Apple Issues $1 Billion Green Bond After Trump's Paris Climate Exit (reuters.com) 168
An anonymous reader shares a report: Apple offered a $1 billion bond dedicated to financing clean energy and environmental projects on Tuesday, the first corporate green bond offered since President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris climate agreement. The offering comes over a year after Apple issued its first green bond of $1.5 billion -- the largest issued by a U.S. corporation -- as a response to the 2015 Paris agreement. Apple said its second green bond is meant to show that businesses are still committed to the goals of the 194-nation accord. "Leadership from the business community is essential to address the threat of climate change and protect our shared planet," said Lisa Jackson, Apple's vice president of environment, policy and social initiatives.
Second that (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought the Paris accord was the worst of virtue signaling pointless politics, but will happily buy into this green fund bond which is actually something real to support.
Widespread use of solar power especially is inevitable, so supporting it makes a great deal of sense.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The idea of the accord is good: use renewable energy. The implementation of not applying the same standard to all members of the accord was what is wrong. The standards are based at specific point in time, China, India, and Russia come to mind. Their economies have since picked and so has their pollution output. There was no solid way to re-assess a country's progress/regress.
Also detestable dictatorships were getting million from rich countries to pay for 'green credits.' I don;t like the idea of payin
Re: Second that (Score:2)
We can still do that, and more.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Trump got this one right, and the attempts to spin it are mind bogglingly crazy. Not being a signatory doesn't actually mean we can't do this and more. We can even do with a combination of public and private resources.
Screaming doom and blathering spittle-flecked hyperbole is why we got Trump.
Re: Second that (Score:2)
The difference is choice. You remember that idea, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Right, and we chose not to remain a part of the accord. I'm actually okay with that.
Don't read this to mean I'm okay with doing nothing. I'd like to hope that we do *better* than that. From the looks of the way people are coming together, we might just do it. Even better, we'll be doing it by choice. I'm kinda fond of choices. Maybe that's just me?
Re:YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sooner or later it's all going to get rammed down your throat. How much do you want to pay for house insurance? How much do you think your taxes will go up to pay for remediation or repair of damaged infrastructure? You're not immune from the costs of AGW, and actuaries are already pricing it into insurance.
There are things that nation states are supposed to do; things that private organizations or sub-national jurisdictions can't expect to do or could never afford to do. Your ideology is getting in the way of seeing the big picture. The physical laws of the universe don't give a flying fuck about your ideology. It is utterly meaningless. CO2 has the properties it has, and shouting "STATIST FUCKS" is simply the cry of stupidity and impotence.
Re: (Score:2)
Try living on Venus and tell me how CO2 is working out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Try living on Venus and tell me how CO2 is working out there.
So you would force Goldilocks to eat the bowl of porridge that is too hot because she thinks one of the bowls is just right? If she says she thinks porridge is good, she should eat the "too hot" to prove it to you?
Re: (Score:3)
I have yet to see the experiments where they quantify CO2's absorption at different concentrations and in the presence of different concentrations of other gasses.
Did you go to college? Did you study any STEM field? The experiments that you describe are routine first year undergraduate chemistry that should be a prerequisite for any STEM degree.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You are right about one thing, I am kind of stupid for continue this conversation. You are at the level of a flat-earther. I should let you go about your ignorance, because your arguments are actually your own side look worse.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously? Are you a fucking retard? The absorption and emission properties of CO2 have been known for over a century. I have to assume you are indeed a complete fucking moron.
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EA... [gatech.edu]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: YES! (Score:2)
...
I suppose someone reading down through the thread may be confused by this response. See, above, I supported pulling out of the accord.
Now, down here, I am telling you that I encourage everyone to learn some basic science. No, AGW is real and CO2 is one of the causes of this. The planet is pretty good at regulating itself, until you knock it so far out of balance that it can't correct itself quickly. And yeah, AGW is pretty much the definition of a self-correcting problem. The planet will fix itself. We m
Re: (Score:2)
Screaming doom and blathering spittle-flecked hyperbole is why we got Trump.
I quoted that from a previous post for context.
The planet will fix itself. We may not survive, as a species,
Given the adaptability of the human species, and the huge variation of climates in which we already survive quite well, I would call the claim that AGW will lead to the extinction of the human species to be a bit hyperbolic. Don't you?
For example, I think the human species can survive quite well even if Florida is three feet under water (Schipol Airport has a reported elevation of between 9.8 and 11 feet below MSL; Amsterdam is close to 7 feet below). This ap
Re: (Score:1)
Well HELL son, why don't we just run that experiment! We can dump, say 50 billion tons a year into the planet that we all live on and see what happens! What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
According to the ORNL data from 2013, the US doesn't make it into the top 10 [worldbank.org] of per capita CO2 emissions.
Even Eurostat's 2012 data lists Luxembourg as higher CO2 emissions per capita than the US.
The US can and should improve, but we're not the worst by the metric you've selected. And the numbers I found imply that there are some real hypocrites over in Europe.
Re: YES! (Score:2)
If the interest on their current assets is greater than the interest charged for a loan, it makes sense to borrow the money. This is like rule #7, if you want to be in the 1%. You're welcome.
Brilliant! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
US Mining sees first profits in years: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar... [cnsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The exact same thing could be said about starting a war on purpose. Generates a lot of profits for some but a monumental expense for others. Coal is pretty much dying as an energy resource, why bother, one great big banker con. Here, buy these coal stocks, the profits are way up and the price is low relative to the profit. Guess what, as they sell those coal stocks they are or were stuck with they are betting mightily that they will collapse in price, bad luck for the suckers who bought them. Pension funds
Re: (Score:2)
Or the fact that CO2 has nothing to do with asthma.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Call him all the names you want. He's uniting people left and right on a common goal. And companies are spending their own money on things the taxpayers were before.
You could probably thank Trump too. Not only is he making companies pay for their own green initiatives, he's also made Democrats embrace the concept of federalism. [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:1)
The Spicer must flow.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He's uniting people left and right on a common goal.
Get rid of him? That's like how my thumb and forefinger unite to squeeze a pimple.
And companies are spending their own money on things the taxpayers were before.
A tiny minority of companies. How many companies are taking advantage of the foot Trump has stuck up in the EPA to pollute more?
Re: (Score:2)
YEAH! Better that they should do NOTHING instead of something!
And you sir, you dedicated what fraction of your wealth to green projects?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I bought lettuce and celery this morning to make a salad for dinner. Does that count?
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmmmm Saaaaalaaaaddd!
Re: F Apple (Score:2)
Apple is soliciting other peoples' wealth, rather than spend any of the gold in their money bin that they like to roll in.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm thinking that this might be a scam to repatriate some of the money without paying taxes.
1. Apple can use their overseas money to buy their Green bond.
2. The then get to use the money in the US and they can pay themselves interest which will go back to the overseas account.
3. Profit (for Apple, not so much for US taxpayers).
Apple should bash trump and Republicans indirectly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you missed this incident a few years where Tim Cook defended Apple's use of renewable energy?
For the better part of the last decade, Apple has taken on a number of sustainability projects and adopted practices to reduce waste and carbon emissions. In 2012, it broke ground on a data center in Oregon in order to take advantage of low-cost renewable energy and has plans to make all of its facilities reliant on green energy. It generally scores highly with EPEAT, a federal environmental group that keeps a registry of "green" digital devices. And in May 2013, it hired Lisa Jackson, who formerly ran the Environmental Protection Agency, to help Apple with sustainability.
https://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/03/at-apple-shareholders-meeting-tim-cook-tells-off-climate-change-deniers/ [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I would be more impressed if apple gave a portion of their profits to green initiatives and in each product sold provided a small factoid book
What would this action cause to increase Apple's profits? I expect management to fulfill their obligation to maximize Apple shareholders' investment returns, otherwise offenders are subject to getting sued and ejected.
Re: (Score:1)
That of course would mean that Apple nees to violate their mission statement:
"Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with OS X, iLife, iWork and professional software. Apple leads the digital music revolution with its iPods and iTunes online store. Apple has reinvented the mobile phone with its revolutionary iPhone and App Store, and has recently introduced iPad 2 which is defining the future of mobile media and computing devices."
"Apple is committed to bringing the best persona
Re: (Score:2)
That of course would mean that Apple nees to violate their mission statement:
Maximizing profit is not in conflict with their mission statement.
Doing all of those things listed in their mission statement have proven extremely profitable.
Trump will issue $1 Trillion Dark Coal (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll help Apple fight global warming! I'm sending them a 12-pack of ice cubes right away!
Peanuts (Score:4, Interesting)
A company that willingly manufactures the VAST majority of it's products using Chinese coal and slave labor decides to cough up a billion dollars to do what?
Undo what it has wrought?
If Apple was sincere it would move its manufacturing to the USA where we actually have clean air standards.
At apple we're so enviroconscious (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:At apple we're so enviroconscious (Score:4, Interesting)
Jokes are funny because they say something about reality.
Apple release 1 new phone per year in 2 sizes.
Samsung released more than 30 phones [gsmarena.com] in 2016, and have released around 15 already in 2017.
On top of this, Apple have a recycling program, a refurbishing program, years-long hardware and software support, and their devices have astonishingly high resale prices considering they're, well, computers. They're great "hand-me-down" phones in families because of how easy it is to backup/restore/upgrade the software across generations of devices.
So I dunno man. I'm not saying you're wrong about many Apple users, but the news is about Apple itself increasing its environment efforts, perhaps with the eventual goal of being able to sell phones every year and for that to be cool ecologically as well as fashionably.
Re: (Score:2)
We're so environmentally friendly! Now quick, throw out your year old iPhone 7 because YOU MUST buy the iPhone 8! It's almost exactly the same, but it's the latest model! You don't want to be seen at Starbucks with a phone that's over a YEAR OLD do you?
Here is my original post, copied verbatim. Please enlighten me as to where exactly I said I ever had an iPhone? I know there's left brain vs right brain. Please try to use at least one side or the other.
Re: (Score:1)
You having an iPhone or not doesn't factor into my reply.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you personally have no sense of self control and can't avoid buying the latest shiny, in no way transfers that blame to Apple.
Try not buying the latest and greatest just because you somehow thing it matters, and try choosing a tool that covers your needs instead of is only there to impress your friends.
Then the waste you cause will be significantly reduced.
Agree 100%.
What I don't understand is why the GP doesn't see the Catch-22.
Either Apple creates a new phone every year and gets blamed because people 'feel forced' to buy them (generally due to a lack of self control), or Apple doesn't create a new phone every year and gets blamed for not having the newest technology in their latest phones (see the complaints about the Apple laptops and desktops not being refreshed often enough).
A win for Adam Smith and America (Score:2, Insightful)
Citation: Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Nope (Score:2)
Let's remember that Apple is legally obligated only to do things which are in the interest of its shareholders. This is not some altruistic act. I bet a good deal of the money they're borrowing will be spent on their own automated vehicle efforts (which, in theory, could *also* be good for the environment), improvements in data centre cooling efficiency, power savings, etc. I imagine the bulk of the benefit to shareholders is simply as a marketing ploy, to keep their customer base happy and coming back f
Re: (Score:2)
Let's remember that Apple is legally obligated only to do things which are in the interest of its shareholders.
Mitigating global warning is in the interest of its shareholders. There, sorted. No need for complicated CT.
Think I'll buy a few hundred K of these (Score:1)
Unlike the inefficient red states, we blue cities are investing in more efficient cheaper energy.
Like this.
Have fun being left in the dust!
Re: (Score:1)
Of course it does, I'm part of why it's being placed there. It help keeps the kids from going off to the big city since they can get good jobs installing and maintaining and designing wind and solar and micro- and mini-hydro power systems.
See, becoming more efficient and investing in cheaper renewables creates more jobs for everyone.
You're All Fucking Retarded (Score:5, Informative)
Only 2 people so far have understood what the fuck this means.
They're ISSUING A BOND. That means someone can GIVE APPLE MONEY and get a BOND which will, in theory, earn interest over time.
Someone could then CASH THAT BOND and Apple would have to pay them the face value of the bond plus any accrued interest.
What is the interest rate?
When does it fully mature?
What is the money going toward?
Are there guarantees? (Typically there are with a bond.)
What will Apple do with the money?
What other little gotchas are there?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone could then CASH THAT BOND and Apple would have to pay them the face value of the bond plus any accrued interest.
.... after it matures.
That 1bn isn't going to evade taxes on its own... (Score:2)
Lets look at the 2016 eligibility:
We selected projects that represent the breadth of environmental work we are
undertaking at Apple. A broad range of teams submitted projects for an allocation
of Green Bond proceeds. The Green Bond Project Review team selected projects
based on the following criteria:
Alignment with eligibility criteria
Refection of our three environmental priorities
Measurability of environmental benefts
Magnitude of environmental benefts
Feasibility to trac
Kind of a waste, but whatever .... (Score:2)
Unless a switch to "Green energy" makes economic sense, it doesn't make any sense. I could decide to heat and cool my home and power everything in it without any fossil fuels being burned at all if I got funding for a mini nuclear power plant in my back yard. But it'd NEVER make any real economic sense to do it (even if you assume all the safety issues are handled far better than today's reactors handle them).
I'd be better served by Apple cutting prices on its products, rather than financing the latest poli
Re: (Score:2)
Unless a switch to "Green energy" makes economic sense, it doesn't make any sense.
What? 'What you're doing damages the environment' is now not an argument at all?
Re: (Score:2)
"What you're doing damages the environment." is an argument, but not one that just means everybody should start forking out money left and right, in some kind of foolish notion that the problem will vanish if only enough dollars are thrown at it.
Re: (Score:2)
"What you're doing damages the environment." is an argument, but not one that just means everybody should start forking out money left and right, in some kind of foolish notion that the problem will vanish if only enough dollars are thrown at it.
No, of course not, but sometimes forking out money does help solve the problem. Talking in generalities doesn't help very much.
Prorect the planet (Score:2)
Apple's Lisa Jackson says they are working to "protect our shared planet".
This is a common misconception. Our goal should be to maintain the planet's ecosystem compatible with human life. The planet will perfectly cope with our removal because we do not fit anymore.
Phonies! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So you think the "Right" isn't paying for climate change? Ever heard of the insurance industry?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
That's funny because for the most part (Texas being the exception), red states are financially supported by the blue ones [washingtonpost.com].
But you're right about the "idiotic left." The left are idiots for giving welfare to the red states. It's time to cut the red states off and let them try to support themselves financially. Self-reliance is still a conservative value, isn't it?
Re: (Score:1)
"Hardly surprising, we see that in a two-party split, 60-80% of welfare recipients are Democrats, while full time Workers are evenly divided between parties.
"You have similar results in this recent NPR-Poll. Among the Long Term Unemployed, 72% of the two-party support goes to Democrats.
"It appears that once more common sense is right and the impression left by the New York Times wrong. Indeed, people who live off the government disproportionally suppor
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"... in 2003, the average Republican man paid about 48 percent ($5,100) more than his Democratic counterpart in total Federal taxes, including FICA contributions. The average Republican woman paid about 34 percent ($3,400) more than her counterpart."
http://wallstreetpit.com/89671 [wallstreetpit.com]... [wallstreetpit.com]. From the article:
"Hardly surprising, we see that in a two-party split, 60-80% of welfare recipients are Democrats, while full time Workers are evenly divided between par
Re: (Score:2)
All part of the defense of the country. That's a tenet of conservatives - defense of the country is one of the most legitimate responsibilities of the federal government.
From your articles:
Although ENIAC was designed and primarily used to calculate artillery firing tables for the United States Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory,[5][6] its first programs included a study of the feasibility of the thermonuclear weapon.[7]
The Bell Labs work on the transistor emerged from war-time efforts to produce extremely pure germanium "crystal" mixer diodes, used in radar units as a frequency mixer element in microwave radar receivers.
ARPANET was initially funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the United States Department of Defense.
By today's "Democrat" standards, the idiotic right set the foundations of what just allowed you to type out that idiotic message on a magical box and send it through the magical intertubes.
Hoist by your own petard, it would seem.
Re: Better than taxes. (Score:2)
Re:Better than taxes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
They're not coughing up money.
If Apple and their artistic tax attorneys brewed up this scheme, you can be guaranteed that there is a financial advantage for them. This reminds me of Mark "Sugar Mountain" announcing that he was donating all of his fortune to charity.
Oh, wait, he's not donating it to charity . . . he's donating it to an investment vehicle that he completely controls. If an investment fails . . . he gets to write it off on taxes. If an investment turns a profit . . . well, he keeps that, tax-free.
Privatize profits,
Libertarians Glad You Finally Get It (Score:2)
Signed, -Libertarians.
Re: (Score:3)