate change is man made, I think I will self correct when we start to run low on fossil fuels.

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#80

Post by danielweber »

rayiner wrote: post #72
danielweber wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among my conservative friends, quite a few say "well, it's happening, but we don't know humans are causing it." So they are already there. "Adaptation, not mitigation" is one of their sayings, and it gets the environmentalists really mad. FWIW, I agree with you that the cause matters less than the effects.

I know its widespread, but I find it irksome that climate change denial has become associated with conservatism. I want to avoid climate change because I'm worried about the ramifications of that change on our society and am worried that failure to mitigate or prepare for climate change could topple the U.S. from its position at the top of the global hierarchy. Changing climate and depletion of water resources in the…

The US overproduces food right now. Climate change could change that, but offsetting any production reduction in the heartland would be that northern states become more amenable to more crops. And Canada, too: they aren't going to be a dicks about trucking food over the border.

> Allowing a country like China or India to be the first to develop reliable, cheap, renewable energy would be a total game changer that could leave us as an also-ran country or vassal state.

I don't see how this happens, unless a bunch of other things also happen to go wrong at the same time. China would have to start respecting other countries' IP rights for real, and patents would only keep things locked up for so long. And it's not like China or India would have a monopoly on understanding and improving whatever that new technology is.

Anything serious enough to raise the specter of "vassal state" and the US would just ignore IP rights pretty much the same way China ignores foreigners' IP rights out of self-interest.

I still see climate change as possibly causing billions or trillions dollars of economic harm, so it's worth addressing.

Post reply on HN