Apple quits U.S. Chamber of Commerce in gassy pique
The Cupertino, California-based Mac, iPod, and iPhone maker has joined five other companies in defecting from the business group over its stand, or lack thereof depending on your viewpoint, on global warming and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
According to Mossberg’s crew at The Wall Street Journal, Apple has resigned from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The company announced the move via a letter from the company’s government affairs vice-president Catherine Novelli to the business group’s president and CEO, Tom Donohue:
We strongly object to the Chamber’s recent comments opposing the EPA’s effort to limit greenhouse gases…Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the Chamber at odds with us in this effort. We would prefer the Chamber take a more progressive stance on this critical issue and play a constructive role in addressing the climate crisis. However, because the Chamber’s position differs so sharply with Apple’s, we have decided to resign our membership effective immediately.
Thereupon, the Chamber of Commerce has replied:
The U.S. Chamber believes that climate change must be addressed. The Chamber is a consensus-driven organization and welcomes input from any company that wants to work on a comprehensive approach to reduce greenhouse gases. While we’ll continue to represent the broad majority of our membership on this goal, we recognize that there are some companies who stand to gain more than others with the current options on the table.
In addition to Apple, three utilities — I’m guessing coal-burning electric companies — have said they will let their U.S. Chamber memberships lapse at the end of the year. Also, shoemaker Nike has resigned from the chamber’s board of directors to protest a lack of action by the group.
Is this leadership?
Recently, Apple announced new environmental initiatives and has challenged Greenpeace to think differently about their hype-driven ranking system for electronics makers and their products, which is a very in-your-face kind of engagement — can you say “Steve Jobs”?
Today, we’ve got Apple the principled quitter, which might have been a more dramatic step had other companies joined them. That is, if Apple had brought together a group of like-minded firms focused on driving the issue which resigned en masse, that would have been more meaningful.
Apple acting singly just makes the company look like a prima donna having a hissy fit…
What’s your take?
Related Posts:
October 7th, 2009
Check out http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574447291766327588.html in the Wall Street Journal, “Rent-Seekers”, by Kimberley Strassel. The three utilities stand to gain from the passage of cap and trade, which will transfer money from coal users to nuclear/ alternative utilities.
Apple’s incentive is not so obvious.