Apple signs on to full page ‘open letter’ ad urging President Trump to keep U.S. in Paris Agreement on climate change

89 Comments

“President Donald Trump is expected to announce his intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate change accord in an afternoon ceremony in the White House’s Rose Garden,” Francesca Chambers reports for The Daily Mail. “Myron Ebell, the head of Trump’s environmental division during the presidential transition, said Thursday morning that ‘all signs are good’ for a Paris exit and he does not believe ‘the president is going to disappoint.'”

“After a period of intense lobbying that spanned the globe – and his administration – White House officials told several news outlets Wednesday that Trump was pulling the US out of the international agreement,” Chambers reports. “Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google, Gap, Mars and Tiffany & Co. joined a group of large businesses in publishing an open letter to Trump asking him not to end the United States participation in the global warming agreement. Their ask ran as a full page ad in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal on Thursday [see below].”

“The administration is determining between a formal exit from just the Paris Agreement, a process that could take years, and a total rejection of the United Nations climate change framework that serves as the basis for the pact,” Chambers reports. “European Commission Vice-President Maros Sefcovic said of a U.S. pullout: ‘It would be disappointing but I really do not think this would change the course of mankind. There is a much stronger expectation from our partners across the world from Africa, Asia and China that Europe should assume leadership in this effort and we are ready to do that.’”

The full page “open letter” ad:
Full page 'open letter' ad urging President Trump to keep U.S. in Paris Agreement on climate change

 
Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Note: Apple’s Environment – Climate Change website states:

We mapped our carbon footprint, and we’re working to eliminate it.

When we measure our carbon footprint, we include hundreds of suppliers, millions of customers, and hundreds of millions of devices. And we’re always looking for ways to make the biggest difference in five major areas: manufacturing, product use, facilities, transportation, and recycling.
To reduce our carbon footprint, we design each generation of our products to be as energy efficient as possible. We’re sourcing lower-carbon materials to make our devices, we’re partnering with suppliers to add clean energy to their facilities, and we produce and procure clean, renewable energy for 96 percent of the electricity used at our global facilities.

Our comprehensive 2016 carbon footprint: 29,500,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

SEE ALSO:
Apple CEO Cook calls President Trump as Elon Musk threatens to quit White House advisory councils over Paris decision – May 31, 2017
President Trump leaning toward exiting Paris climate change agreement despite Apple, others urging U.S. to remain in deal – May 31, 2017
Apple to stick with environmental pledges despite President Trump’s gutting of Obama’s climate change orders – March 30, 2017
Greenpeace: Apple again the world’s most environmentally friendly tech company – January 10, 2017
Apple continues supply chain transparency as Trump administration considers suspending conflict mineral requirements – March 27, 2017
Greenpeace: Apple is tech’s greenest – May 15, 2015
Greenpeace: Apple leading the way in creating a greener, more sustainable internet – April 2, 2014
Greenpeace praises Apple for reducing use of conflict minerals – February 13, 2014

89 Comments

    1. Here are some actual facts for you:

      The Paris Agreement does next to nothing in terms of binding the signatories to take action on limiting emissions. The chief legal obligation is contributing to a $100 billion “green fund” for developing nations. It’s a poorly veiled way to extract money from the haves and redistribute it to the have nots. Would-be Robin Hood Obama didn’t bother sending the accord to the U.S. Senate for ratification, as he knew what its fate would be. In every meaningful way, the Paris Agreement is merely hortatory.

      Tim Cook and the rest of these sanctimonious CEOs are just making themselves look foolish – or, more likely, they’re simply trying to sell more product to women and snowflakes by positioning themselves as “caring” via the type of nauseating virtue signaling for which Tim Cook is unfortunately well known.

      Reply

        1. It does nothing positive, but it does much negative damage. It’s all cost and no benefit for the U.S. It adversely and significantly impacts the poor and middle class for no benefit.

        2. Your logic doesn’t hold up. If it’s nonbinding, then there are no real costs. As I understand it, this places pressure on countries that don’t currently track their pollution to start doing so, for all to see. The USA already does this, so there are no new costs to the USA unless Congress decides to pass more corporate welfare. Which both parties do already.

        3. You state that the agreement “… adversely and significantly impacts the poor and middle class for no benefit.” Of course, you as one of the “haves,” you have a much different perspective from the “have-nots.”

          I suspect that this is really more about the GOP’s utter denial of climate change combined with deconstruction efforts of the alt-right and Trump’s America First program, plus the desire of the most wealthy in this country to claw back every single dollar to plump up their inheritance funds (hopefully with no pesky inheritance tax).

          I really don’t see the terrible damage that you warn against, “FactChecker.” Of course, Trump campaigned on doom and gloom. Hand Trump two wars and the 2007-2008 economic crisis and watch Trump cry about that – he would have raised the sea level with his blubbering. Compared to the situation that Obama inherited, Trump arrived on easy street with only his own inane tweets and bumbling staff to trip him up.

        4. FIrst of all, since it wanted to bind the US now and in the future to act, it should have been handled as a treaty and submitted to the US Senate for ratification. Also, just ignoring something you don’t like does not make it go away. A legal argument could be make if Obama signed something, and Trump did nothing to negate that, then later you could claim it was still in effect. What make sense or seems right is not always what is “legal”.

      4. Hey Fartchecker, if you feel that way, why don’t you turn in your iPhone, cancel your google account, withdraw from Facebook and never use Microsoft products. You won’t because you’re a p*ssy just like your president.

        Reply

      5. 100% behind this statement, America is footing the bill and China is doing nothing, the agreement doesn’t force the largest polluters to change their polluting way by more than 2% in 20 years. The agreement sounds good for the environment but the underlying fine print say another.

        Reply

      6. 100% behind this statement, America is footing the bill and China is doing nothing, the agreement doesn’t force the largest polluters to change their polluting way by more than 2% in 20 years. The agreement sounds good for the environment but the underlying fine print says another.

        Reply

    4. The United States is no longer an ATM for Europe. Get used to it. BTW, I’m hoping the UN moves to Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan or Russia or Iran or North Korea or Veneszuela, or Yemen, or Turkey or Egypt or Saudi Arabia, or Nigeria, or South Africa or any of your favorite countries. I personally think the current UN building would make a nice Israeli Embassy. Go for it Angela Merkel… lead the free world.

      Reply

  3. It amazes me that even if people don’t believe in man made climate change that they don’t want to reduce the pollution we put out just on the basis of improving our quality of life. Air pollution is a thing, we’re clearly destroying our rivers, seas, forests and pretty much everything else on the planet. Those alone should be reason enough to sign up to these things.

    Reply

    1. CO2 is not a pollutant and still has not been proven to be any significant cause of global warming. Throughout earths history CO2 has been many times higher causing major plant and animal life increase. Is the climate changing..Yes. It is always in a state of change, but there are many more reason for change than CO2. This posted letter by Apple shows the real reason, progressives are using it as a method of taxation for global control. Follow the money!

      Reply

      1. Apparently, the money spent on educating climate deniers was utterly wasted. If you can deny something that has been known and repeatedly demonstrated for almost 150 years (that CO2 traps heat), you are probably past any appeal to reason.

        I will just provide a link to my main comment in the previous thread. I look forward to any fact-based answer.

        Apple CEO Cook calls President Trump as Elon Musk threatens to quit White House advisory councils over Paris decision

        Reply

        5. I used to think you were a Belligerent Asswipe, but an educated one. Now I see you are also profoundly stupid. Or maybe you used to be intelligent but are becoming rapidly more stupid with the advancing Alzheimers?

      2. Yea. I tried to explain to others that if CO2 is so bad eliminate it completely.
        What happens if you do that? All plant life on earth will die. Then we die of starvation.

        Very few of these rabid “Global Warming” idiots even know that all plant life needs CO2 to live.

        Reply

        1. ..and we all need Oxygen to live, but if I put you in a room full of pure Oxygen you will also die. There is also something called “too much of a good thing”. Get it?

      3. Sure, johnlaurenson, higher levels of CO2 are awesome! Put a plastic bag on your head and start breathing! (*)

        (*) Note for Trump supporters – you may not realize that this is a joke…please do not do this.

        Reply

    2. It amazes me that some people can’t grasp that the hard negatives far outweigh theoretical positives. Yes, theoretical: There is no data as to what percentage man contributes to “climate change” and what percentage is natural. There is no proof that man can control the planet’s temperature at all.

      Obama’s stupid Paris Agreement and the resulting policies would increase electricity costs for a family of four between 13% and 20% annually. American families will see over $20,000 of lost income by year 2035. The Paris deal would also reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion, and result in an average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs by 2035. Of the 400,000 jobs lost, an estimated 200,000 would be in the manufacturing sector. This means Americans would also see the costs of consumer goods such as electronics, paper products, and apparel increase, inevitably taking more out of household income.

      Policies such as those resulting from climate deal would, even with a complete elimination of U.S. carbon emissions, result in less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures.

      The Paris climate deal is all cost and no benefit for the U.S., and, clearly, the Obama Administration was comfortable sacrificing low-and-middle income Americans, along with thousands of jobs and GDP, for an environmental benefit that would be negligible, at best.

      Reply

      1. My point exactly. There is NO proof man can control the earth’s temperature. And until that is proven undoubtedly by science, I refuse to give in the this ‘green religion’ which seems to supersede any valid argument raised against it.

        Reply

        1. I give up. If hundreds (probably thousands) of published peer-reviewed scientific papers by virtually every professional trained in the field is “NO proof” in your mind, no adequate proof will ever exist.

          These are scientists, so they will duly consider “any valid argument raised against it.” They have the duty to resist invalid arguments, such as those the deniers have been raising against simple laws of chemistry and physics.

        2. What? Like the Mann hockey stick graph that started this and then he refused to release his raw data for 8 years so other scientists could duplicate, validate or prove wrong his results?

          By the way, 8 years after his “ground breaking” report that all others parrot, his raw data was looked at and everything he reported was disproved. Google it for numerous sources and high level factual proof.

          I got many others that show global warning is a lie and a total money grab by the elitists.

        3. Does it really matter if it is right or wrong? You can’t deny the oceans are acidifying. Let’s say 50/50 maybe it is true maybe not.

          So if we fix the so called non-existent problem, we create thousands of clean jobs and in the process save our oceans from acidifying and these terrible oil spills. Not bad. I call that a win.

          …and if it turns out to be true? Then thank God we acted before we all died!

          What do we have to lose? Those numbers saying we will lose jobs make no sense. How is it possible that by putting people to work (in any endeavor) causes a reduction in jobs?

        6. Science that is proven in labs is what I believe in.
          “CO2 is causing the oceans to acidify?”
          Where is the data and reports that have been done in the lab that shows this link?

          Now I’ll show you how far off these so called scientists are. The coral reefs that are dying? Looks like CO2 and global warming have nothing to do with it. Instead, soccer moms that need to slather SPF 80 sunscreen on little Jonny every 2 hours at the beach are killing the coral reefs. Ooops.

          Sources:
          http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080129-sunscreen-coral.html

          http://time.com/4080985/sunscreen-coral-reefs/

          http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/feb14/sunscreen.html

        7. Again…show me proof that we can reverse what’s happening. I don’t deny things are changing…that’s not the point. The earth is always changing. How is taxing us going to do anything. It’s purely folly.

      2. First, etc.

        You can prove anything with economic guesswork that maximizes all of the costs involved in reducing CO2 emissions, but denies all of the costs involved in failing to do so. Other reputable conservative lobby groups and companies (ExxonMobile) reject the Heritage Foundation “math.”

        Reply

      3. You made an interesting statement. “There is no data as to what percentage man contributes to “climate change” and what percentage is natural.”

        Are you implying that human are not natural? Interesting.

        Actually there is at least one incidence of human’s affect on climate change and that is ozone depletion. This depletion has been caused by halocarbon refrigerants, solvents, propellants, and foam-blowing agents (chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs), HCFCs, freons, halons, all man made compounds as the incidence of chlorine in the atmosphere from other natural source (I believe that man is natural by the way) is negligible.

        The ozone depletion is a clear cut example that human activities do have an effect on the atmosphere, thus changing the climate of the planet by the amount of radiation hitting the planet.

        Reply

        1. Ozone depletion — and the steps made to correct and repair the damage — is also a clear-cut example of how humans can fix the problems that humans create, even on a planetary scale.

          You know why we don’t hear warnings about the “ozone hole” any longer? Because it’s no longer a global threat. Ozone-depleting chemicals were banned, and emissions went from millions of tons a year to effectively zero. There is still an ozone hole, but it is slowly shrinking as the planet restores itself.

          At this point, continued reliance on fossil fuels only benefit those people who own the fossil fuels still in the ground (like Saudi Arabia, Exxon Mobil, and the folks in the fracking industry).

        2. Yes, the fix happened fortunately because the results were detected in time and the ozone depleted materials were reduced.

          The point remains, humans do affect climate, and control of the climate, well it’s not to the point of being elegant that’s for sure.

        3. Meaning “out of man’s control.” Obviously.

          You know, things like the sun, forest fires, etc.

          By, the way: Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures, based on NASA data. Hmm… both the earth and Mars*. Why? Look to that big ball of fire in the sky, oh, pedantic one.

          *For the Dem/Lib/Progs who are “educated” via the mainstream media, SNL, Al Franken, and the likes of Kathy Griffin: There are no humans on Mars.

        4. With all due respect I don’t know what you mean. Part of nature are under human control, fire can be controlled, and the sun reaching the earth can be controlled, that’s the whole point of the ozone depletion situation. If humans wanted to increase UV radiation they could start dumping ozone depleting materials into the atmosphere again.

          Your original statement still infers that humans are separate from nature.

        5. Love how they all ignore a fact that cannot be bent to their use.

          It’s a simple question. “Why is Mars getting warmer?”
          No humans there.

          Might be that thing in the sky called the sun.

      4. Yeah, those Heritage Foundation wonks are known for their accurate analyses. This is the same group that proposes that Americans increase their federal debt several billions of dollars each year for more security theatre.

        Some of us are happy to pay for regulations that ensure the greedhead corporate idiots don’t destroy what’s left of the world’s clean air and water.

        Reply

      5. Energy Secretary Rick Perry has disagreed with the Heritage Foundation’s position. He claimed at his confirmation hearing that he is a supporter of investing in new technology research to diversify the nation’s energy sources. Texas is one of the leaders in wind and solar power generation.

        Your Heritage bullshit projections are bought and paid for by Big Oil, and you know it.

        Reply

    3. It shouldn’t amaze you, because it isn’t true. “People” are all for improving the quality of life and not polluting as you say, but dumping tens of billions of dollars into a cash grab deal that does nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to curb the effects of climate change or reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses put into the atmosphere is beyond foolish. We don’t need to be involved with the climate change profiteers.

      Reply

    4. Sadly, this is yet another of the many, plentiful litmus tests for ignorance. *sigh* And note the vehemence of that ignorance. Such is the worst enemy of mankind: Our ability to believe almost anything to be absolutely ‘true’, then damage and kill each other over it. (o_O)

      Truth Or Deception

      ‘How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!’
      – Samuel Adams

      Reply

      1. Derek, I am not ignorant. I pride myself as an engineer that MUST read factual studies that back up statements. My specialty is computers but I read about many subjects, medical journals and research being high up there since I have two family members with rare medical conditions.

        Where the government is concerned I am always suspicious, especially when it affects my income and future income. So, when a new report that completely goes against 100 years of other reports comes out, myself and many others are interested. The “Mann hockey stick graph and report” showed an increase that had never been shown before. Like all credible scientists, requests for his data came in from all kinds of other scientists that wanted to duplicate and confirm this report. Mann refused. For 8 years. That right there should have totally discredited him and had his report stripped from any journal.

        Compare that with any new medical advance. The first study comes out and is ignored until multiple studies, by many unrelated researchers and is stretched over years before anything is believed. I see this all the time.

        So to my point. I need to see factual research or evidence on global warming in order to make an infiormed decision. Mainstream news? A joke. I try to find reports and journals from scientists that have been fact checked and or duplicated by other scientists.

        The best place I have found is similar to Mac Daily News. A Climate News Aggregator. They just review and post links to the source for anytrhing Climate related. They also only post real research, not fake crap.
        Home page is http://www.climatedepot.com

        Here is a new post you may find interesting: http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/01/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-believing-co2-controls-the-climate-is-pretty-close-to-believing-in-magic/

        You may want to download the Talking Points Memo. It has dozens of citations to peer-reviewed research. Once again, “PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH”.

        By the way, Mann finally released his data and it has been repeatedly been torn to shreds by experts all over the world. Sloppy, false data, fake data, manipulated data. Bad all the way around. Google it. There are tons of links about how fake it is.

        Reply

        1. Decent reply! Thank you.

          What I point to, which is definitive and apparently flies over a lot of people’s heads is the worldwide death of coral reefs, directly attributable to the increased [CO2] in the atmosphere and therefore ocean creating in equilibrium an increased concentration of carbonic acid. That in turn has wrecked the ability of coral to fix calcium carbonate. This has also been shown to be happening in certain molluscs (shell fish). I was pointing out to GoeB that there are a multitude of science articles as well as before and after photographs pointing out the ongoing death of coral around the world. It doesn’t get more blatant.

          We’ll be blethering away with our arguments about climate change and global warming while clear damage has already been done. And we don’t know the full consequences.

  4. Good! Get out of this stupid non-binding joke and let’s MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

    We’ll be having a big party at my place if he exits this bad Obama deal as – along with killing the ObamaCare mandates and tax cuts – this will guarantee re-election in 2020. Really, all we need is for Kennedy to retire this summer and for doddering, old Ginsburg to “retire” ASAP and replace both with staunch conservative Constitution-loving justices!

    Set for generations.

    I LOVE AMERICA!

    Reply

        3. That works too. Was thinking Putin’s leeetle bitch. But that’s kinder I guess. Though, dogs are known to be very loyal. And since El Cheeto Traitor is treasonous this is an insult to dogs everywhere.

    1. Blah blah blah. You never get tired of being a bitter whiny disinformation manure spreader.

      We all know what past presidents’ legacies are. You try incessantly to pass off your xenophonic slander as meaningful, but you just look like the out of touch hick you are. Facts don’t matter to scum like you. All you ever post is bitter partisan ideology.

      Trump is digging his legacy day by day. If in a few minutes he chooses to join Russia, Syria, and North Korea on being a laggard in energy technology, then he will lose all political support he needs to get anything done. Perhaps the job is just too hard for the egotistical fool.

      Reply

      1. Eh? We also listen to American rock too believe it or not.
        “Melt in the sun, melt in the sun!
        Who wants to come with me and melt in the sun!
        Hide in the sky, hide in the sky!
        Who wants to come with me and hide in the sky!

        You and me should go outside and
        Beat em’ beat em’ beat em’ beat em’ beat em’ beat em’

        All pathetic flag waving ignorant hicks and we’ll
        Eat em’ eat em’ eat em’ eat em’ eat em’ eat em’ ”
        U-fig from Hypnotize. System of a Down.

        Reply

  9. What is the approximate total annual carbon footprint of every Apple device in operation? For comparison, what is the total carbon footprint of air conditioning? Of food refrigeration? Of passenger jet aircraft? Who decides which of us will be allowed a footprint? And what is the footprint of the deciders?

    Reply

    1. The data is out there, you can do the math. Every Apple device has an energy rating and we know approximately how many are sold in each nation, and an approximate average usage metric. In first world nations, at least, we know the approximate cleanliness of their energy grids as well.

      Same for all other industries you question.

      So rather than just question endlessly, read the reports of the people who track this stuff. And don’t whine when the data shows that we are on an unsustainable path. Look at what it tells us and proactively steer your personal use, your company’s use, or your product’s design to be cleaner and less wasteful. Apple is doing this. It’s one of the reasons Apple is a trusted brand in the world. You would think that the usual posters here would understand that. Their bitter partisan remarks just prove that they will never lead anything. They are stuck in the last century and have no goals other than to screw everyone else while they accrue personal wealth. Classic short term thinking.

      Reply

  11. Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, noted in 2017 about the UN Paris agreement: “We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three-tenths of one degree … the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years … Again, that is using the UN’s own climate prediction model.”

    Lomborg added: “If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.”

    Reply

  12. The UN and EPA regulations are pure climate symbolism designed to promote a more centrally planned energy economy. The UN and EPA regulations are simply a vehicle to put politicians and bureaucrats in charge of our energy economy and “save” us from bad weather and “climate change.”

    UN official Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, admitted what’s behind the climate issue: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”17

    In 2009, former Vice President Al Gore touted U.S. cap-and-trade legislation as a method to help bring about “global governance.”18

    17 Interview with UN IPCC’s Ottmar Edenhoffer. Nov. 13, 2010.
    18 Al Gore. Remarks at Oxford during the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment. July 7, 2009.

    Reply

  13. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not “pollution.” The term “carbon pollution” is unscientific and misleading. CO2 is a harmless trace essential gas in the atmosphere that humans and animals exhale (after inhaling oxygen).

    Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer has said: “To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?”

    Reply

  14. Last one for tonight. An oldie but an often quoted one:

    Antarctica melting fears not based on data
    A 2015 NASA study found that Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and “not currently contributing to sea level rise,” but was actually reducing sea level rise.37

    The NASA study also found that the ice mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet are greater than their losses.

    Arctic sea ice not disappearing, despite “ice-free” predictions
    In 2016, Arctic summer sea ice was 22% greater than it was at the satellite era low point of 2012. 38

    The 2016 Arctic sea ice minimum is now in a 10-year “pause” with “no significant change in the past decade.”39

    37 NASA Study. Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses. Oct. 30, 2015.
    38 Danish Meteorological Institute. Sept. 15, 2016.
    39 David Whitehouse, UK Global Warming Policy Foundation Science Editor. Sept. 16, 2016.

    These are facts. Not overblown opinions or “global warming religion”.

    Reply

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,