“If Tim Cook, private citizen, does not care that over 95 percent of all climate models have over-forecast the extent of predicted global warming, and wishes to use those faulty models to lobby for government policies that raise prices, kill jobs and retard economic growth and extended lifespans in the Third World, he has a right to lobby as he likes,” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR). “But as the CEO of a publicly-held corporation,” Amy continued, “Tim Cook has a responsibility to, consistent with the law, to make money for his investors. If he’d rather be CEO of the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, he should apply.”
At Apple’s annual shareholder meeting last week, Cook criticized the NCPPR’s proposal that Apple curtail the environmental initiatives that don’t contribute to Apple’s bottom line. NCPPR, a DC think tank, has been an Apple shareholder for years, this year marking the group’s third annual shareholder meeting.
“If Apple wants to follow Al Gore and his chimera of climate change, it does so at its own peril,” said Justin Danhof, Esq., director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project. “Sustainability and the free market can work in concert, but not if Al Gore is directing corporate behavior.”
“Here’s the bottom line: Apple is as obsessed with the theory of so-called climate change as its board member Al Gore is,” said Danhof. “The company’s CEO fervently wants investors who care more about return on investments than reducing CO2 emissions to no longer invest in Apple. Maybe they should take him up on that advice.”
Cook’s visibly angry reaction came in response to the NCPPR’s shareholder resolution which asked the tech giant to be transparent about its environmental activism and a question from the National Center about the company’s environmental initiatives.
The NCPPR resolution noted that:
“[s]ome trade associations and business organizations have expanded beyond the promotion of traditional business goals and are lobbying business executives to pursue objectives with primarily social benefits. This may affect Company profitability and shareholder value. The Company’s involvement and acquiescence in these endeavors lacks transparency, and publicly-available information about the Company’s trade association memberships and related activities is minimal. An annual report to shareholders will help protect shareholder value.”
Apple has been public about its pursuit to completely power its facilities with renewable energy–a policy that could hurt the company’s profits. Cook, who reportedly became “visibly agitated,” by Danhof’s questions, “defended Apple’s right to make business decisions that don’t always directly benefit the bottom line,” according to TIME.
“Rather than opting for transparency, Apple opposed the National Center’s resolution,” noted Danhof. “Apple’s actions, from hiring of President Obama’s former head of the Environmental Protection Agency Lisa Jackson, to its investments in supposedly 100 percent renewable data centers, to Cook’s antics at today’s meeting, appear to be geared more towards combating so-called climate change rather than developing new and innovative phones and computers.”
Ironically, Cook countered Danfoh saying that despite the company’s mounds of cash, it is not in the business of caving to shareholder demands, especially politically motivated ones. “We do a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive,” Cook said. “We want to leave the world better than we found it.” Cooks comments here are ironic because climate change is among the most politically motivated (motivated by the progressive American Left) issues in recent years. All this despite the fact that most Americans say they aren’t all that concerned with so-called climate change:
Just before The National Center’s proposal was voted down, Cook said that anyone who thinks that Apple’s environmental dedication is either ideologically or economically ill-advised can, “get out of the stock.”
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
Send this to friend