Apple CEO Tim Cook pressured to follow Elon Musk and leave President’s Council over Paris Agreement kerfuffle

“Twitter users are calling on Tim Cook to leave the President’s Council in protest at Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement,” Ben Lovejoy reports for 9to5Mac. “Tesla CEO Elon Musk yesterday tweeted that he had already resigned.”

“Cook had previously urged President Trump to remain party to the agreement, and yesterday sent a company-wide email expressing dismay at the decision,” Lovejoy reports. “In response, a number of Twitter users called on Cook to leave the advisory council of tech leaders.”

Lovejoy reports, “Cook joined the council back in March, alongside Musk and other tech leaders like Bill Gates.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Musk’s and Cook’s most recent tweets regarding the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement:

SEE ALSO:
Apple CEO Cook slams President Trump’s decision to withdraw from climate deal; says it’s ‘wrong for our planet’ – June 1, 2017
Despite pleas from Apple CEO Tim Cook and others, President Trump pulls out of Paris Agreement – June 1, 2017
Apple signs on to full page ‘open letter’ ad urging President Trump to keep U.S. in Paris Agreement on climate change – June 1, 2017
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

84 Comments

        1. The day Obama was elected.

          Get your head out of the sand why the Don was elected and the Democrat Party has lost thousands of seats the last eight years.

          There is a reason you seem to be totally unaware of.

          MAGA! …

          1. Are u following Republican gerrymandering legal cases working their way through various courts? So much for free and fair democratic process.

            1. Pretty much.

              But BOTH sides have been doing it since the first district was drawn.

              It is only a bigger issue now because the Democrat Party are pulling out all the stops to weaken and destroy President Trump. The complicit media megaphone and activist lawyers looking for activist judges are leading the charge. If it was equally applied, I would have no problem with it.

              Proof is how many lawsuits have you seen in the past when Democrats redraw districts to their advantage, hmmm?

              Nuff said …

            2. No. Your facts are inaccurate. Republicans are primarily responsible. Look at the court cases. They have been wending their way through the court system for many years now. It is not a phenomenon related to this administration …although the recent administration is no doubt a beneficiary of previous gerrymandered voting districts.

            3. My point is the court cases sprung up like never before when Congress went Republican during Obama’s term. How many court cases in Obama’s term when his party controlled everything?

              They both do it, for over a hundred years. But the media and a particular party are overly sensitive and not at all fair and even handed lately …

          1. I don’t know if Obama is Kenyan or not. But simply point that out is NOT racist. Easy on the liberal trigger.

            As far as goat shagger, don’t know if that is a noble farming profession or a snarky insult. You know the thousands that are hurled at President Donald J. Trump on a daily basis, same thing. He couldn’t care less.

            But my main point, the comment was NOT racist …

            1. Selective listening much…?

              Mujaku said “Kenyan goat-shagger”. Last I knew a “goat shagger” is derogatory. Making it a descriptor for a Kenyan, people of color, is racist.

              Even considering goat shagging a “noble farming profession…” Good to see why states went red and a pretty good explanation of why Trump is President.

            2. Trump’s Secretary of Energy has a degree in Animal Husbandry. That uniquely qualifies him to run our nuclear weapons program.

            3. Now, who is being selective?

              I did not say it is noble, was musing and looking for answers since I NEVER heard the term before.

              To use your logic, if a white Irishman living in West Virginia and works in the mines, then to call him an Irish coal cracker would be racist?

              Ridiculous and deplorable comment that a shag phrase somehow factored in turning states red. Working class states turned red because their livelihoods degraded the last eight years because of lying liberals pandering to identify political groups. You know the groups, women, blacks, gays, et al.

              Add in a clueless and crooked Shrillary elitist DISSING and MOCKING half the country was ALL IT TOOK to put it over the top. Believe it, or not …

            4. The second paragraph was (semi)humorous, a dig, but it’s cute to see you using a Shrillary war cry, “deplorable”.

              To be clear, not all Trump voters are “goat shaggers”, some are racists, nationalists, and supremacists, but all goat shaggers voted for Trump. /s

            5. If you call me an Irishman, an Italian or a Lithuanian, and any one was representative of my heritage — would not consider that racist one atomic particle.

              The “shagger” comment is something else. For the first time heard it today and don’t have a clue what it means …

    1. I think many of us have been there — in all-too-painful meetings where nothing is said, nothing is done, and to top it off: the meeting is run by a Total Undeserving Dufus.

      1. Robert Eiger, the CEO of Disney, has also pulled out of the council for essentially the same reasons as Musk:

        1. It is a waste of time if the council does not actually have any influence over the decisions that will be made. If the Administration would not listen to the experts on something as fundamental as the Paris Accords, why should it be expected to listen to them on anything else? Eiger and Musk have better things to do with their time than waste it.

        2. Participation implies approval of the process being used to reach decisions, and thus of the value of the decisions being made. If it seems likely that the decisions are going to be bad, participation by industry leaders adds legitimacy that may not be deserved. It may even be read as endorsement of globally unpopular policies that will harm the interests of the CEO’s companies.

        The counterargument that may prevail for Cook is that having one foot in the room where decisions are made is better than being excluded entirely.

        1. uh no…
          • Disney is presently under investigation for H1-B abuse by the Department Of Labor.

          • Musk’s follies have been subsidized to the tune of $4.2 billion of taxpayer monies.

          1. You are a tired, broken record. You spout only cherry-picked arguments that support your stupid opinions.

            Big Oil & Gas has received — and still receives — far bigger subsidies & breaks. From 1916 to 1931 alone, Big Oil received $28.5 billion (in current dollars) of tax breaks. Read about the “Depletion Allowance” scam that let Big Oil deduct 27.5% from gross revenues _before_ they even begin to calculate taxable profit. Administrations have railed about this absurd tax loophole since the 1930s. Here is a good synopsis of “A brief history of tax breaks for Big Oil”:

            http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/oil-subsidies-energy-timeline

            1. …please sell your car immediately, immediately refrain from the use of all plastics…now, to be fair, let’s see if I can do without Elon Musk’s great contributions to civilization…uh, and that would be?

            2. (1) Change the subject
              (2) Make an insult
              (3) The only thing missing from your usual well-reasoned, witty, and sophisticated replies is calling me a vulgar name.

              You are so intelligent it must hurt.

            3. no, it doesn’t hurt…reading your shït is somewhat painfu,l however…and Happy Ramadan to our British “multiculturists” in Londonstan.

            4. When white American terrorist McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City, did Londoners start calling that city Hickville?

              MDN, please ban botvinnik. The haterade has to stop.

              Also, you xenophobic prick, what purebred race are you descended from? Why didn’t your ancestors stay in their place of birth forever? You continue to toss out insults against everyone else but you are no christian, no example of a superior race. You are merely the lucky lottery winner to be born in a multicultural nation that prospered primarily due to imported labor and imported knowledge.

              Now go back to your pizza dinner ((Italian), watch your flat screen TV (Japanese), drive your big car (German), continue to speak English (which is about 1/3 Latin, 1/3 Germanic, and the rest from everywhere else). Manage your budget using mathematics in Arabic numerals using Greek formulas. The list goes on forever. America even imported nuclear scientists to create the first atom bomb, arguably the source of America’s continued hubris and repeated inability to solve international problems with peaceful means. You hate those who don’t look like you, but you have taken all their technology and cultural contributions for granted. Then you expect everyone to worship you, economically or literally.

    1. The problem is that valuable input falls squarely on deaf ears.
      Being on a useless council is a waste of valuable time that could be spent kicking some Apple buts and getting things done.

    2. I feel the same way. Without the detailed knowledge of how they arrived that the human activities are the major cause of climate change (warming), but I tend to think that climate change is a part of much longer natural cycle on earth. Next Ice Age will come. Meantime, burning the limited resources for obtaining the heat will have to be minimized anyway. When burned up, we lose the resource forever, and our earth gets a bit lighter because of lost mass.
      Elon Musk has a vested interest to switch from fossil power to electricity, which is generated mostly by burning fossil resources. From the resource preserving viewpoint, it is obviously better to regulate burning. But if the presidential council has any influence, Cook has to remain there to voice his concern.

      1. Conservation of mass. Burning stuff may reduce the fuel mass but increases the density of the CO2 among other released molecules into the atmosphere. The rest converted to heat is not released easily into space either since that requires transference via molecular motion, which is sparse outside of planetary gravity wells.

      2. “When burned up, we lose the resource forever, and our earth gets a bit lighter because of lost mass.”
        ?
        Bwahaha
        Awww…thanks for that belly aching laugh…I needed that, if only to confirm I can safely ignore anything at all you have to offer. Brilliant.

      3. KenT — Look up “rapid combustion”. It is a chemical reaction. In the presence of heat, each carbon atom (from any source) will combine with 2 oxygen atoms (from the air), which creates CO2, or carbon “di”oxide. During the reaction, the molecular bonds of the atoms are rearranged, and 2 electrons from the original 3 atoms are no longer “bound” by the new molecule of CO2. This release of 2 electrons during the chemical reaction is what produces the energy — in the form of heat and light (i.e., fire) — that we use for energy.

        People think of CO2 as the residual of the burning process, like the small pile of ashes after we burn a big pile of logs. But this is a logical fallacy. The pile of ashes is the _other stuff_ in wood that is left over after the carbon was “burned”. All the carbon went up the chimney in the form of CO2. The mass of all the carbon when any fossil fuel is burned ends up in the world’s atmosphere and oceans in the form of CO2.

        Every carbon atom that has ever been combusted when we burn any fossil fuel goes into the atmosphere, where it also ends up in our oceans.

        That is a 1-for-1 correspondence of carbon from fossil fuels extracted from the ground that goes into CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans.

        If you look up the molecular weights of Carbon and Oxygen (in the Periodic Table), you can also calculate the weight of CO2 produced from combusting carbon with oxygen. Carbon weights 12 and oxygen weighs 16 “molecular units”. Therefore, the ratio of the weight of CO2 to the weight of a single carbon atom is 44/12, which reduces to 3.67. This means a single carbon atom produces a CO2 molecule equal to 3.67 times the weight of the original carbon atom.

        A gallon of gas weighs about 6 pounds and is 85% carbon. Burning 1 gallon of gas therefore produces nearly 20 pounds of CO2 — all of which ends up in our atmosphere and oceans.

        1. You forget to mention that trees absorb CO2 and create wood from it as the tree grows.
          All plants do this absorption and conversion. Burning the wood from the tree converts the wood back into CO2. The circle of life. All other plants can repeat the cycle too.

          You act as if CO2 does nothing but harm the atmosphere and oceans.

          1. You are referring to the non-sequestered carbon cycle, in which carbon life forms (like trees) take up carbon to grow, then return the carbon to the planet when they die, which carbon is then taken up again by young trees. Scientists, as well as lay persons and even evangelical extremists, all agree it happens. Let’s even assume the non-sequestered carbon cycle is in balance — which, incidentally, many do not believe, since we know humans have deforested a majority of the planet’s forest over the past 2 millennia. But let’s say the non-sequestered carbon cycle is in balance.

            Then we just need to consider what is happening to sequestered carbon. Sequestered carbon is carbon that is locked away in the earth’s crust in the form of fossil fuels like petroleum, coal, & methane, which was created from dead carbon life forms (trees, plants, dinosaurs) over the eons. This sequestered carbon is primarily what humans have been burning for the past 100 years. And all the sequestered carbon burned and CO2 produced are not needed by the planet. This stuff simply changes the chemical composition of our atmosphere and oceans. By burning sequestered carbon (in the form of fossil fuels) in the past 100 years or more, humans have increased our atmosphere’s CO2 level by about 33%. This is a large change. We are also changing the chemical composition of our oceans. Since CO2 is acidic, CO2 is causing ocean acidification (which is what is killing the coral reefs, for those who do not already know).

            So you get a star on your forehead for knowing about the non-sequestered carbon cycle. But you fail for not knowing about the sequestered carbon problem relating to fossil fuels that is at the root of climate and ocean change.

          2. High-quality coal is almost entirely carbon, so burning a ton of it releases over 3.5 tons of CO2. Burn a million tons and you have 3.5 million tons of greenhouse gas. Couple that with deforestation and there are simply not enough plants to keep up. Hence the observed rise in CO2 levels.

            The enhanced levels of CO2 trap additional solar heat. That is experimentally confirmed fact, not theory. Hence the observed rise in the global heat content. Hence, too, the observed impacts on the environment.

            This is not difficult stuff.

            1. I would be interested in what part of the standard high school chemistry textbook stuff requires a downvote. Can’t handle the truth when it isn’t mixed with opinion?

          3. If you have trouble visualizing a pound of a colorless, odorless gas, think of it this way:

            At standard temperature and pressure (STP = 59˚ F. at sea level), a pound of CO2 occupies 0.24 cubic meters—64 U.S. gallons, enough to fill a couple of bathtubs.

            A U.S. short ton (2000 pounds) of C02 would therefore occupy 480 cubic meters—a cube 25 feet on each edge.

            One million tons of CO2 = a cube almost a half-mile high.

            Last year, the world burned about 8000 million tons of coal, producing at least 25 billion tons of CO2 = a cube of pure gas almost 9.5 miles on a side at STP. (In reality, it would occupy a lot more volume than that, due to the low pressure at higher altitudes.)

            The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is currently 400 parts per million, so the CO2 produced by coal in just one year would require 25,000 adjacent 9.5-mile cubes (a square 1500 miles on a side) of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon at STP to dilute the flue gas down to the standard atmospheric composition.

            In reality, of course, the air available for dilution already has 400 parts per million of CO2, so the carbon percentage has nowhere to go but up. Each year, the surplus CO2 that isn’t fixed by plants or absorbed into the oceans (raising their acidity) builds on the year before in a constant increase. Every ounce of that excess greenhouse gas traps more heat.

            That is just from coal, and entirely ignores the contribution to CO2 levels from burning other fossil fuels such as oil and gas, and ignores other greenhouse gasses. It also ignores the impact of the destruction of forests and other plant life, both directly from human action and indirectly from climate effects.

            Still think that the human contribution to climate is inconsequential?

            1. Oops! Misplaced decimal. 400 parts in a million requires 2500 volumes of diluting gas, not 25,000. Sorry, but that’s still a lot of greenhouse gas.

    3. Don’t you realize that no smart input will ever be considered?
      Trump has no brain for that. He is giving outputs of his own, regardless if their wrong… because he believes that HE can’t be wrong!

  1. So far as I can tell, I was patient zero for anti-anti-anti-Trumpism: the philosophy which says that it is not enough to avoid the subject of Donald Trump by criticizing the various hucksters, idiots, SJWs, and partisans who criticize him. Because President Donald Trump is the leader of the free world and they are not. He is the thing.

    And yet, the last 24 hours have made the strongest possible case for being anti-anti-Trump.

    The Paris climate accords are a sham. They have been a sham from the beginning. As Oren Cass put it Thursday night, the accords failed not in Paris, but in Lima, in 2014. The Paris accords themselves were merely an attempt to paper over substantive failure with a gaudy hootenanny of international virtue signaling… The Paris agreement allowed countries to set their own goals and then ostentatiously provided no consequences for countries which then failed to meet them. An honest supporter of Paris might say that, whatever its substantive failings, the agreement was a symbolic success that might eventually become a gateway to actual policy change.

    But that’s the best argument you can make for Paris: That it’s symbolism that might someday become a Trojan horse.

    So whether you thought America should stay or leave the Paris agreement, that’s what you were fighting over.

    The reaction of the left to Trump’s announcement that he’s pulling America out of this sham “agreement” [:] Liberals on the Twitters lost their minds. Garments were rent; teeth gnashed…

    Here’s the thing about virtue signaling: Sure, it’s an empty gesture, but usually it’s an empty gesture about something real. It would have been good to have gone after Boko Haram to #bringbackourgirls. Changing your Twitter icon to support the Iranian democracy movement was silly, but the Iranian dissidents were real people trying to overthrow real autocrats at the risk of real retaliation. The signaling was about real virtue.

    But the left’s reaction to Trump’s Paris pull-out is something entirely new. It’s virtue signaling about virtue signaling. It’s like the cold-fusion of virtue signaling: the moment when the reaction becomes self-sustaining.

    If there was ever a moment to indulge in anti-anti-Trumpism, this is it.Jonathan V. Last, The Weekly Standard, June 2, 2017

    “Virtue signaling about virtue signaling.” Now wonder Pipeline Timmy the SJW loves it so much.

    1. It is safe to say that, after his European trip, Trump is no longer considered the leader of the free world.

      If it is up to Trump, the US will be vassal of the Great Soviet Republic leader. Hail, Tsar Putin !!!

  2. Anybody on that committee who feels the need to stomp away because Trump did something they disagree with was not there for their country to begin with; they were there to bolster their own credentials which they feel are sullied by association.

    Those who were there to actually offer advisory services (and who disagree with Trump’s actions) would be more inclined than ever to stay and, well, advise.

    1. I don’t agree. I don’t know how you can ascertain the motives of the people who agreed to serve on the council. To me it seems possible that they were convinced their input was being sought and would be valuable. Now perhaps they feel they were mislead and were chosen to give some air of legitimacy to Trump’s decision making process, Once they realized they’d been had, they really didn’t need to stick around for what appears to be a sham commission.

      1. A rare voice of reason. Added to that, is that there is zero evidence of TC ever being on that committee. He certainly attended the White House early in the kakistocracy, for ‘informative talks’…but that’s about all.

    1. Yeah, that’s why we elected President Trump. So what voice would Tim be offering, besides that of a perpetually-aggrieved virtue signaler?

      The President made the call to save the U.S. $3+ trillion in exchange for absolutely nothing. That’s reason. He made that call despite knowing full well that the uninformed SNL-educated snowflakes of the world would go apeshit. That’s courage.

      Tim Cook is confused about many things. He should stay on the advisory board so that after each decision is made the rest of the board will immediately know what the Steven Colberts and the rest of the insecure virtue signalers of the world will be squawking about that night, as if they cared.

  3. Timmy should get off of every non-Apple board and committee. He should get his butt back to Apple and start working on bringing the Mac line up to current day standards.

  4. Climate change has been occurring for 4.5 billion years. Paris Agreement can do nothing about it. Someone said that all it would do is create another slush fund for UN bureaucrats.

  5. I certainly admire Tim Cook for keeping his company in that now pitiful terroristic nation. There’s still time to leave Tim, the free and civilized world is uniting and MAGA (Making Asshole Go Away) is working splendidly.

  6. Elon Musk’s company is very dependent on Government subsidies from the energy markets.

    Those subsidies are largely all tied to the “man-made” climate change dogma.

    You cut those subsidies and suddenly all that money starts coming from his own pockets.

    Of course he is opposed to Trumps pulling out if the Paris Accord.

    However Tim Cooks Apple, while receiving subsidies for it’s solar farms and other side projects, business model is not fundamentally built upon leaching off Uncle Sam’s mighty teat.

Reader Feedback

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