toggle

AAPL Stock: 497.67 ( 0 )

MacNN News

Apple flunks Climate Counts scorecard

updated 02:50 am EDT, Fri June 22, 2007

Apple and the climate

Apple has ranked near the bottom of scorecard that purportedly ranks tech companies' impact on the climate through energy use and material production, according to a new survey. Climate Counts is nonprofit organization funded by Stonyfield Farm, Inc, claims to gauge a company's climate change impact based on factors like whether the companies have taken steps to reduce their impact on global warming, measured their overall climatic footprint, and disclosed their climate actions. "Apple scored a mere 2 points for beginning to review its overall impact. Climate Counts found no information to suggest Apple supports climate-friendly public policy, discloses its climate stance, or measures its overall impact on global warming."

Apple has a tumultuous past with environmental groups. In May, Apple chief Steve Jobs published an open letter discussing the company's current and future environmental concerns in response to rising pressures from Greenpeace and others. In response, Greenpeace lauded Apple's proposed changes.

by MacNN Staff

(19)

TAGS :

Apple

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

horvatic
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2002

0

06/22, 09:48am | report spam | close Reply |
Who cares!

I haven't read about any company that mentions anything about climate. Not one, not Dell, not HP, not anyone. This is just FUD to get there organization noticed like Greenpeace. Greenpeace in the end found there protests to be baseless as Apple has been green for a long,long time.

bojangles
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: May 2000

0

06/22, 09:45am | report spam | close Reply |
Ridiculous

The fact that Apple�or anybody�should even have to worry about this just goes to show how completely special interest groups run the world. Thirty years ago, the scientists were all predicting we would be in an ice age by now. They called it�no joke��global cooling.� Now they�re citing �global warming.� Never mind the fact that the earth warms and cools in 40-year cycles and our current temperatures don�t even come close to the average temperatures in the 1400s (when, by the way, human-generated carbon emissions were essentially nonexistent. Even now, they only account for

jmonty12
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2003

0

06/22, 09:55am | report spam | close Reply |
more bs

"Reports" such as this one do more to harm the effort to clean up the environment than helping. Pretty much Apple gets such a low score because they don't know how Apple fairs on the line items the report covers. Just a bunch of bull, really.

bojangles
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: May 2000

0

06/22, 09:53am | report spam | close Reply |
(heh; < cut me off)

less than 0.2% of the carbon emissions nature puts out.

Give it a rest.

eggman
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Aug 2002

0

06/22, 10:09am | report spam | close Reply |
The Global Cooling Canard

Yes, 30 years ago there were some scientists who thought that particulate matter in the atmosphere would reflect heat into space causing a net cooling effect, and the popular media = specifically Newsweek - picked up on it as a Scary Story. But that theory didn't have the reams of evidence - or the more sophisticated atmospheric models - that have been developed since then.

And yes, there are cyclical warming and cooling cycles. The extraordinary accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is unprecedented in planetary history going back 650,000 years based on empirical evidence found in ice core samples. This is not business as usual.

Don't look for science from Rush, O'Reilly and Sean. Having said that, this "study" isn't science, it's advocacy based on smoke.

robttwo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2005

0

06/22, 11:20am | report spam | close Reply |
eggman is cracked

You are right to not look for science from news- entertainment hosts. However, there are literally 1000s of scientists who think global warming (as it is portrayed) is bullshit. Dont get your science from ex-vice-presidents that claimed to have invented the internet. Having said that - oh, wait. This study is bullshit too.

elroth
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2006

0

06/22, 11:30am | report spam | close Reply |
re: robttwo

"there are literally 1000s of scientists who think global warming (as it is portrayed) is bullshit."

There are not 1000s of scientists who disagree that global warming is a serious problem, and that humans are causing most of it. The only "scientists" who say that are a few that are paid by the energy companies, or people who are not really scientists, like that weather forecaster (I can't remember his name) who doesn't even have a meteorology degree, yet goes around saying global warming is not happening.

Many (if not most) scientists think global warming is not portrayed seriously enough, given the potential problems it could cause.

apple4ever
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2001

0

06/22, 12:26pm | report spam | close Reply |
Scientists

Um, yes there ARE scientists that do not support global warming, at least man-made global warming. In fact, 17000 of them signed a petition stating so. And very FEW are paid by energy companies. But how many of the scientists that support it are dependent are government grants that DEMAND that they believe in global warming. Their livelihood depends on global warming being true. If its not, they are out of work. So who has the bias again?

christophersj
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2003

0

06/22, 12:44pm | report spam | close Reply |
Wait, 2 different issues

Wait there are two different issues here:

1) How effective Apple is at reducing greenhouse gas emissions vs. other computer companies. This is up for argument.

2) Whether human caused global warming is real or not. This argument has been over for quite some time now. When the most informed scientists around the world come together (a very skeptical bunch by nature) and write a report saying that there is a 90% chance it is true, and that it is, and i quote, "unequivocal". I think only the study of the force of gravity in the universe may have more scientific consensus. And there are ice cores that prove it.

Well, you will excuse me if I hold that finding above the ignorant rantings of a few in this forum?

The discussion is over.

-Christopher S. Johnson

christophersj
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2003

0

06/22, 01:05pm | report spam | close Reply |
Additionally

And in addition to the nay-sayers. Not only is your position provably wrong, but at this point, they hold zero weight in the global culture. Even the Bush Admin. admits to it now. Society has moved into the "lets do something about this" phase and left you behind.

Your position is that of a few fools who don't really matter anymore -- like the Flat Earth Society :-)

There was a time in the past for kinder words and debate, but its different now. You ideas about this are irrational, irrelevant, and inconsequential.

- Christopher S. Johnson

chadpengar
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2001

0

06/22, 01:45pm | report spam | close Reply |
It's the SUN, Stupid

Man made global warming through green house gases is a myth. It is demanded by politics but has no provable science to support it. The "science" that supports it is provably wrong (feedback loops that are required to exist but have never been observed, unbelievably high amounts of water vapor that have to be present, inordinate "power" of CO2 as a green house, which in reality is a rather week one, and inordinate amount of CO2 required [hint: CO2 effect as greenhouse gas is not linear but mor logarithmic]). Plus, the graphs that Gore likes to show mapping CO2 to temperature change only look good at a macroscopic level. If you look at the details, the CO2 changes came AFTER the temperature changes in every case. It is a POLITICALLY driven case, not a scientific one. Even one of the chief scientists on the UN panel no longer believes it and was kicked off the panel (or left it). The best science now points to the Sun and its effects on cloudcover and other related phenomenon. The macroscopic graphs of historical sun activity match exactly with temperature/climate change records, unlike CO2, and they also match exactly with current trends, unlike CO2. Any scientist who says that the issue is settled is not a real scientist as they are repudiating the scientific method of inquiry and test. This is political, pure and simple.

btw: Mr Johnson. There are no ice cores that prove man made global warming through green house gases like CO2. If you look at it in detail, the ice cores disprove it as they show that the CO2 concentrations increased significantly AFTER the temperature did, not before. Which is what you would expect -- temperature goes up which increases bio activity which increases CO2. Also, that "90%" certainty, which is a huge uncertainty in scientfic terms, is only by those scientists whose livelihod and grants are dependent on the politicians who are pushing this, or who are in unrelated fields and are as jaded by science as you are.

"It's the SUN, stupid."

christophersj
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2003

0

06/22, 01:52pm | report spam | close Reply |
Chadpengar

Chadpengar

SOMETIMES CO2 rise comes after a heat increase, and sometimes its the other way around. They dance together and support each other. Are you saying that the highest level of CO2 in 650,000 years would have NO impact on temperature and the greenhouse effect? Are you sure you want to say that?

cd34doc
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2007

0

06/22, 05:19pm | report spam | close Reply |
re its the sun stupid

No, its not the Sun stupid! Every myth in your post, and then some (most of which sound like they came from the recent scurrilous Mockumentary "The Great Global Warming Swindel") have been debunked in meticulous detail over at Realclimate.org and a number of other sites that specialise in Climate Science. Spouting the pro-business/pro-big energy spin/FUD of op-ed writers in the non-scientific media is no longer good enough. These clowns are past masters at mis-characterizing the scientific data, mis-representing the views of bona fide climate scientists, and in some cases even resorting to bare-faced lies about the data to make their point. There are some wonderful examples of the latter exposed over at real climate. Its time we all spent a bit of time learning the facts about climate change from the horse's mouth, rather than from its other orrifice.

chadpengar
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2001

0

06/22, 05:58pm | report spam | close Reply |
IT IS the SUN, Stupid

Sorry, cd34doc -- you are spouting propoganda. I am not "pro business/pro gib energy. I am pro science. Science shows that the CO2 is not the cause of global warming. And there are LOTS or climate scientists who agree and disagree with the politicians.

Man made climate change is a myth and is a political movement to force global socialism as a "response" to the dangers.

There are myriads of real scientists who have not been taken in by the scare mongers and the politically dependent scientists and can think indepently of Al Gore and friends.

Many many climatologists and scientists in related fields do not subscribe to the myth. But the only thing the media tells you is the myth because they see it as a way to advance their politics (90% of journalists donate to left wing causes) OR they just don't know any better.

It is not SCIENCE to say that it is a settled matter. Science is to question and explore and TEST. And man made global warming based on CO2 and related gases fails that test.

It IS the SUN, Stupid. And in 10 - 20 years all of you will feel REALLY STUPID.

Why are we wasting money trying to limit CO2 in insignificant ways that have no effect. That money would be MUCH better spent on finding new ways to deal with the effects of global warming.

Btw, I have not seen what you claim is a "mockumentary" so I don't know what you are talking about. However, I do read scientific articles by people who know what they are talking about and just don't bend over and take the UN and Gore's politics up the *ss like all the scientists you see parading across the TV claiming doom.

The man made global warming bit would be funny if it weren't so sad. These scientists are so convinced that the discount any evidence to the contrary, including their own lack of evidence. They create internally self-consistent models and claim that represents the truth in the real world but there is no real world evidence to support the models.

chadpengar
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2001

0

06/22, 06:04pm | report spam | close Reply |
CO2

CO2 is not a very good (strong) green house gas. And its effects are not linear. If you have 2x the CO2, you do NOT get 2x the green house effect. It is more logarithmic and in order to get the green house effects claimed by certain scientists and politicians, you would have to have like 10x or so the CO2 that we have now.

Also, yes, you can get increased CO2 after warming starts. But the CO2 did not cause that warming, that is my point. It is an effect of the warming. Warming caused by the SUN's activity.

The CO2 concentration graphs have no correlation to current or past global warming and cooling trends. Look at the data -- it is there. The macro look graphs from Al Gore gloss over that by looking at so large an a time period that the discrepencies are lost in the graph.

Russian and NASA scientists are even saying now that we will be going through a mini global cooling for the next 30 years due to the Sun's activity.

The SUN as a cause of global warming makes much more sense than the complicated green house gas models, which have no evidence from the real world to support them.

christophersj
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2003

0

06/22, 07:52pm | report spam | close Reply |
Half Truths

chadpengar wrote

"CO2 is not a very good (strong) green house gas. And its effects are not linear. If you have 2x the CO2, you do NOT get 2x the green house effect. It is more logarithmic and in order to get the green house effects claimed by certain scientists and politicians, you would have to have like 10x or so the CO2 that we have now."

Those are half truths. You start off with a truth and then twist it.

"Also, yes, you can get increased CO2 after warming starts. But the CO2 did not cause that warming, that is my point. It is an effect of the warming. Warming caused by the SUN's activity."

Again a half truth. Taking exceptions and parts of facts and treating them like the whole picture.

"The CO2 concentration graphs have no correlation to current or past global warming and cooling trends. Look at the data -- it is there. The macro look graphs from Al Gore gloss over that by looking at so large an a time period that the discrepencies are lost in the graph. "

Wrong. At the micro level, both things happen: sometimes CO2 comes first and other times heat comes first.

"Russian and NASA scientists are even saying now that we will be going through a mini global cooling for the next 30 years due to the Sun's activity."

There IS some global dimming and cooling from particulate pollution, but this only masks the global warming happening in the background. Its not the dominate thing. Show us a link to ANY NASA scientist that says this as a dominate trend.

"The SUN as a cause of global warming makes much more sense than the complicated green house gas models, which have no evidence from the real world to support them."

You are a misinformed. Fortunately, your support is not needed for the next steps in the Great Energy Transition. The culture moves on...

-Christopher S. Johnson

cd34doc
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2007

0

06/22, 09:50pm | report spam | close Reply |
re: its the sun stupid II

Well, it did not take too long to flush out the rabid 'anti-socialist' in you, did it? I was trying to keep this discourse as non-political as possible, apparently without success. Scientists in general, are not very political. We merely seek the truth from our research in our chosen fields of study. We do not however, expect to attacked by politically-motivated spinmeisters for our trouble, as has happened repeatedly to any bona fide Climate Scientist who had the temerity to publish his/her work in peer-reviewed journals. Climate Scientists are similarly, not overtly political, in my long experience. Its not about Al Gore, the UN, or Socialism, or any other bogeyman the pro-business lobby can pull out of their hats. Its about reducing our impact on the planet for future generations. It s about minimizing our 'footprint' on the planet. Even some of the most outspoken critics of the whole Global Warming thing have belatedly accepted the concept and man's destructive role in it. Do everyone a favour and get on over to realclimate.org, or one of the many linked sites, and get educated. Admittedly, there is some pretty 'dense' info over there, but there are also many links to explanations that even lay people can understand. They will explain your misconceptions about the role of CO2 in Global Warming in a manner far better than I, as a non-climate scientist can do. Better yet, post some of your views over there. They will very politely answer all your points for you, one by one, if you cannot find the answers for yourself.

Will53
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2006

0

06/23, 10:52am | report spam | close Reply |
The 17000

Well, don't believe everything you read, especially when it is on the Internet. Anyone could post a signature to that petition and add some academic initials to the name. Among those 17000 signing the petition which is from 1998, btw. - are well-known scientists as Dr. Geri Halliwell of the well-reputated scientific group Spice Girls. One will also find the late Senator Joseph McCarthy - who wasn't a Mac-scientist:) - who probably signed through a medium as I think he was dead by the time of signing.

The whole petition was initiated by some right-wingers and the scientific basis for it doesn't hold water. Read more about it here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition I am sorry, but no matter how much BS like this is floating around in the cloud, global warming is a sad fact and true scientists who doubt it are very few, if any. And if you like to find any, don't look for them on the Internet.

McDave
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2006

0

06/24, 09:20pm | report spam | close Reply |
All that damage...

...with 3-4% global market share! How do they do it?

McD

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

02/15	Sony completes Ericsson stake buyout...
02/15	Apple upgrades iBookstore with screenshots...
02/15	Congress asks Apple to answer questions...
02/15	FLA head describes Foxconn plants as...
02/15	Apple asks to sue bankrupt Kodak in...

Show All

02/15	Sony completes Ericsson stake buyout...
02/15	Congress asks Apple to answer questions...
02/15	FLA head describes Foxconn plants as...
02/15	Apple asks to sue bankrupt Kodak in...
02/15	Apple voluntarily pulls iPads from...

Show All

02/15	Apple upgrades iBookstore with screenshots...
02/15	Congress asks Apple to answer questions...
02/14	Apple attempting to disrupt Siri hacks...
02/14	Readability iOS app delayed, Android...
02/13	Apple launches 2012 back-to-school...

Show All

02/15	Monster iCarPlay Wireless FM Transmitter...
02/14	Refurb. 16GB iPhone 4, now only $259...
02/13	Refurb. Flip UltraHD Pocket Digital...
02/10	$380 off refurbished 2.8GHz Mac Pro...
02/09	iHome Dual Alarm Clock for Apple iPod...

Show All

toggle

Apple flunks Climate Counts scorecard

updated 02:50 am EDT, Fri June 22, 2007

Apple and the climate

Who cares!

Ridiculous

more bs

(heh; < cut me off)

The Global Cooling Canard

eggman is cracked

re: robttwo

Scientists

Wait, 2 different issues

Additionally

It's the SUN, Stupid

Chadpengar

re its the sun stupid

IT IS the SUN, Stupid

CO2

Half Truths

re: its the sun stupid II

The 17000

All that damage...

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace

Apple flunks Climate Counts scorecard

updated 02:50 am EDT, Fri June 22, 2007

Apple and the climate

Related Articles

Recent Articles

Who cares!

Ridiculous

more bs

(heh; < cut me off)

The Global Cooling Canard

eggman is cracked

re: robttwo

Scientists

Wait, 2 different issues

Additionally

It's the SUN, Stupid

Chadpengar

re its the sun stupid

IT IS the SUN, Stupid

CO2

Half Truths

re: its the sun stupid II

The 17000

All that damage...

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace