Apple CEO Tim Cook talks climate change, immigration, and more with Michael Bloomberg

“Apple CEO Tim Cook spoke with Michael Bloomberg in a session moderated by Megan Murphy at the Bloomberg Global Business Forum in New York City on September 20, 2017,” Jonny Evans writes for Apple Must.With thanks to Bloomberg Global Business Forum, I’ve been able to source the complete transcript, which I thought some Apple Watchers may want to read, verbatim.”

Some snippets of Cooks comments:

• Companies are nothing more than a collection of people. And so by extension, all companies should have values. And so as a CEO, I think one of your primary responsibilities is to decide what the values of your company is and lead accordingly. The other thing I think is the thing that President Kennedy used to say, originally from the Bible actually, is much is given, much is expected.

• These people, [individuals who entered the country illegally as minors], if you haven’t met them, at Apple we have many that came to the U.S. when they were two years old. They didn’t exactly make a decision to come. They came here, they only know our country. This is their home. They love America deeply. When you talk to them, I wish everyone in America loved America this much. They have jobs, they pay taxes, they’re pillars of their communities. They’re incredible people. And so to me, it would be like someone coming to Mike and saying oh, Mike, I just found out you aren’t really a citizen here. You need to leave. This is unacceptable. This is not who we are as a country.

• You know I don’t really think about legacy as the truth. I, I, I hope that when my toes point up, if people say he was a good and decent man, that is good enough for me. That’s my goal.

The full transcript is here.

MacDailyNews Note: Please keep the discussion civil and on-topic. Off-topic posts and ad hominem attacks will be deleted and those who post such comments will be moderated/blocked. Permanent loss of screen name could also result.

SEE ALSO:
After Trump administration sunsets DACA, Apple CEO Cook vows to work with U.S. Congress to protect ‘Dreamers’ in email to employees – September 5, 2017
President Trump ends DACA, but gives Congress 6-month window to deliver solution; Apple CEO Tim Cook ‘stands with’ 250 DACA-protected employees – September 5, 2017
Apple CEO Tim Cook signs letter encouraging President Trump to preserve the DACA ‘Dreamers’ program – September 1, 2017
Laurene Powell Jobs’ Emerson Collective buying The Atlantic – July 28, 2017
President Trump tells Apple CEO Cook that U.S. needs comprehensive immigration reform – June 20, 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
Laurene Powell Jobs launches new website in ‘DREAM Act’ push – January 22, 2013
Laurene Powell Jobs looks to create bipartisan support for DREAM Act immigration reform – December 18, 2012

44 Comments

  1. Hey, SJW, how about shipping out products to reviewers that work, without major connectivity bugs, so that the products aren’t tainted forever (like Maps). Do that, then you can go try to save the world from things you do not even understand, Timmy the Insufferably Sanctimonious.

    We were wrong — Scientists admit that world is warming more slowly than predictedThe London Times, September 19, 2017

    If you want, I’ll explain why the President ended Obama’s unconstitutional DACA mess, too.

    1. Tainted forever? Who gives a shit about a couple bad review units?

      Frankly I hope this results in premature mass cancellations so the shipping date for my Apple Watch 3 gets bumped. Right now I’m looking at the middle of October–it’s agonizing for a first time Watch buyer.

      1. The millions of potential customers who will learn about Apple Watch from these reviewers – and from the thousands of articles and memes generated from these flawed review units – will be harder to win over or win back.

        How many times do you think Apple Store employees are going to have to field the Apple Watch connectivity” question now, thanks to Apple’s screw up?

        When you get your Watch, have fun explaining to multiple fools that your Watch isn’t “flawed” or “broken,” thanks to Apple’s screw up.

    2. I don’t understand why your response is to suggest nothing needs to be done.
      Do you then think inaction is the best thinking?
      Do you believe the oil we burn and the waste we produce has zero impact?
      For the human species to flourish, smart, clear thinking needs to prevail.
      History has proven the actions similar to what youre suggesting are folly.

      1. Look it up yourself. And while you’re looking “SJW” up, look up “virtue signalling,” too.

        Cook is an inveterate virtue signaler. Those perceived hole(s) in his character he’s trying to fill or wrong(s) he’s trying to right must be doozies.

        1. It’s obvious: Cook was baptized in a Baptist Church. The root of his issues are that he’s a self-loathing gay man. He’s trying to get into heaven regardless by “saving the world.” It’s textbook. Like many “progressives,” Cook also suffers from one of the worst cases of false-consensus bias I’ve ever seen.

  2. He needs to eliminate the time Apple spends drifting in the wilderness of social engineering and shift it back to product engineering and quality assurance.

    Translated: WE DON’T HAVE TIME FOR THIS SHIT, TIM – MY WATCH WON’T CONNECT TO LTE!

    1. Obviously, you don’t have an LTE watch yet, and this may be fixed before you do.

      In the meantime, stop hanging out in McDonalds and other places that have WiFi that requires using a browser to click through a sign-in screen, or change the settings on your iPhone that allow automatically logging into such networks. Problem solved.

      1. I will have that watch within the next few days and for people like myself, who work in healthcare, this will be an issue. Most healthcare facilities have a guest wifi offering that features an interstitial user agreement. I hope you’re right and they’ll have it fixed before, but I’m not holding my breath.

    1. So what is your suggestion?
      Should we do nothing?
      It’s fairly simple. If the human population is to flourish, we need to be more efficient. More people in the same space necessitate this.
      We don’t need green-washing of policy, we need smart regulations that prevent the abuse of our resources. I don’t see anything like that from this administration. I see a foolish man abandoning reason to spite others and many greedy people using the lack of consequences to their sole benefit.

    2. JWSC,

      I agree with GeoB that “The drive by media are responsible for one sided information.” All four of the articles you cite, as well as the one cited above by First2014, are semi-sensationalist lay reporting dependent on a single scientific article in Nature Geoscience. They are not independent witnesses that the “threat is exaggerated.”

      A few points: (1) Most importantly, the original article itself acknowledges the existence of a global warming crisis and calls for steps at least as stringent as those agreed in Paris. To quote the abstract,

      “Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigations scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0˚ C above the mid-nineteenth century. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5˚ C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation.”
      https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031.epd

      (2) In the article itself, the researchers admit that their position is more optimistic about the chances of stopping runaway heating before reaching 1.5˚ than almost anybody else in the field, where there is increasing pessimism that heating can be stopped short of 2.0˚, no matter what mitigation steps are taken to prevent further harm.

      (3) The conclusions of the article have been received with considerable skepticism from other scientists in the field.

      (4) This is how science is done. People form a hypothesis (like the climate models designed ten years ago), then test it against subsequent data. If the actual rate of heating over the subsequent ten years differs from the predictions, the models need to be refined so they can more accurately “hindcast” the observed data trends and therefore presumably forecast future developments more accurately. We know a lot more about global climate than we did in 2007, so it is hardly surprising that we can and should develop better models.

      That doesn’t mean that the original models were flawed—they were the best possible with the then-available data. They predicted unprecedented warming and that is exactly what has occurred, just at a slightly slower rate than some models predicted. Even that assumes that the scientists behind this article are right and the majority is wrong.

      Nothing in this article invalidates the basic conclusion that the proportion of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere has drastically risen, that most of the increase is due to human activity, that the changed atmospheric composition traps more heat, that the atmosphere (as well as the hydrosphere and geosphere) are getting warmer, and that—on balance—the probable outcomes of this are harmful at best and catastrophic at worst. The article just argues that it isn’t too late for vigorous action to prevent complete disaster.

      That is exactly what Tim Cook has stated. There is no house of cards or social justice warfare involved in recognizing the scientific truth as truth without being blinded by ideology.

      1. Ideology had nothing to do with this. I am a facts and data kind of person.

        1) No one disputes that humans are pumping CO2 is into the atmosphere at high rates. The contention is how much impact CO2 has on climate.

        2) We keep hearing in the news about unprecedented warming. But the paper acknowledges a pause in warming that the models didn’t predict.

        3) We are still learning about how climate actually works and don’t have a full understanding yet. Without that ‘baseline’ of how the climate should work without any human influence, how does anyone know what the impact of human CO2 emissions? This is basic science. Establish a baseline, introduce a variable to test your hypothesis and observe the results. Clearly, this is a hard test to set up and conduct with so many variables, not all of which are known or understood. But the burden of proof needs to be with the scientific community and not the other way around.

        4) Their models ARE deeply flawed as they have overestimated the impact of CO2 on warming. This is not news as the discrepancy between the models and observations has been apparent for years. The news is that it is for the first time it is being openly acknowledged (regardless of Michael Mann who buries his head in the sand because it threatens his Hockey Stick and his whole career and credibility as a scientist).

        The paper still says we have to continue to reduce emissions. We just have a little more time to do it. But if their models were wrong then, why should we believe them now? Why should we upend entire industries, displace tens of thousands of workers, increase the costs of energy to consumers and industry when the science is clearly far from settled?

      2. (1) The idea of a “greenhouse gas” has been recognized since the 1800s. The correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures has been measured over 100s of millions of years. All other things being equal, CO2 necessarily affects climate. That is not seriously questioned by anybody.

        (2) The article does not “acknowledge a pause in warming.” It insists that warming continued throughout the period studied, but the rate did not accelerate as rapidly as the models had predicted.

        (3) Establishing a baseline and testing it against the data is exactly what climate scientists have been doing for a century or so. Just because you do not agree with what the overwhelming majority of them have concluded does not mean that they have not met reasonable scientific standards of proof.

        (3) The discrepancy between the old models and the one proposed in this article is relatively minor. If somebody told you that allowing your children to play on railway tracks only had a 95% chance of killing them, as opposed to 99%, I don’t think you would dismiss the whole concept and let them play on the tracks. Similarly, if you were told that the Paris Accords might conceivably hold warming to 1.5˚ rather than 2.0˚, that isn’t a reason to ignore them entirely.

        Two equally qualified groups of scientists disagree on half a degree of warming. That does not create any reasonable doubt that they might be wrong about the other degree and a half (0.6 of which has already occurred since the mid-1800s). To that “degree,” the science is clearly settled.

    3. These articles, written by these journalist are written to grab attention. They are over exaggerating to grab people’s attention and to have their work read.
      New models may suggest that our older models were incorrect in the sense that instead of taking, let’s say, 10 years for the world to heat up to a certain temperature and cause problems, it will now take 15 or 20 years according to the newer models. This doesn’t mean there is no “crisis”.

      The trend is still an increase in global temperatures and to say, ‘oh look scientists were wrong, climate change isn’t a problem’; or that climate change “is a house of cards” is very naive. Just because you now have some more time to solve the problem, it doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist or won’t get worse in the future.

  3. What if your ‘values’ don’t align with the companies? Are you then fired? For instance, theft. What if your ‘values’ deem that theft is acceptable? This is a long, slippery road with DACA. Just legalize them all and be done with it.

  4. In high school we went thru the lefts scare tactice of the pending ice age. As stupid jr high kids we were fed that stuff and had no reason to doubt it. I trusted the schools. These are the same people that are sucking the teat of federal funding or grants etc etc. its all about money and power. Just follow the money. Tim. Get to work. Enough of your personal BS your abusing your power. If i could i would fire your ass for not dojng your job

    1. Right, please identify for us a multimillionaire climate scientist.

      And you think Big Oil has such a long history of being honest and unbiased….. Sure, you go ahead and trust corporations with leaders whose one and only interest is short term profit maximization. The results that corporate efforts achieve are all predictable based on profit motive and total disregard for “externalities” that are foisted onto governments and taxpayers. Civilization will pay a price for the cheap petrol we’ve burnt recklessly for the last century while everyone ignored the measurable pollution effects for generations.

      Finally now as science slowly stitches together more and more accurate pictures of how the world works, you want to ignore it? Self chosen bias there.

      1. You need to back that claim up. Because as far as I can tell the oil, gas and coal companies do no such thing! They do provide funds to many climate scientists and political organizations who are supportive of the AGW hypothesis.

          1. Really weak article written for the already indoctrinated that is no more than a hit piece stating matter-of-factly that the Koch brothers are bad and wrong. Doesn’t even attempt to refute anything they claim. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong the Koch Brothers by themselves do not make up ‘Big Carbon.’ The previous poster’s claim remains unsubstantiated.

  5. Mr Cook is a nice man, but I question his leadership of Apple. The problem is not his politics or his sexual orientation, but his vision for the company.

    We are all well aware that Steve Jobs is reported to have told Tim Cook to run Apple as he saw fit- not how he might think Steve would have done things, but as a shareholder I think he has concentrated on the moneymaking assets and not the products that Apple makes and services it provides. Apple is certainly making a lot of money and has made many people rich, but I think it has veered way off course from the idea of placing great technology in the hands of the masses to empower them to do incredible things.

    Apple is a very big company now- much larger than even at the time of Steve Jobs’ resignation shortly before his death. Such a company with so many well paid and highly educated people should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time and that is what I am not seeing. Apple seems to have switched from being a Mac dependent one trick pony to an iPhone dependent one trick pony and mostly because of disinvestment in the Mac and even the iPad.

    I support Apple greening it’s use of power and defending the immigration that fuels our economy- especially our tech economy. I’m not so supportive of rental music, abandonware, ignoring the enterprise market beyond personal devices, ignoring creatives by ignoring the Mac Pro, the inability to get leadership position in streaming video, etc.

    Ms Burberry is busy remaking Apple Stores into boutiques for hipsters where you can buy a Drone but not a hub for your Mac. Lots of stuff on the tables you can get anywhere, but little that is special and differentiates the company.

    Things moved fast at Apple because Steve Jobs kicked people in the ass and drove them as hard as he drove himself. Tim Cook does not seem to have the passion, the vision or the urgency to drive the company forward.

Reader Feedback

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