However, it’s obviously in the public’s interest what companies are selling. Tobacco companies were and are selling a certain product, and it was and is killing people and putting a strain on the healthcare system. Oil companies are selling a product with a set of adverse externalities known as climate change. Computer companies are selling something else–in many cases part of the solution to our energy problems, and in general an important part of their brand is selling systems that promote knowledge. No one is saying they have pure hearts, just that in this case they’re selling something that coincides with the public interest, where tobacco and oil companies in important respects are not.

OTOH, policymakers’ jobs *do* involve the public interest, and if I were those computer companies I would be hiring lobbyists to remind them of that, and also building their public brand as being interested in solving the problem.

Signed,

Captain Obvious.

Anyone who thinks any of the computer companies care a whiff about “the public interest” hasn’t much knowledge of any of the history there. They are all controlling, greedy, high energy use (manufacturing & product usage), ego driven companies.
Some are better at messaging otherwise however…

“First, we’re not facing a choice between the growth of old economy jobs and the expansion of new energy jobs, but between decline and prosperity. One global economy, the clean one, is growing, and the global battle for the new jobs is on. Some countries – such as China, Germany, Spain, Portugal, and many others – are going after these jobs aggressively. The other part of the economy – the dead fuel economy – is not going to be a growth engine (with the important exception of natural gas, which may provide a useful, medium-term bridge to the future). Oil is basically at peak production globally, and coal plants are nearly impossible to build in the U.S. anymore. Even as the world demands more energy, and even as fossil fuel production continues, these companies will continue to get more efficient with labor. So don’t count on the fossil guys to create new wealth and jobs.”

Though Apple certainly requires fossil fuel to create, manufacture and deliver their goods, they are erring on the side of trying to become cleaner and greener.

I think it is also worth noting that people want to work for sustainable clean businesses. Consumers want to buy goods that are cleaner and greener. Those trends are clear. As business moves in the clean green direction, lobbying will shift, and the politicians will follow the money.

For most businesses to sustain, a healthy business needs a healthy economy, which needs a healthy world.

For more on some major companies that are leading the way, see:
http://8020vision.com/2010/09/10/top-business-leaders-deliver-clean-energy-plan/

Jay Kimball
8020 Vision

It’s interesting to note that it’s now uncontroversial that tobacco companies were operating outside the public interest, but they made their case in their day: “Don’t like cigarettes? Don’t smoke them. Cigarettes are not addictive (even thought they knew they were).” Etcetera. Finally, it took action by the public to straighten things out. Putting restrictions on public advertising, cutting down on second hand smoke, etc… Just telling mommy and daddy not to let their children smoke was not enough.

The parallels between tobacco and fossil fuels are not exact, of course not. We are dependent on fossil fuels. But that doesn’t change the fact that there are serious externalities. So we should craft policy so we move away from them, similar to how we did with tobacco, or aerosol cans.

It’s not that hard to get. Of course it’s a longer process, but we gotta start somewhere. (Of course, if Apple had products with the same externalities I’d be saying the same about them. I’m sure they’re aggressive, etc., but being aggressive about selling iPods is a bit different than being aggressive about poisoning the planet.)

Why exactly is this topic so politicised? I thought we are talking economics here with its social and maybe political implications. My company has been in telecommunications for a while as we develop and market mobile VAS solutions to cellular operators, and Apple has provided many of us with aspiration and inspiration. Many of us do make a decision to be as green as possible. But we cannot ignore the fact the oil industry is a stronghold of the economy, and without it, many of us would be out of our jobs, unable to provide for our families.

The world has decided that instead of travelling, many things can be done remotely, and Apply has been riding this surf. But as far as corporate behaviour is concerned, they do not seem to be any better than the rest of the lot. They are as agressive, as domineering as any other oversized company be it Exxon or Microsoft. And where there is money there is power, and there will be politicians who will want a share of it.

But at the end of the day, it is not the corporation, nor the politicians who will teach kids how to save energy, how to recycle, how to live a greener life. It is mommy and daddy.