“ClimateCounts.org aims to force companies to clearly state their environmental efforts and provide this information to customers as a tool that contributes to their purchase decision. “Business is being pushed by consumers to do its part to solve the climate crisis. The scorecard allows consumers to make good climate decisions in their everyday purchases, and it’s having an impact,” said Gary Hirshberg, ClimateCounts.org chairman. Hirshberg is also the CEO of organic yogurt maker Stonyfield Farm, which finances the campaign,” Christian Zibreg and Wolfgang Gruener report for TG Daily.
“At least in this survey, Apple doesn’t look great. The Cupertino-based company ended up with only 11 out of a maximum of 100 points for its ecological and climate efforts. Apple’s results fall far behind other tech companies: IBM is at the top with 77 points, followed by Canon (74), Toshiba (70), Sony (68), Hewlett-Packard (68), Motorola (66), Hitachi (51), Samsung (51), Siemens (51), Dell (49) and Nokia (37). ClimateCounts.org claims that Apple has no publicly stated climate impact review information available, there are insufficient efforts to reduce the climate impact, there is no climate policy stance and very little reporting on its emissions available,” Zibreg and Gruener report.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Note: More about Apple’s environmental efforts here.
“…how about you go after the oil companies whose products are causing this crap in the first place!!!!!”
‘Cause the crisis* is made up to begin with? Besides, I think all but the most fever-swamped activists would agree that Big Oil™ is getting their comeupins already with their execs appearing before congress…
*By crisis, I mean man-made Global Heating. There IS an oil crisis as indicated by the rising cost of fuel, but I place most of the fault on unneeded artificial government controls and regulation.
To all those who claim climate change is normal:
Yes, climate change is normal – over centuries and millennia, not decades. Much of “global warming” has occurred over the last 30 years or so (an OBSERVED measurement for all those who decry computer-generated models).
And for those of you who criticize our ability (or lack thereof) to predict the weather:
Weather patterns occur and shift constantly whereas climate is (or was and should be) much more consistent and stable.
Also, keep in mind that volcanic eruptions actually cool the Earth’s surface by spewing sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere (one level up from where we are, the troposphere, so don’t think sulfur emissions are beneficial because they will most likely never reach the stratosphere without the help of some kind of upwards pushing force), which reflects the sun’s radiation, resulting in a short-term global cooling.
I’m not condoning climatecounts.org or criticizing Apple, but denying that the Earth is warming at an unusual rate is rather ignorant. Personally, I think it’s a little too late to stop it now, but we’d best be ready for any future rapid climate change, should it occur. After all, history has shown us that what goes up must eventually come down.
This is all BS. I say who contributes to global warming. I got me a Nobel prize and an oscar for fcuk sake.
Those stupid people in Florida ruined everything.
Regarding: “Global warming has to do with what the average temperature is over a period of time. The average temperature of the Earth has been going up at about 1.5 degrees per year last year and I think the year before.”
Not true. In fact, global average temperature DROPPED 0.7 deg C from March 1, 2007 through Feb. 29, 2008, losing much of what it gained over the previous century. Oops! That’s why it’s now called “climate change” (playing both ends against the middle).
Here’s a question to deal with: What temperature SHOULD it be?
How does anyone know what the “right” global temperature should be? What it was during the LIA? Or the MWP? Or the RWP? Or during the Holocene warming? Or maybe during the last ice age? How about what was typical during the Jurassic? Climate history is not so simple and the question about whether or not we’re going to have significant global warming in future years cannot be answered with any degree of certainty, despite IPCC computer-based projections.
Climate changes. Whether or not humans have any significant role has not been determined, it’s only been hypothesized. Some scientists believe the theory plausible. Others do not. But it is only a THEORY that has yet to be demonstrated scientifically.
Also worthy of comment: “Over the past decade there have be highest average temperature record for three or four years. It is not that there aren’t cycles of climate change but that the length of the cycles has shortened over the pas 100 years or so.”
Looking at a snippet of time of such short duration is meaningless in terms of climate. It would be like taking a 4 second portion of an NFL football game in the first quarter and trying to predict what the rest of the game will be like.
Climate change spans much larger periods than a few years. Temperatures since 2002 have actually been trending downward (take a look at
for the quarterly results and linear regression data fits showing the trend), based on UAH MSU and Hadley measurements.
Temperature spikes coming out of the LIA are very similar to what was observed in the 1990s. Temperature spikes entering the MWP were also similar, and the Earth has still not reached the warming levels of the MWP, a warming that spanned centuries, was not uniform, and certainly not caused by humans.
There are those who would say, “But wait, CO2 was much lower then” … to which one can reply, yes, and CO2 was much higher during past ice eras and epochs. Over the scale of millions of years, there is no correlation between CO2 and global temperature. Over the scale of centuries, there is no correlation. Over the scale of hundreds of thousands of years, there appears to be a correlation, but only by shifting CO2 to make up for the lag it exhibits behind temperature changes. Until those “scientists” (who believe in the IPCC/Gore THEORY that regards CO2 as a significant climate change force) can explain why CO2 has never before in Earth’s history been a significant climate change force, then why should anyone believe their opinions about future warming based in the relatively miniscule CO2 input from human activity?
I am – have been – a customer of Stonyfield Farms products…
No more…
Do you know the CEO of Stonyfield has written a book he heavily advertises? Do you think this campaign will add to the sales of his book?
What he has not counted on though is that his unwarranted attack will piss off a lot of Apple people – like me – and they will certainly lose a lot of customers – like me…
And what really piss me off – you can’t email the a$$hole… Think they prepared for a storm of pissed off customers?
CR
re:”It doesn’t take long (approx. 5 sec) to search the net for info on how the “scientific community” feels about Global Warming….everyone above this post seems to think it’s fake….why? Sleep better at night? ——— copied from Wiki – “These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions.[9][10]””
I teach English. If a student uses anything out of Wiki to support a position, we require that every Wiki source be backed up by independent evidence.
Wiki in an of itself is just a big dumping ground for whatever people want to put in it, a mix of opinion and facts.
I know there are people of believe that opinion = fact. They are wrong. Political correctness requires that we not use the word wrong. Politically correct people are wrong!
Nuclear power is an insane fantasy, a “cop out” and another silly way to boil water. It is an excuse to turn technology originally used to kill people into “peaceful purposes”, much like chemical agriculture, chemo-therapy etc. I’d rather have pollution that I can see and choke on (very motivating!) than insidious, sickly and deadly radiation that we pretend is “clean” and “green”. There are plenty of viable alternatives that could have been implemented decades ago. Get a clue – we are surrounded by energy.
Hello ‘down’,
You know, come to think of it, TNT is just a silly excuse to turn yellow dye (its original use) into high explosives. They should have just kept using TNT for dye…
Technology itself is amoral, and that’s the beauty of it; technology developed for warfare can be used for any number of civilian applications. And nobody’s “pretending” nuclear power is 100% clean, but it’s a heck of a lot more efficient than solar or wind power (not to mention more reliable). The reason newer ‘green’ energy sources haven’t caught on (without extremely wasteful government subsidies) is because they just plain suck.
Your comments, especially in regards to chemotherapy (which has SAVED THE LIVES of many people I know) lead me to believe that you are a moron.
A few hours later and I feel that I need to apologize for calling ‘down’ a moron. I still have the same opinions about things, but I shouldn’t resort to name-calling.
Global warming caused by man? Such a sickly and ugly scam.
Folks who read and understand know that planet earth is very
Stained by man, it’s true, but here we
Differ knowing what is what – Fundamental – Obvious.
It’s not man, the ice cores scream, it’s just some plan
That’s slow and clean and has no ‘carbon offset’ sheen,
But still so many fools exist to parrot foolish words that miss
And so misunderstand that weather models aren’t so grand,
In fact, this science falls apart, it’s fragile numbers all distort
What has been going on and on, an icy age and then a warm,
Again and then again, as well, this cold and warm is cyclical…
Cycles are not weird or strange, they’re normal, though we rearrange
The numbers, it’s still so plain that nature rules and man just fools
Around with silly human games…
There are only 3 things you need to know about the anthropogenic global warming hoax:
1. C02 (which plants love BTW) increases in the atmosphere FOLLOW global warming, not the other way around. If you look closely at the graph in “An Inconvenient Truth” you can see this. However, in this particular section of the film, Al Gore glosses over this fact and claims the opposite. The man is a greedy liar and should be kicked off the board of our beloved Apple.
2. If it were possible for man to warm the planet, IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING. When the planet was warmer in the past than it is now, civilization thrived. Cooling is MUCH more dangerous than warming and, ironically, global cooling will require much more energy to be expended to keep us and our crops warm.
3. We are officially now in our tenth year of global cooling and many scientists without an AGW grant are confirming that this is just the beginning. Expect MUCH cooler years ahead.
And another thing.
Oil is not a fossil fuel! It is abiotic and has been found as deep as 30,000 ft. below the surface, much deeper than any past organic life has lived. Oil is in endless supply but like diamonds, it is kept expensive by keeping it rare. If it is a “fossil” fuel then it must eventually run out, right? If it can be found at deep levels everywhere then what usefulness is that to the government (who is the primary profiteer on the high price of oil not the eeevil oil companies).
Therefore, it is said we need to move to conservation even though there is no way to “conserve” our way out of the current oil supply mess given that China is adding car drivers by the millions every year.
The reality is that oil is an almost magical substance. It is plentiful, can be acquired with very little damage to the local environment, new IC engine technology makes using it for fuel very enviornmentally friendly, and it is continually replenished in the crust of the earth.
The US has enough known reserves to last us 200 years without ever using a drop of oil from the terrorist nations of the ME or doing more exploration (which would produce hundreds of years of new reserves. But instead, this country has to be an environmentally imperialist nation. We refuse to use our own resources but instead, take them from other countries. It is the End of the World™ if we drill in the arctic wasteland but just fine to drill in the fragile deserts of Kuwait.
Bottom line: There is zero reason to abandon oil. We have the infrastructure to transport and refine it. It can now be burned cleanly in the latest engines from Detroit and Japan. It is plentiful and we need it for the manufacture of plastics anyway. It forms the foundation of freedom.
Although I am not encouraging this because it is not the government’s job to give stuff away; if we were to take all the boondoggle funding for things like ethanol mandates, windmill farms (a truly idiotic energy source if there ever was one), solar panel subsidies, and other government energy porkbarrel projects and just bought everyone a new car (getting rid of those old VW buses, and 1975 Volvo station wagons that professors drive around with Save the Whale bumper stickers on them), we could clean the atmosphere up really quick.
But the reason that oil is eeevil is that it allows people to drive and we can’t have that, nosiree. If people can drive where they want to then how can the we possibly control their lives? After all, the proletariate need to live in tall government provided housing near the center of crime ridden cities and ideally, should move from place to place using a urine encrusted public transportation system of some kind.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.