
At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers - dsirijus
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/03/at-apple-shareholders-meeting-tim-cook-tells-off-climate-change-deniers/
======
wlesieutre
Oh my...

 _" 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?"_ [1]

Let's all ignore climate change. Clearly that would give us better long-term
financial prospects. And will definitely not be a huge economic disaster.

[1] [http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-
Apple_Tim_Cook_Climate_0228...](http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-
Apple_Tim_Cook_Climate_022814.html)

------
bfe
This group, NCPPR, has a long history of not only denying climate science [1]
by misconstruing their sources [2], but also defending the tobacco industry
[3] and denying involvement in corruption scandals [4].

1\.
[http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA388.html](http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA388.html)

2\.
[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5554/476.abstract](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5554/476.abstract)

[http://web.archive.org/web/20050414163144/http://www.nature....](http://web.archive.org/web/20050414163144/http://www.nature.com/cgi-
taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v418/n6895/abs/418291b_fs.html)

[http://web.archive.org/web/20050414163147/http://www.nature....](http://web.archive.org/web/20050414163147/http://www.nature.com/cgi-
taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v418/n6895/abs/418292a_fs.html)

3\.
[http://web.archive.org/web/20030930182136/http://www.prwatch...](http://web.archive.org/web/20030930182136/http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q3/ncppr.pdf)

[http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA198.html](http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA198.html)

4\.
[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a9s0n...](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a9s0nfJm4uZA&refer=top_world_news)

[http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Think-tank-
he...](http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Think-tank-head-claims-
Abramoff-deceived-her-1943377.php)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23indian.html?_r=...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23indian.html?_r=0&ei=5094&en=77d0036a5f15c93b&hp=&ex=1119585600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all)

------
yeukhon
_NCPPR demanded that Apple discontinue the programs and commit only to
projects that are explicitly profitable._

The word _demanded_ seems to be a very very strong statement. It's almost like
a command. I'd be really surprised if that was really the word NCPPR used in
the letter. _encouraged_ , or _suggested_ would be better. What power does
NCPPR has over Apple to _demand_ Apple to take action X?

To climate change deniers out there: while there is a natural part of climate
change (as Sun continues to burn, the surface temperature continues to
increase and eats the golden green zone between Earth and Sun and eventually
will boil Earth one day), wastes produced by humans are also contributing
climate eliminate changes.

And even if climate change is a _scam_ , I'd rather to feel safer, knowing we
are using clean energy than breathing air full of hazardous particles and wait
for disaster to come. A lot of the changes and proposed changes to defend
climate change actually makes life better. Just think about ways to protect
underground subway system and electricity from flooding and securing the
harbor from potential sea level rise. Use recycled papers rather than cutting
down new trees all the time. Conversing water and finding new reusable energy
resource to sustain the on-growing population. All these shits (excuse my
Chinese here) are either directly or indirectly a result of learning about
climate change and Earth sustainability. And guess what? They are new business
opportunity.

~~~
mikeyouse
Page 63 here has the precise language:

[http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/2993150551x0x717...](http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/2993150551x0x717769/d69c760e-5c4a-49f5-9790-9d1bbb2fd049/2014Proxy.pdf)

------
salgernon
It seems to me that these folks are using the shareholder meeting - and Tim
cooks response - as theatre to get in the public eye. I'd never heard of them
before (and now I know to avoid them) and they've succeeded in getting their
message in front of many more people.

This is the reason greenpeace and similar target apple publicly, even though
apple was already doing much of what they were asking for.

------
jleader
Was anyone else amused by the reference to "the Al gore contingency in the
room"? For non-native English speakers, I'll note that there's a noun
"contingency" with a meaning related to the adjective "contingent" (meaning
roughly "conditional"), but not directly related to the noun "contingent"
(meaning roughly "faction").

~~~
nirnira
Hah I didn't see that, nice catch!

------
hawkharris
Apple _should disclose_ at least basic information about the scope of their
investments. This is just common sense, and it's especially important at a
time when investors are panicked about the future of the stock.

~~~
cgriswald
Given that, among actual shareholders, only 2.95% voted for the proposal, I do
not think they are especially panicked about the future of the stock.

~~~
hawkharris
This proposal is only one manifestation of investors' concerns. It doesn't
follow that because 3% voted for it, only 3% are concerned about the stock,
which has been downgraded for the first time in 10 years.

~~~
cgriswald
Investors are not panicked. I argue that a panicked investor will either: I)
Sell his stock immediately. or II) Demand any information available. Since (I)
is not happening on a large scale (even when it dropped in January volume was
a small portion of total shares), it follows that if investors are panicked
about the stock, (II) must be occuring. However, (II) is not occuring because
only 2.95% of shareholders voted for the proposal. This indicates that even if
some portion of investors are panicked, it is at best only 2.95% of them. Thus
it would be incorrect to say investors are panicked.

Now you have changed the investors' dispositions from "panicked" to
"concerned". Assume that 100% of shareholders are "concerned" about the stock.
It still follows that, at best, only 2.95% of shareholders are "concerned"
about this particular information.

~~~
hawkharris
"Apple's stock price has fallen by 40% over the past six months, vaporizing
almost $300 billion of market value."

Source: [http://www.businessinsider.com/two-charts-show-why-apple-
sto...](http://www.businessinsider.com/two-charts-show-why-apple-stock-
dropped-2013-4)

~~~
parasubvert
That article was over a year ago. Apple's stock has appreciated about 25%
since.

I don't think you have much of a point here. Apple is priced on a presumption
by Mr. Market that it will never have another major product line and
associated high-growth revenue stream. The price has little to nothing to do
with its sustainability investments, because they have no impact on its
ability to create another breakthrough. (In other words, Apple's future
success is clearly not due to capital constraints. Knowledge constraints are
the limit.)

------
RivieraKid
I'm really sceptical and suspicious to the type of environmental policies that
Apple and other companies do.

The effect on global warming is near zero, possibly even negative. The
decision to use green energy decreases the price of non-green energy, so other
companies will buy more of it.

I really don't like how unsystematic and non-transparent this approach is. A
clean solution would be a tax on non-green energy. It would make the economy-
environment tradeoff very clear.

~~~
Daishiman
And the use of green energy goes towards investment in green energies that
will lower the price of it, with the difference that the supply of
nonrenewables is limited, whereas the others are not.

~~~
specialist
It's also risk mitigation. Supplying your own electricity from solar farms is
a pretty good way to avoid price volatility.

~~~
singingfish
That's one reason why I invested around $30,000 in renewable energy features
(passive and active) in the house I built last year. $3k per year amortised
over 10 years for a low operating cost system, comfortable living and working
environmnet? It's a no brainer.

------
ueqirat
it is possible to disagree with apple's investment in "sustainability" and not
be a climate change denier

~~~
thesimpsons1022
No one said it wasn't. But this conservative advocacy group did both.

------
tostitos1979
I'm not a big fan of TC. But this quote (from the article) gave him a +10 in
my books:

"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I
don't consider the bloody ROI."

------
Adrock
Another take is that these kind of sustainable practices are desirable to
Apple's high-value employees. By acting in a way that increases the retention
of those employees and helps with recruiting new ones with similar priorities,
they are investing in the company's future.

~~~
brc
A better way of achieving that would be to set aside a bucket of money to
direct towards work that staff would like to see. The staff could then vote
for where that money could be spent. It might be solar energy, or it could be
cancer research. That would be much more direct and measurable. Berkshire
Hathaway does the same thing with its investors - gives them the say where the
company spends its charitable contributions.

~~~
Adrock
It's not obvious to me that what you describe is a better way. The two
approaches are not mutually exclusive and what I described is not about
charitable contributions. It's about actual business processes and business
decisions, which are difficult to argue should be made using votes.

------
loceng
Odd. I really hope this isn't related to a possible buy of Tesla for a huge
amount.

------
prestadige
The reason deniers exist generally is because there's a problem they don't
want to face. Another, equally fatal approach to any problem is to attempt to
_jump_ to a solution. The correct approach is to try to understand the problem
better which requires thinking -- in societal terms, it means _research_.

So, by all means, let's tell off the deniers, expand solar and wind, reduce
coal, even make lifestyle gestures -- but put the bulk of effort into
researching safe nuclear power and researching geo-engineering. (Unless I'm
misreading the situation, there seem to be taboos around both at present.)

------
zheshishei
Is anybody else really annoyed by the image banner on their site[1]?

Not only is it broken into two images, there's a br tag causing most of the
misalignment. Also, the two splices don't have the same height. I've checked
this in chrome, firefox, and ie 7-10 and it doesn't work in any of them.

[1][http://www.nationalcenter.org/](http://www.nationalcenter.org/)

------
dmckeon
Anyone interested in trying to explore the topic of climate change at NCPPR
could probably apply for a summer internship in 2014 - here's a 2013 version:

[http://www.theihs.org/koch-summer-fellow-
program/host/nation...](http://www.theihs.org/koch-summer-fellow-
program/host/national-center-public-policy-research)

Oh, btw: consider the source...

~~~
protomyth
Yes, given the Koch brothers spent money supporting gay marriage legalization,
decriminalize drugs, and repealing the Patriot Act you might want to be
careful[1]. Does anyone actually look at what these groups actually fund or do
we just go by the pundits on TV?

1) or not

------
Geekette
How much of Apple stock does NCPPR own anyway? Amusing to see that nowhere in
its long whiny press release does it announce that it will divest itself of
AAPL. Whatever happened to putting your money where your mouth is or voting
with your feet?

~~~
justin66
These companies invest specifically so they can get stuff on the ballot at
shareholder meetings and it often doesn't take very much at all. I believe it
depends in part on the bylaws of a given corporation.

There's a similar group with a similar agenda who trolled GE after GE
announced some kind of wind power initiative. I don't know how much stock they
owned but given GE's market cap at the time, I'm sure it wasn't a lot of the
company on a percentage basis...

------
Tycho
It seems that we've now shifted fully from 'global warming' to 'climate
change.'

~~~
singingfish
It's a more accurate term. While climate change will cause increased
temperatures, it also causes increased variability in weather.

~~~
lttlrck
More accurate yet at the same time less specific.

------
downandout
"Climate Change Denier" is a term coined by radical environmentalists in an
attempt to paint their opponents as crazy and stupid. Most rational people
don't deny that climate change is occurring. Many people simply side with
scientists that have examined the facts and determined that human attempts at
trying to _control_ climate change are about as effective as Indian rain
dances.

That said, Tim Cook's response was correct. The measure this group proposed
was actually very broad. They wanted the company to base all decisions on ROI
only. Had it been adopted by the board, it would have instantly opened the
company up to a flood of shareholder lawsuits over any number of expenditures
that don't directly generate profits.

~~~
nailer
Including the founder of Greenpeace
[http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-
change/gree...](http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-
change/greenpeace-cofounder-patrick-moore-tells-us-senate-there-is-no-proof-
humans-cause-climate-change-9159627.html)

~~~
downandout
Interesting..."There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon
dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere
over the past 100 years," he told a US Senate Committee "If there were such a
proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is
understood in science, exists."

~~~
ghouse
Science is a process. Proofs exist in math.

------
joshuaheard
If liberals really cared about climate change, we would all be using nuclear
power and Obama would not have cut Bush's program to develop fuel cell cars.

~~~
jodrellblank
Do you think:

\- "Liberals" is a group of people who all think the same way.

\- The only reason nuclear power isn't widely used is "Liberals not caring
about climate change".

?

