What The Mass Exodus From The Chamber Of Commerce Means

Josh Marshall is right to underline this as a big story. With so many of the problems we face, there is no way we're going to get anywhere unless big business, which effectively controls our government, would come aboard for a solution. In many cases it's in their best interests. Businesses in America struggle to compete globally because they're the only group in the industrialized world shouldering the burden of health care costs. Businesses, especially insurance interests, will just get wiped out if global warming is allowed to continue unchecked, causing mass disasters; energy companies seek stability in pricing and want the added security of using renewable products instead of a rapidly depleting resource; and entrepreneurs can benefit greatly from increased investment in green technologies. In fact, energy efficiency and renewables can dramatically lower the operating costs of practically every business. Not to mention what Marshall cites, in writing about Nike and now Apple dropping out of the anti-science US Chamber of Commerce:

It's not hard for instance to understand why a company like Nike, which markets overwhelmingly to a younger demographic and to some degree is in the business of marketing cool, would not like to be associated with anti-climate change science extremism. Similar things could be said about Apple, which markets to generally wealthier, more educated and I suspect -- though I don't know this specifically -- generally more progressive people.

There's simply mass awareness and politicization on this issue in a way there's not about most high stakes political questions. I also wonder whether some companies may not be sensitive to the impact on their reputation on an international trade, those doing a substantial amount of international trade. But the mass politicization and company's sensitivity to domestic brand damage strikes me as the key takeaway for now.

In this sense, Al Gore's campaign to raise awareness about the climate crisis was successful to an extent, because it put the concept of going green near the top of people's minds, in an almost unconscious way, that led all kinds of retail brands to rush to put out the most "green" products and burnish their corporate image. Some of it is greenwashing, but if it has the same practical effect of making it easier for government to maneuver and actually pass a cap and trade bill, then greenwash away, I say.

President Obama, a brand in his own right, has jumped on board with this strategy by clarifying rules for federal employees:

The Executive Order, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, will require agencies to set, no later than 90 days from now, sustainability targets for 2020. It will require serious efforts to measure, manage, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Here are some of the explicit targets laid out within the Executive Order:

• 30% reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020;

• 26% improvement in water efficiency by 2020;

•50% recycling and waste diversion by 2015;

• 95% of all applicable contracts will meet sustainability requirements;

• Implementation of the 2030 net-zero-energy building requirement;

• Development of guidance for sustainable Federal building locations in alignment with the Livability Principles put forward by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

With millions of employees, the federal government is the largest energy consumer in the US economy, so their move to sustainability carries a lot of tangible weight.

We can accomplish very dramatic climate goals with little disruption to the overall global economy. All that we need is political will. Seeing business moving away from the status quo and toward change is a major step along that long road.

Macbook Wheel

Sadly, the geniuses at Apple are probably taking notes from The Onion.


Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

This also looks like every tech story I've ever seen on television. Really good work.

Talk Amongst Yourselves

I'm having a bit of a computer meltdown. Safari's built in feed reader isn't working, nor is its bookmark tool (!) Working on the problem right now, but let me say publicly in case any Apple employees are reading that the Beta version of Safari 3 is a heaping pile of garbage.

The Random Ten Returns - Eventually

So I did get my iPod Touch in the mail, only to find that it only works with Mac OS 10.4 and above. Which I have on my laptop but not my desktop. And of course, my desktop is where all my music resides. It's one of those fun little Easter eggs that Apple throws at you every now and again to keep it fun. Like the time when they just stopped allowing you to connect your iPod using FireWire, forcing everyone to buy a USB cord. Fun! I love planned obsolescence!

So while I'm in the midst of dealing with that, I only have a couple hundred songs to choose from on the iPod, which is no fun. I'll put one up over the weekend. It'll give me time to add to 50 Cent's retirement pressure by getting the new Kanye album, anyway.

Shorter Steve Jobs

Hey, sorry about that. Buy more of my crap!

I'm an Apple enthusiast, but the Cult of Jobs kind of creeps me out. And this is just insulting. $100 in store credit?

You're All On Pins And Needles Waiting To Hear About My New Ipod

So I left my iPod on a plane about a month ago, and I was about to replace it when I got wind that a new product line would be coming out today. As you may know, they released what amounts to an iPhone without the phone part, with a touchscreen, wi-fi, 16 gigs of storage for audio, video and photos, etc., for about $200 less than what they were selling the iPhone for. Thinking this is a great deal, I jumped on it, only to find out minutes later that they also cut the iPhone price by $200, which is just beyond bizarre. Apparently, people at the product launch thought so too:

The decision to cut the price of its most expensive iPhone to $399 from $599 - and phase out an entry-level iPhone that had sold for $499 - was clearly a shocker. Barron's tech writer Eric Savitz, who was in SF for Apple's product announcement, said "this was a move that no one in the room expected; people were truly stunned; and I mean jaw-dropping, mouths agape, stopped in their tracks stunned. The news almost erased all the good feeling in the room from the day’s various product announcements, and replaced it with a sense of shock. You’d think a dementor had flown into the room." Why all the fuss? Well, how would you feel if you had spent hours, even days, waiting in line for a $599 iPhone just two months ago - and now find that it's being priced at $399?

Apparently the stock dropped on this news too. If I had an iPhone I'd be pissed. From what I heard, the phone was the worst thing about the iPhone; the plan is locked in to AT&T, the service is scattershot at best, and the plans are costly. Getting all of the features I wanted without having to deal with the phone is like the best of all possible worlds, and I kicked in for the extra memory to get 16 gigs (I only used about 10-12 gigs of my old 20Gb iPod; seriously, does anyone even KNOW 40,000 songs for the 160Gb model they released today?).

Maybe if they opened up the device to competition from other cellular networks, it wouldn't be seen as too expensive considering it doesn't work well. Making the device open would allow more people to keep their service and transfer it over, and would make the phone more attractive to those who like their plans. But Apple was stubborn, fell in line with the typical way things are done in the cell phone industry when they had the juice to be bold, and now they're paying the price in a big way.

Technology is like information; it wants to be free.

UPDATE: This is not the publicity any company desires:

Steve Jobs' casual announcement today that Apple (AAPL) was cutting the price of the 8GB iPhone by $200 is not going over well among customers who paid $599 for theirs. In fact, it has sparked an outright rebellion in the Apple support forums, where discussion threads filled with hate mail are piling up faster than Apple can delete them.

"The more the day goes by, the more furious I become," writes VSiskos in "1 Million People Slapped In The Face Today," one of the forums still standing.

"I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS!" adds graphicalliber425. " Somewhere in my heart I'm hoping, Apple's going to offer all of us an extended return policy, or a brand new iPod nano right?"

Under's Apple's standard return policy, customers who bought a product within 14 days of a price reduction can ask to be reimbursed the difference, and some Apple stores have reportedly done the same for iPhones purchased earlier than that. But those random acts of flexibility seem only to have further inflamed the wounded feelings of those who weren't extended the same courtesy.

"They told me to shove it," wrote tulanejosjh. "14 days or nothing."

"Same here," added jmolina1313. "The guy treated me like I was on drugs!"

Apple had to know that people would be furious about this. They obviously calculated that they would rather take that hit (and the loss of perhaps fifty million dollars in revenue, if a just a quarter of iPhone purchasers turn theirs in) than try to sell a lame product. They must be cursing AT&T something fierce right now.