Tim Cook gets angry over shareholder proposal for environmental spending transparency, says those who disagree should get out of Apple stock

At Apple’s annual meeting of shareholders, CEO Tim Cook got visibly angry.

“Cook saved his choicest remarks for shareholder Justin Danhof, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s [NCPPR] Free Enterprise Project,” Chris O’Brien reports for The Los Angeles Times. “Danhof had spoken earlier in the meeting, criticizing Apple’s connection to trade industry groups that believe people are causing global warming. Later, Danhof asked Cook if he would promise to commit to projects that help the environment or fulfill other social justice aims only if they also help Apple’s bottom line.”

“Cook seemed to be trying not to jump out of his seat,” O’Brien reports. “‘When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI’ (return on investment), Cook said. Bloody! ‘When I think about doing the right thing,’ he said, ‘I don’t think about an ROI… If that’s a hard line for you, then you should get [out] of the stock.'”

Full article here.

“[NCPPR’s] shareholder proposal was rejected by Apple’s shareholders, receiving just 2.95 percent of the vote. During the question and answer session, however, the NCPPR representative asked Mr. Cook two questions, both of which were in line with the principles espoused in the group’s proposal,” Bryan Chaffin reports for The Mac Observer. “The first question challenged an assertion from Mr. Cook that Apple’s sustainability programs and goals—Apple plans on having 100 percent of its power come from green sources—are good for the bottom line. The representative asked Mr. Cook if that was the case only because of government subsidies on green energy.”

“Mr. Cook didn’t directly answer that question, but instead focused on the second question: the NCPPR representative asked Mr. Cook to commit right then and there to doing only those things that were profitable,” Chaffin reports. “What ensued was the only time I can recall seeing Tim Cook angry… As evidenced by the use of “bloody” in his response—the closest thing to public profanity I’ve ever seen from Mr. Cook–it was clear that he was quite angry. His body language changed, his face contracted, and he spoke in rapid fire sentences compared to the usual metered and controlled way he speaks.”

Full article here.

NCPPR’s “Report on Company Membership and Involvement with Certain Trade Associations and Business Organizations” Proposal #9:

Resolved: Shareholders of Apple, [sic] Inc. (“Apple”) urge the board of directors (the “board”) to authorize the preparation of a report, updated annually, disclosing:

1. Apple’s membership in any trade association or organization that educates members about sustainability practices, assists members in the development of sustainability practices, encourages members to engage in sustainability practices or requires members to undertake sustainability actions.

2. Payments made by Apple to trade associations or organizations of which Apple is a member that meet any of the definitions set forth in #1, above.

3. Registration with, membership in or subscription to any independent sustainability rating processes, registries and/or organizations to which Apple makes payments that rate Apple products for sustainability purposes and intentionally make results of such evaluations, in whole or in part, available to the public.

4. The amount of payments made by Apple to entities that meet any of the definitions set forth in #3, above.

The report, excluding proprietary information and information related to legal compliance, shall be presented to the Audit and Finance Committee of the board or other relevant oversight committees of the board and posted on Apple’s website.

For purposes of this proposal, “sustainability” refers to practices relating to the conservation of energy or physical resources; “trade association” refers to, as defined by Merriam-Webster, “an association of tradesmen, businessmen, or manufacturers in a particular trade or industry for the protection and advancement of their common interests”; “independent” refers to organizations or entities not owned or wholly controlled by Apple or by any government body or agent thereof; “payments” refers to fees paid for membership, subscription or registration purposes to sustainability ratings organizations or their parent organizations or agents and does not refer to nor include fees paid to news media organizations, including trade publications, their parent companies or agents, or any payments made solely for advertising purposes.

Supporting statement:
Some trade associations and business organizations have expanded beyond the promotion of traditional business goals and are lobbying business executives to pursue objectives with primarily social benefits. This may affect Company profitability and shareholder value.

The Company’s involvement and acquiescence in these endeavors lacks transparency, and publicly-available information about the Company’s trade association memberships and related activities is minimal. An annual report to shareholders will help protect shareholder value.”

Apple’s Statement in Opposition to Proposal No. 9

The Board recommends a vote AGAINST Proposal No. 9.

The Company believes that selective participation in trade associations and business organizations is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. The Company is constantly monitoring and reviewing its participation and membership in associations and initiatives, and believes the reporting that would be required by this proposal is not necessary to protect shareholder value.

Participation in trade organizations can provide significant benefits to the Company and its shareholders. For example, participation in a trade organization may be an effective way to support specific policy initiatives or positions the Company believes will be in its best interests. The Company carefully chooses which organizations to join and chooses only those that advance the Company’s business interests.

The proposal alleges that some trade associations are lobbying business executives to pursue objectives with primarily social benefits. This is not consistent with the Company’s experience. Trade associations generally act on behalf of their members’ interests, rather than lobbying their own members as the proposal suggests.
The Company may pay membership or other fees to trade organizations from time to time. But the Company’s existing Political Contributions and Expenditures Policy does not permit trade association fees paid by the Company to be used to make political contributions. The Political Contributions and Expenditures Policy also requires that the Company’s management annually report the Company’s memberships and participation in trade organizations to the Company’s Board. The Political Contributions and Expenditures Policy is published on the Company’s website.

The Company believes the report that would be required by Proposal No. 9 would be potentially misleading to the shareholders and the public because it would not necessarily reflect the Company’s views. Disclosure of the Company’s participations in trade associations could also impact the Company’s competitiveness by highlighting the Company’s priorities and strategic interests.

The Company also obtains ratings for its products and joins product registries when it determines these actions are in the Company’s best interests. The Company constantly reviews and assesses ratings organizations and their processes to ensure that they are aligned with the Company’s standards and business interests.
The Board believes the Company’s current disclosure policies and other internal policies are sufficient to manage the issues outlined in the proposal. The Board also believes that producing the report requested by Proposal No. 9 would not be an effective way to protect shareholder value.

For all of the reasons above, the Board recommends a vote against Proposal No. 9.

Vote Required
Approval of Proposal No. 9 requires the affirmative vote of (i) a majority of the shares present or represented by proxy and voting at the Annual Meeting and (ii) a majority of the shares required to constitute the quorum.

Recommendation of the Board
The Board recommends a vote AGAINST Proposal No. 9.

NCPPR’s Statement in Favor of Resolution #9:

My name is Justin Danhof, and I am representing the National Center for Public Policy Research, the proponent of Proposal Number Nine.

Our Proposal highlights an area of concern to all shareholders: Company affiliations that may primarily advance social or environmental causes rather than promoting shareholder value.

We are asking the Company to be transparent about its membership in, and payments to, trade groups and outside organizations that are actively promoting top-down environmentalism rather than working to advance shareholder value.

The Proposal is necessary because Apple is a member of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) – one of the country’s largest Washington, D.C-based trade associations. RILA has been working with its member companies to advance top- down, market-distorting sustainability initiatives. RILA is pressuring its members to make expensive capital expenditures that have limited prospects for a reasonable return. RILA also advocates that its members lobby for changes to local building codes that will increase building costs and restrict property rights.

RILA claims that this strategy will give its member companies a competitive advantage when bureaucrats in Washington, D.C issue new environmental regulations. But why is an increasing regulatory state the only future RILA sees? Shouldn’t the Company’s trade associations be working to prevent costly federal interference with Apple’s operations rather than pro-actively acceding to DC’s regulatory morass?

Apple’s 2013 hiring of President Obama’s former head of the Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson is evidence that perhaps the Company agrees with RILA’s sustainability push. Under Jackson’s direction, the EPA issued 1,824 regulations – 20 of which are major regulations estimated to cost corporate America “$7 billion in one-time initial compliance and $44.86 billion in annual direct compliance costs.”

Also, under her leadership, the EPA issued its endangerment finding that dubbed carbon dioxide as a pollutant that is now driving much of the corporate climate change hysteria.

As shareholders, we object to increased government control over Company products and operations, and likewise mandatory environmental standards. This is something the Company should be actively fighting, not preparing surrender.

Apple should feel free to invest in sustainability where it is doing so with a business rationale – and staying one step ahead of federal regulators falls far short of this duty.

We urge shareholders to vote for Proposal Number Nine.

NCCR’s press release:

Tim Cook to Apple Investors: Drop Dead

Apple CEO Tim Cook tells Investors Who Care More About Return on Investment than Climate Change: Your Money is No Longer Welcome

As Board Member Al Gore Cheers the Tech Giant’s Dedication to Environmental Activism, Investors Left to Wonder Just How Much Shareholder Value is Being Destroyed in Efforts to Combat “Climate Change”

Free-Market Activist Presents Shareholder Resolution to Computer Giant Apple Calling for Consumer Transparency on Environmental Issues; Company Balks

Cupertino, CA / Washington, D.C. – At today’s annual meeting of Apple shareholders in Cupertino, California, Apple CEO Tim Cook informed investors that are primarily concerned with making reasonable economic returns that their money is no longer welcome.
The message came in response to the National Center for Public Policy Research’s shareholder resolution asking the tech giant to be transparent about its environmental activism and a question from the National Center about the company’s environmental initiatives.

“Mr. Cook made it very clear to me that if I, or any other investor, was more concerned with return on investment than reducing carbon dioxide emissions, my investment is no longer welcome at Apple,” said Justin Danhof, Esq., director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project.

Danhof also asked Apple CEO Tim Cook about the company’s green energy pursuits. Danhof asked whether the company’s environmental investments increased or decreased the company’s bottom line. After initially suggesting that the investments make economic sense, Cook said the company would pursue environmental goals even if there was no economic point at all to the venture. Danhof further asked if the company’s projects would continue to make sense if the federal government stopped heavily subsidizing alternative energy. Cook completely ignored the inquiry and became visibly agitated.

Danhof went on to ask if Cook was willing to amend Apple’s corporate documents to indicate that the company would not pursue environmental initiatives that have some sort of reasonable return on investment – similar to the concession the National Center recently received from General Electric. This question was greeted by boos and hisses from the Al gore contingency in the room.

“Here’s the bottom line: Apple is as obsessed with the theory of so-called climate change as its board member Al Gore is,” said Danhof. “The company’s CEO fervently wants investors who care more about return on investments than reducing CO2 emissions to no longer invest in Apple. Maybe they should take him up on that advice.”

“Although the National Center’s proposal did not receive the required votes to pass, millions of Apple shareholders now know that the company is involved with organizations that don’t appear to have the best interest of Apple’s investors in mind,” said Danhof. “Too often investors look at short-term returns and are unaware of corporate policy decisions that may affect long-term financial prospects. After today’s meeting, investors can be certain that Apple is wasting untold amounts of shareholder money to combat so-called climate change. The only remaining question is: how much?”

The National Center’s shareholder resolution noted that “[s]ome trade associations and business organizations have expanded beyond the promotion of traditional business goals and are lobbying business executives to pursue objectives with primarily social benefits. This may affect Company profitability and shareholder value. The Company’s involvement and acquiescence in these endeavors lacks transparency, and publicly-available information about the Company’s trade association memberships and related activities is minimal. An annual report to shareholders will help protect shareholder value.”

Apple’s full 2014 proxy statement is available here. The National Center’s proposal, “Report on Company Membership and Involvement with Certain Trade Associations and Business Organizations,” appears on page 60.

The National Center filed the resolution, in part, because of Apple’s membership in the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), one of the country’s largest trade associations. In its 2013 “Retail Sustainability Report,” RILA states: “Companies will often develop individual or industry voluntary programs to reduce the need for government regulations. If a retail company minimizes its waste generation, energy and fuel usage, land-use footprint, and other environmental impacts, and strives to improve the labor conditions of the workers across its product supply chains, it will have a competitive advantage when regulations are developed.”

“This shows that rather than fighting increased government regulation, RILA is cooperating with Washington, D.C.’s stranglehold on American business in a misguided effort to stop so-called climate change,” said Danhof. “That is not an appropriate role for a trade association.”

For even more information on RILA, read “The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA): A Cartel that Threatens Innovation and Competitiveness,” by National Center Senior Fellow Dr. Bonner Cohen.

“Rather than opting for transparency, Apple opposed the National Center’s resolution,” noted Danhof. “Apple’s actions, from hiring of President Obama’s former head of the Environmental Protection Agency Lisa Jackson, to its investments in supposedly 100 percent renewable data centers, to Cook’s antics at today’s meeting, appear to be geared more towards combating so-called climate change rather than developing new and innovative phones and computers.”

After Danhof presented the proposal, a representative of CalPERS rose to object and stated that climate change should be one of corporate America’s primary concerns, and after she called carbon dioxide emissions a “mortal danger,” Apple board member and former vice president Al Gore turned around and loudly clapped and cheered.

“If Apple wants to follow Al Gore and his chimera of climate change, it does so at its own peril,” said Danhof. “Sustainability and the free market can work in concert, but not if Al Gore is directing corporate behavior.”

“Tim Cook, like every other American, is entitled to his own political views and to be an activist of any legal sort he likes on his own time,” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “And if Tim Cook, private citizen, does not care that over 95 percent of all climate models have over-forecast the extent of predicted global warming, and wishes to use those faulty models to lobby for government policies that raise prices, kill jobs and retard economic growth and extended lifespans in the Third World, he has a right to lobby as he likes. But as the CEO of a publicly-held corporation, Tim Cook has a responsibility to, consistent with the law, to make money for his investors. If he’d rather be CEO of the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, he should apply.”

“As in the past, Cook took but a handful of questions from the many shareholders present who were eager to ask a question at the one meeting a year in which shareholder questions are taken,” added Ridenour, “leaving many disappointed. Environmentalism may be a byword at Apple, but transparency surely is not.”

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is a leading free-market corporate activist group. In 2013, Free Enterprise Project representatives attended 33 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, media bias, gun rights and many more important public policy issues. Today’s Apple meeting was the National Center’s third attendance at a shareholder meeting so far in 2014.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is an Apple shareholder, as are National Center executives.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Source: National Center for Public Policy Research


    1. “Too often investors look at short-term returns and are unaware of corporate policy decisions that may affect long-term financial prospects.” I wonder if The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is aware of the irony of this statement of theirs. Doing what is morally correct is generally good for an individual or organization in the long run. Immoral acts are invariably committed in order to achieve a short term gain, with little thought to the long term consequences.

      I’m not a believer in man-made global warming, but I am a believer in the value of a corporate image. People’s attitudes about a company have a lot to do with its bottom line. I think being socially responsible is good business. I think it makes a difference on the long term bottom line. What’s wrong with America today is the selfish cretins who cling to the social darwinism bandwagon, and look no further into the future than this quarter’s profit statement. I don’t want to live in Calcutta. I don’t enjoy stepping over the bodies of street people (the untreated mentally ill) on my way home from a nice steak dinner at a good restaurant. It takes away any sense of enjoyment of the lifestyle I’ve managed to achieve. People who can turn a blind eye to the damage done to people and the earth for the sake of profit really do need to be told to take a hike.

      1. While our opinions on Global warming may differ I completely agree with your comments. And just from a sales standpoint I have never met anyone who did not buy a product from a company because the company was environmentally or socially conscious. I have however known many people who when given a choice between product brands will choose the one from the more conscious company. I am proud to be a shareholder in a company that puts both innovation and being a good citizen of the world ahead of shareholder value at all costs.

        1. Our opinion on global warming are irrelevant.

          What is relevant is scientists’ opinions. ~98% of them not only admit that there is global warming (2% are paid by Koch brothers and the like) — average temperatures grow indeed — but also say that at least half of it is human-caused (speed of temperature growth is much higher than both short and long temperature cycles suggest, so there is no other reason).

    2. Being environmentally friendly is one thing, but being completely hood winked by AL GORE and the idiotic choice to have him as a board member, is foolish. There has never been a bigger fool or a bigger hypocrite than AL GORE. Just by saying the science is settled means he’s a moron. Science is never settled. With that, Al Gore is afraid to debate any of the thousands of scientists that feel the science on AGW is NOT settled. In the meantime, the Democrats, liberals and socialists, use the Global Warming scam as a method of control. How easy? convince any useful idiot that they are smarter for believing in Global Warming, and make them feel superior for having the supposed “high ground” on the subject while smearing anyone who does not goose step off a cliff..

      Every single one of us contributes to pollution, and has an effect on the environment. We all have a responsibility to leave the earth as good or better than we found it, which is hard in this disposable product world. I bet Tim Cooks carbon footprint is enormous. But I also am confident that we can use technology to have less impact in the future.

      BUT, when I see the Democrats highjacking Global Warming as a way to fast-track socialism, and at very least, regulate the United States into 3rd world status, through a Carbon Tax, I have to start swinging…

      Leave it to the Democrats to figure a way to Tax the “Climate”..

      1. I say this in all seriousness, Democrats, liberals and Socialists, if you want to prove you are truly concerned with Global Warming, YOU hold the key to your Global Warming cure.. It costs nothing and harms nobody. Simply DO NOT REPRODUCE… that will cut the population by 50%, along with Humans environmental impact by 50%. Just by LIBS Not Reproducing. But Libs/Democrats WILL not do this because AGW is really about destroying capitalism, the USA, and promoting socialism. Why else would their “CURE” exist as a TAX. Hypocrites…

  1. Pure, unbridled greed is NOT good. The more we can find ways to remain ethical while still turning a profit, the better. And, when the two come into direct conflict with each other we’re most often better off going with what’s ethical and here’s why: It’s the next generation that’s going to continue to have to live with the choices we make today, economic and environmental. It’s at this level that pure greed does us decided harm.

      1. If you define your interests as those that benefit you as a member of humanity, then probably not. If you define your interests as actions that benefit only you, to hell with humankind as a whole, then that’s pretty much greed.

        1. You are becoming quite the little pest.

          You attempted a First Amendment defense of bigotry. The First Amendment guarantees that you can say what you want, and no one can stop you. I agree with that.

          The proposed law would have forced someone to listen to that hate speech. The First Amendment never guarantees that anyone has to listen to what you have say. (When the hypothetical photographer refuses the gay couples business, they have to listen to his reasons) I just proposed that the photographer be civil, and claim prior commitment.

          And I have revealed the issue at hand: You do not grasp the concept of civility. How foolish of me!

        2. botty, I’m sorry to say your incessant use of obscenity, insult and name calling does NOT make you any more convincing.

          It merely demonstrates, over and over and over, your fundamental character.

          Of course, your dad and I blame ourselves. We should have beaten you much more in those difficult years (between about 1 and 27).

        3. botvinnik: “Is greed worse than lying?”

          Both are vices, but if I had to choose, I would say that consistently being greedy is probably worse for society than consistently lying. For one thing, people may not be in a position to effectively oppose a person’s excessive greediness even when a person has a reputation for greed. In some cases, a greedy person is touted rather than vilified. And greed can have terrible and repeated effects on many people.

          When a frequent liar gain a reputation, that person becomes distrusted. Liars can also have terrible effects on many people, but they lose most of their power when exposed.

          The answer really depends on the circumstances. Being greedy and taking the last slice of pizza is quite a bit different from raking in billions in profits while paying your employees poverty wages. Similarly, lying can take many forms. Some lie to themselves. Some lie to others. Some do both. And what is the purpose of the lie? Some lies are intended for “good” – to protect someone’s feelings, etc. Others are intended to deceive or take advantage of someone.

          In general, I recommend that you attempt to avoid both greed and lying.

        1. Let them eat cake eh radio?
          Nice, when you get right down to reality (what people are, not what they claim to be) you socialist liberals are literally the dregs of the earth.

        1. Not so much, if you would actually lean about economics, you would find that government (not the banks) played the key role.
          What you keep in mind is that the government has the last word, always. They can at any time come in guns ablaze and stipulate what, why and when, even if that is plainly and obviously not so (take the recent ebook fiasco as an example) Business must play the game with whatever rules government stipulates, not vise-versa.

    1. Perhaps thinking of the possibility of being associated with a future St. Gox debacle? Looks like a good decision now. Apple has no customers blaming it for enabling them to lose all their money, and Apple can’t be said to be a participant in this ridiculous scheme driven by conspiracy theories.

      “Too often investors look at short-term returns and are unaware of corporate policy decisions that may affect long-term financial prospects.” From The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project’s own lips.

        1. Nobody is “doing anything about it,” including Apple and every country doing business with China.

          Nothing can be done by any country but China. Which could care less about poisoning every river valley while filling the lungs of its children with maximum lead and exhaust.

        2. And BWT, it’s “…couldn’t care less”, not “could care less”. If you could care less, it means that you actually DO care. Just saying’…

  2. It is the sun that drives Earth’s climate. Current Solar Activity Cycle Is Weakest in a Century. Note the current extreme low winter temps.

    The earth’s climate has been cycling between ice ages and tropical conditions for billions of years. Before humans even existed, much less cars and factories.

    This era of “global warming” hysteria will be laughed by future generations. Know-it-all politicians and their “settled science” lackeys are simply trying to seize vastly increased tax monies to use for whatever end they desire.

    One they have the cash flow established, with a bunch of ignorant lemming supporting it in lockstep, the money certainly will not be spent on climate change, either, since even the anthro global warming cult states the fact that spending on the issue would accomplish nothing about reducing the warming of the earth via CO2.

    The money will instead be used to fund wars, build palaces, undermine nations, build bridges to nowhere, and all of the other lovely things that confiscated money has always been used for.

    February 2014: The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences: Cutting all CO2 emissions immediately would not stop global warming

    Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth’s surface temperature would not cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era for thousands of years.

    If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to ‘pre-industrial’ levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying extremely long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions, and sea level would likely continue to rise for many centuries even after temperature stopped increasing]. Significant cooling would be required to reverse melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, which formed during past cold climates. The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales.

    Now, cue the hysterical Global Warming cultists as they attempt to shout down anything that fails to support their drive to confiscate even more taxpayer funds from already tremendously overburdened taxpayers.

    1. Well, firstly your name is wrong since a cult is a small group that goes against the norm (usually in spite of all rational evidence to the contrary of their main points/goals).
      Secondly, your points are all wrong and I am not going to take them one by one.
      However your use of the idea that it’s all about money is pretty telling since that is the cry we hear from those who just don’t understand (or due to some hard-wired pre-disposition, can’t accept) the science. Also you quote a study that has little to nothing to do about the actual situation, just a given that no one disputes, but you obviously don’t understand things like the concept of a tipping point, or accelerated change by outside influences. It’s OK, god says we can do anything we want to fsck the planet.
      Suffice it to say you just don’t know what hell you are talking about.

        1. Low quality comments. At least on this thread.

          Everyone: Like acting with a conscience in business, showing respect in a comment reply results in much higher value for everyone.

          On science: its not perfect but it is the best tool for finding knowledge ever invented. People slung mud and tore down each others motives since time began, but I like to think anyone taking the time to post here really knows how utterly useless that is, it just irrationally reinforces views and adds no light even when done in the name of a worth cause.

        2. Along the same lines it is unwise to shoot the messenger as that tends to inhibit the flow of future messages, resulting in an undefended throne room, or an empty one.

      1. Suffice is to say that polar ice is at its highest level in 25 years according to the NOAA. YOU don’t don’t what the hell you are talking about. That’s the reason we’ve changed the name to “climate change” instead of global warming, so Al Gore makes money no matter which way the thermometer moves. Global Warming is a religion based on computer modeling which has failed to accurately predict anything. Ever. GIGO.

        1. Funny, I go to NOAA and they say that “Sea ice extent has decreasing trends in all months and virtually all regions.”

          And, according to NOAA scientists and official statements, Global Warming is “undeniable.” Your own source proves you wrong.

        2. No, Rip Ragged, you are wrong.

          “Arctic sea-ice thickness in October 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 based on data from ESA’s CryoSat mission (UCL/ESA)

          The volume of sea ice in the Arctic is 50 per cent higher than it was last fall, satellite measurements show.

          In October 2013, the European Space Agency satellite CryoSat measured 9,000 cubic kilometres of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, said an ESA news release Monday. At the same time of year in 2012, it measured just 6,000 cubic kilometres. . . ”

          And from the Washington Post: “Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday
          September 23, 2013 at 3:23 pm”

          Quit lying.

    2. Yep…Sun does drive the climate. Fully agree. Yet, destroying natural environmental structures (burning rain forest, destroying watersheds, poisoning the soil, adding copious amounts of carbon to the atmosphere etc) for pure profit and exploitation is nothing short of insanity and plain out stupid. If anything, this type of human activity has made civilization much more vulnerable to the effects of current climate intensity.

    3. CO2 emissions certainly do contribute to overall global warming. The question is how much do they contribute and is it even possible to make any significant change going forward? How much money would it take to, say, reduce the future temperature rise, over and above the elevation to which we’ve already contributed (which, again, is an unknown about which only theories exist), by even 1℃? Is it worth it?

      Before some of your knees jerk into your faces and you clutch your bleeding hearts screaming “Hell, yes, you flat-earther Rethuglican!!!” be advised that nobody knows the answer.

      If it would cost a quadrilion bucks today to reduce future temperature rise by 1℃, over and above those rises that are already baked in, would it be worth the expenditure? From where and whom are we supposed to get the quadrillion bucks?

      What if it turns out that the most efficient way to reduce the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is not by converting to electric cars, but by removing a large percentage of trees and other plant life from the face of the earth? Who’s for “global warming mitigation now,” tree-huggers?

      Common sense, economically feasible efforts should be made to reduce CO2 emissions IF AND ONLY IF they will make reasonable remedies vis-à-vis warming, health (pollution), and/or energy independence. Otherwise we would just be throwing good money after bad. I want to see a realistic cost-benefit analysis before I hop on the bandwagon, thanks.

      1. What bandwagon?

        This is Mother Nature cycling her weather. We’re at the tail end of the last ice age, ending thirty-thousand years of air conditioning and is now used up.

        We didn’t break anything, however we failed to maintain the delicate membrane that protected the our species from the Sun’s radiation and those of us who live at or near the Equator will perish in the heat.

        My forecast for the next hundred millennium is humidly hot, followed by tidal waves of warm water turned black by blooms of algae from dead oceans, devoid of current.

        Summer is coming and the final vestiges of Winter has lapsed, we will all return to the time before electricity.

        1. So in answer to my question, ‘what bandwagon?’ your response is Holy Crazy as a Shit house Rat, bandwagon?

          You just described the quintessential teabag Republican who cannot fathom a life beyond six-thousand years because his God is no older, or wiser.

      2. First 2014 Then doesn’t seem to know that it is the green plants that USE the CO2 in the atmosphere and generate free oxygen from it. His question, “what if … the most efficient way to reduce the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is … by removing a large percentage of … plant life from the … earth?” is sheer idiocy. In fact, the removal of plant life has been contributing to the accumulation of the CO2 in the atmosphere. This person writes of “common sense” but seems to lack any of his own.

        1. It is my understanding that terrestrial plant life does remove CO2 during the day by photosynthesis and like other large organism on Earth, goes through respiration to produce CO2 during the non-light hours for the energy to live.. The majority of Earth’s Oxygen does not come from terrestrial plant life however. The ocean’s plankton and other chlorophyll using flora/fauna is the major force. This does not however condone deforestation. It is my belief that it is not simply the man-made CO2 that is contributing to climate change but the reduction of organisms that perform photosynthesis by man-made pollution that is the core of the problem. We have technology to ‘farm’ other organisms.. We have the technology to compress CO2 to make dry ice. This may be a radical idea but how about creating ‘farmed’ plankton fed with supplies of CO2. We could create food for the creatures of the ocean or perhaps use a strain of plankton/algae that has a high oil content to help offset future fuel crises..

      3. It’s the deforestation of vast areas of the planet, in many cases to grow oil palm crops, for example, to help reduce ‘climate change’ that’s encouraging ‘climate change’. Trees absorb CO2 and expirate oxygen, plus they help reduce flooding by taking in up to 60% of rainfall, their root systems tie the soil together, helping to stop mudslides, etc.
        But in the name of ‘environmentalism’, the environment is being destroyed by those looking to make maximum profit from minimum investment, hence these vast plantations being laid out in poorer countries with little government oversight, or lots of corruption and pay-offs of officials to allow de-forestation to take place.

    4. Regardless of everything you just posted, renewables will eventually be cheaper than fossil fuels. It’s in Apple’s interest to research this technology to reduce their costs over time and to be on the cutting edge.

    5. Energy companies, such as Exon Mobile, spend several million dollars every year in anti-global warming propaganda. Non-cultist is probably just a paid cog in a large machine.

    6. “It is the sun that drives Earth’s climate. Current Solar Activity Cycle Is Weakest in a Century. Note the current extreme low winter temps.”
      In your corner of the world, maybe. But it’s called “global” warming for a reason.

      Global temperature percentiles, Nov 2013:

      Global temperature percentiles, Dec 2013:

      Global temperature percentiles, Jan 2014:

      Note how many more “warmer than average” and “record warmest” there are compared to “cooler than average” and “record coolest”, despite the weak solar activity.

      Hint: only a single block in the entire world saw “record coolest” in the last 3 months, while there’s plenty of “record warmest” every month. Go back further and sure there’s a few isolated “record coolest” here and there, but still much more “record warmest” for each given month.

      Again, this is *in spite of* the “Current Solar Activity Cycle Is Weakest in a Century”.

      1. When you can explain the “global” temperature increase on MARS and TITAN during the same period from the co2 level in Earth’s atmosphere, I will listen to your drivel. When you can further account for the concurrent DROP in temperatures on those bodies and others in the Solar system during the past ten years, and link it to conditions caused by anthropogenic activities, I may nominate you for a Nobel in physics. . . but until you can do that, I will go with the data that links the variability of energy output in our VARIABLE star that just happens to have coincided with those temperature fluxuations! But that doesn’t generate lots of research dollars and political activities for socialist agenda, does it?

        1. Refute Non-Cultist’s claims, then I might bother paying attention to yours. He’s the one that blathered about extreme lows this winter and linked it to weak solar activity (“It is the sun that drives Earth’s climate. Current Solar Activity Cycle Is Weakest in a Century. Note the current extreme low winter temps.”, emphasis added since you obviously missed it in your rush to undermine him), your argument is with his comment, not mine.

        2. No! Moss an, I agree with Non-Cultist. It IS the sun that drive changes in temperatures on Earth, Mars, and Titan… Not any Anthropogenic Global Warming. Similarly it is the low solar activity now that is resulting in the hiatus in temperature increases and in fact the lows, that we are also see reflected on Mars and Titan and other extra-Terran bodies in our Stellar system. The anthropogenic warmist crowd are using the same data I was looking at in honor physics classes in the early seventies when the buzz was the future looming ICE AGE. . . and global cooling. . . The exact SAME data sets! Just massaged differently. There IS NO Global warming.

  3. Annual stockholder meetings of companies like Apple bring out the freak show of gadflies. It makes for theatre and headlines but little more than that. Witness what unions have demanded of Apple in past meetings as but one example. Sadly, Apple will always be subjected to stuff like this. Fortunately, these misguided efforts result in nothing.

  4. Good for Tim. The long term viability of Apple is not based on immediate crash and burn money grabs.It would serve Apple well to rid itself of everyone in it for immediate gains, those that could care less about the products and Apple’s long term success but only about what they can make for themselves today.

    1. As a long term investor, my reaction to the proposal, and Cook’s answer, is don’t let the door hit your skinny ass on the way out! I’m tired of the crap shoveled by short term profit advocates like Icahn and these jerks. And I’m really sick and tired of the Conservative ignorati who haven’t ever experienced an original thought in their lives. Spouting Conservative talking points is no substitute for critical thinking.

        1. Really? Which talking points did I spout. Point out a couple, please. Or are you just doing the typical Conservative thing, running your mouth without your brain engaged?

  5. Johnny come lately, go find a new home.

    Apple core supporters and investors are what made it what it is.
    They outwiegh you in sum and substance and will continue to insure it’s high standards, morals and unrivaled reign.

  6. To atone for his environmental sins Tim Cook will take a year’s sabbatical from Apple and sit on the top of Mount Everest and ponder his environmental impact on this Earth.

    Cook will sleep in the same pup tent as the Dalai Lama and His Beneficence will hold Cook’s hand as he sleeps.

    Scott Forstall will take over the CEO’s position in the absence of Cook.

  7. Business leaders have often cited profitability as the reason not to be environmentally conscious. If we all listened to the oil industry we would still be using leaded gas. If we listened to the car industry we would be dealing with increasingly dangerous levels of smog in our cities.
    Apple have been innovators since day 1 and will continue to do so. This appears in many forms both in software and hardware, often getting slammed before people realize how good the product is.
    That Apple take a stand on making products that are environmentally conscious makes sense with the customer based and has probably helped drive sales to some extent.
    There are innovators who buck trends and improve our way of life. There are copy cats who follow and cut corners to squeeze every nickel out of an opportunity. I am proud that Apple are the former and lead the pack by a long mile. Keep up the good work and continue to ignore those who actions are politically minded.

  8. Mac fanboys don’t give a sh1t about stockholder ROI.
    SJ always did what he thought was right for the company and Cook appears to want to follow suit.
    Telling NCCR where to get off will do more for the bottom line than making some bland newsspeak answer to molify the a-holes

    1. Using Renewable energy and environmentally friendly materials in your products is not political activism. That only exists in the minds of the ignorant and politically motivated.

      It is a sound business practice. Just as treating everyone equally is also a sound business practice and is also not political.. unless you are of the politics that wants to discriminate and ignore science you don’t agree with.. then you would see it as political.

      Interesting that being intentionally ignorant is now considered Patriotic.

    1. Also, Apple could be working on renewable tech as it will eventually become cheaper than fossil fuels.

      If they disclose how much they are spending on renewable tech, they could end up disclosing things like R&D costs for new forms of energy, which would be a little too transparent in my opinion. No need for rivals and enemies to know what you are doing.

  9. I agree with Tim Cook & BOD, social and environment is just as important as profit. I will be buying more Apple shares. Tim is doing a fine job running such a large and complex company, making gobs of money too.

  10. I wrote to NCPPR to express my disappointment in their demands. Here is the response that I got from them.

    “We take it, dufus, that you actually know nothing about Apple’s record on the environment. You do of course have the right to be ignorant, but why advertise?”

    Note that my own email to them did not attack them personally, but they chose to do that in return.

  11. I agree with and support Apple in this. Long-term investments with companies that socially conscious goals.

    You may not agree with the 99% of climate scientists that say global warming is a fact and that humans are the main contributors; you may believe that we can continue as we are because the earth will magically fix itself.

    The science may be wrong (I doubt it). If it’s right, the longer we wait to address the issue the more expensive it will be to do it and the longer it will take, if it can be done at all at that point.

    What a legacy to leave to our children.

  12. There is a difference to be noted between environmentally sound practices and joining the global warming cult. Being a good steward of the Earth is supported by all religions. It’s the right thing to do. Tim Cook gets that. Some right wing nut jobs think environmentally sound practices are too expensive and tree-hugger nonsense. They are the idiots who make arguing against global warming difficult because they actually seem to advocate polluting and destruction. You don’t have to be a global warming nazi to not shit in the street.

    1. Apple isn’t doing the right thing just because. They’re skating to where the puck is going to be in energy. In five years, Apples on-site power generation will be adding millions to the bottom line because they will be immune to energy rate hikes. Apple is going to dominate everything they are involved in because their planning horizon is further out than the next quarter.

  13. ““[NCPPR’s] shareholder proposal was rejected by Apple’s shareholders, receiving just 2.95 percent of the vote.”

    “NCPPR’s press release: Tim Cook to Apple Investors: Drop Dead”

    Why is the NCPPR incapable of telling the truth?

Reader Feedback

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