“Under the leadership of Tim Cook, Apple has been a vocal advocate for certain policies, including what the company calls ‘climate change,'” Jim Lynch writes for CIO. “While some have applauded Apple’s commitment to battle global warming, I’m forced to wonder if the company’s efforts aren’t simply misguided.”
“Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that Apple is paying attention to the environment and that it’s aware of its own impact on it. But I think that Apple’s climate change efforts might be based on misguided idealism,” Lynch writes. “Before I offer my thoughts about Apple and global warming, here’s a recent story at The Verge that sums up the company’s perspective on the issue: ‘Apple is continuing to take a strong stance against climate change, writing in its newly released 2015 Environmental Responsibility Report, ‘We don’t want to debate climate change. We want to stop it.””
“I think it’s worth considering if Apple’s take on climate change or global warming or whatever you want to call it is a worthwhile expenditure of the company’s resources,” Lynch writes. “I think the company means well, and I’m glad they care about the environment. But I also think they are contributing to the unnecessarily alarmist misinformation that gets pushed on the public by the media… As with the global cooling farce that happened in the 70s, I think we will eventually see that global warming is just as much of an overhyped bit of nonsense. When that finally happens, I think Apple will unfortunately end up with egg on its face if the company doesn’t promptly tone down its rhetoric on the issue.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Forget about “climate change” and just look at the dollars and cents: Apple is reportedly making money on these projects over the long term while also reaping positive feelings about their brand right now. See, everybody, “Apple cares.”
Regardless of whether “global warming/cooling/whatever” turns out to be a sham or a significant long-term event that humans can affect or over which humans have little or no control, or something else entirely, Apple won’t have egg on its face for generating electricity from the sun rather than from other, less environmentally-friendly, less healthy means.
That said, it wouldn’t hurt Apple in the least to tone done the absolutist rhetoric (i.e. “the time for talk is over” and “we don’t want to debate”) as that sort of imperiousness just irks unnecessarily while setting the company up for potential ridicule regardless of how you calculate the odds.
Related articles:
Apple invests in China solar project – April 16, 2015
How Apple is making money off of its landmark $850 million solar deal – March 27, 2015
Apple’s $850 million solar plant investment rockets it to first place among U.S. corporations – February 12, 2015
Apple to build new solar farm, and some greens hate it – February 11, 2015
Tim Cook: Apple to build $850 million solar farm; Apple Watch will surprise everyone – February 10, 2015
I’ll wade in — it is a good thing when energy is extracted from the sun — it is a good thing when a deep-pocketed company like Apple helps to fund the R&D necessary to make this happen on a corporate scale — it is a good thing that all of us can benefit from the knowledge and lessons-learned in perfecting and developing solar power generation — it is a good thing that we, as a country (USA) can observe as Apple and others develop/tweak successful business models that will allow future solar energy endeavors to be become economically viable and sustainable.
Nothing Republican or Democrat about it. Just plain common sense, and seeking to be a good steward of this wonderful planet that we so briefly visit.
Niffy
If the USA wants to give the entire next-generation high-tech industry of renewable energy to China on a silver platter, then we should just keep doing what we are doing: ignore it in favor of old-fashioned extractive industries.
The renewable energy industry is essentially high tech: photovoltaics, electricity storage and distribution, monitoring and control systems. Innovation is what the US has done exceedingly well. We should be all over it. Instead, it looks to me like the Chinese are all over it. Shame on the US not to put up a high-tech fight for it.
The climate has been changing for over 4 billion years. We skeptics don’t deny this scientific fact.
It has indeed, but is the basis of your statement that we humans could not possibly impacting that change at all? If you agree that we could at even a minute level be negatively impacting the climate, why not attempt to alleviate that impact?
Yes, the climate has changed before and has been changing, but the changes happening now are happening much faster than any previous changes in climate and the fact that humans are responsible for the sudden change is indisputable.
Indisputable?
Considering that we have only been looking at this scientifically for the last 150+ years or so, that’s quite a bar you’ve set, there.
By what measure? By what opinion? By what objective scientific data that doesn’t contain within it the ever faint whiff of profiteering/taxation and/or job protection/advancement?
Inquiring minds want to know . . .
It IS a good thing that we seek cleaner energy alternatives — man-made air pollution and its accompanying negative environmental and biological impact SHOULD be studied and mitigated — technology can hold the key, but the will to insert the key lies in the capital markets, which are firmly entangled with national and international politics and decision makers who historically have sought profit and power over what is morally courageous.
Niffy
By general consensus within the scientific community. The fact that humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations studying climate science. Approximately 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
Even if changes in climate have only relatively recently been studied by scientists, we still have climate proxies like tree rings, ice cores, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, lake and ocean sediments, and carbonate speleothems that can be used to determine climate and changes to it that took place before modern record keeping. I do not believe it is a fair statement that scientific data that provides evidence for human induced climate changes is based on “profiteering” since oil companies, factories, and other businesses (incidentally the ones who deny climate change) have the most to gain by denying human induced climate change.
You agree it is a good idea to seek cleaner energy alternatives and minimize man-made pollution, which would indicate that you do agree humans are a cause of climate change.
Making changes to reduce human impact on climate change is certainly not contributing to “unnecessarily alarmist misinformation”. There is consensus in the scientific community that human driven climate change is a real and serious issue. Also, the “global cooling farce that happened in the 70s” which the author of this article refers to was a predominantly media based ice age prediction. At the time the vast majority of peer reviewed research did correctly predict a warming trend caused by an increase of CO2.
I live across from a 300ft hill and I count the dead and dying trees, caused by stress of lack of water. Springs stop flowing. Home water needs to be carted from elsewhere.
USA – God’s country – fcuked by Yanks. Give it back to Native Indians.
When you have hurricanes that last a month no amount of prayers will help you then.
When you have rains for months and flooding for months no amount of prayers will help you then.
When you have droughts for decades with no food production no amount of prayers will help you then. I only hope the deniers are eaten for food first!! People can gag, puke or die.