HOW APPLE LOST THE TEA PARTY VOTE
Mar. 6th, 2014 11:20 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogSo this happened at Apple last week:
1. The National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) – which is a shareholder in Apple Inc – put forth a proposal for Apple shareholders that would force the company to be more transparent about its sustainability programs.
2. The reason for the proposal was based on concerns by NCPPR (a conservative think tank) that Apple was investing in green initiatives because CEO Tim Cook believes that climate change is caused by humans – which of course it is not (says NCPPR).
3. The proposal also wanted to use this transparency to ensure that Apple only invests in things that come with a clear ROI (return on investment) – which of course does not cover anything related to sustainable resources because that’s a big money pit.
4. The proposal only received less than 3% of the shareholder vote.
5. An NCPPR rep challenged CEO Tim Cook on this topic at the shareholder meeting.
6. Tim Cook lost his shit and told him to fuck off.
Okay, that last one was exaggerated (unless you write "diaries" for Daily Kos, in which case it’s 100% accurate). But Cook did get angry with the rep, and did tell him the NCPPR can take a hike if they don’t like his approach to sustainability:
There’s a few directions we can go with a story like this. We could bring up Apple’s tax practices, for example.
But really, I’m more fascinated by the bizarre spectacle of conservatives so obsessed with the idea that climate change is one big practical joke concocted by Al Gore (who is also a shareholder in Apple, BTW) to hoodwink America into becoming a socialist state that they make it an issue at shareholder meetings.
Especially when they don’t really have a leg to stand on.
Never mind the fact that most science pretty much backs up the climate change argument, and what little “evidence” the deniers have produced is at best compromised and at worst really, really bad science.
For a start, investing in green tech does have an ROI of sorts. The whole point of sustainability isn’t just to save a bunch of stupid owls and hug trees – it’s also to save money on energy costs and making the overall business more efficient. It does require some up-front investment, of course, but it does come with a long-term payoff whether climate change is real or not.
There’s also the fact that Apple just posted a record financial quarter:
So where exactly Apple’s sustainability initiatives are hurting its bottom line, I’m not entirely sure.
Then again, it probably doesn’t matter. NCPPR has an ideological agenda to push, and they seem to make a habit of lobbying CEOs to reject liberal anti-business conspiracies like climate change and ObamaCare – not so much because they're bad for business but because liberals support them.
But then I agree with Tim Cook on this, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
Yr money’s no good here,
This is dF
1. The National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) – which is a shareholder in Apple Inc – put forth a proposal for Apple shareholders that would force the company to be more transparent about its sustainability programs.
2. The reason for the proposal was based on concerns by NCPPR (a conservative think tank) that Apple was investing in green initiatives because CEO Tim Cook believes that climate change is caused by humans – which of course it is not (says NCPPR).
3. The proposal also wanted to use this transparency to ensure that Apple only invests in things that come with a clear ROI (return on investment) – which of course does not cover anything related to sustainable resources because that’s a big money pit.
4. The proposal only received less than 3% of the shareholder vote.
5. An NCPPR rep challenged CEO Tim Cook on this topic at the shareholder meeting.
6. Tim Cook lost his shit and told him to fuck off.
Okay, that last one was exaggerated (unless you write "diaries" for Daily Kos, in which case it’s 100% accurate). But Cook did get angry with the rep, and did tell him the NCPPR can take a hike if they don’t like his approach to sustainability:
He said that there are many things Apple does because they are right and just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issues.
"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader. […]
He didn't stop there, however, as he looked directly at the NCPPR representative and said, "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock."
"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader. […]
He didn't stop there, however, as he looked directly at the NCPPR representative and said, "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock."
There’s a few directions we can go with a story like this. We could bring up Apple’s tax practices, for example.
But really, I’m more fascinated by the bizarre spectacle of conservatives so obsessed with the idea that climate change is one big practical joke concocted by Al Gore (who is also a shareholder in Apple, BTW) to hoodwink America into becoming a socialist state that they make it an issue at shareholder meetings.
Especially when they don’t really have a leg to stand on.
Never mind the fact that most science pretty much backs up the climate change argument, and what little “evidence” the deniers have produced is at best compromised and at worst really, really bad science.
For a start, investing in green tech does have an ROI of sorts. The whole point of sustainability isn’t just to save a bunch of stupid owls and hug trees – it’s also to save money on energy costs and making the overall business more efficient. It does require some up-front investment, of course, but it does come with a long-term payoff whether climate change is real or not.
There’s also the fact that Apple just posted a record financial quarter:
For the quarter, Apple posted revenue of $57.6 billion and net quarterly profit of $13.1 billion, or $14.50 per diluted share, compared to revenue of $54.5 billion and net quarterly profit of $13.1 billion, or $13.87 per diluted share in the year-ago quarter.
So where exactly Apple’s sustainability initiatives are hurting its bottom line, I’m not entirely sure.
Then again, it probably doesn’t matter. NCPPR has an ideological agenda to push, and they seem to make a habit of lobbying CEOs to reject liberal anti-business conspiracies like climate change and ObamaCare – not so much because they're bad for business but because liberals support them.
But then I agree with Tim Cook on this, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
Yr money’s no good here,
This is dF
