It’s time for Apple to wield its influence on climate policy

The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.​

Last week, Apple CEO Tim Cook presented President Donald Trump with a gold plaque and a promise to invest $100 billion in the United States. The move was good for his business and shareholders, to be sure. But given that Cook, and Apple, have historically professed to care about more than just business success (like climate change), now might be the perfect time for them to use their newly manufactured goodwill to tackle climate for the sake of business and society.

In its 2024 Environmental Progress Report Apple noted, “We owe it to our global community to rise to the challenge of climate change with all the innovation, empathy and commitment we can muster.”  

The company has made admirable steps toward greening its own operations by investing vast sums and leading the industry on those measures. It also left the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 16 years ago because of that trade group’s opposition to climate policy. 

But noble as their operational efforts are, they’re a category error — like turning the stove off as a way to stop a house fire.

In simple terms, Apple and Cook have followed the playbook of the rest of the giant, massively profitable and therefore highly influential tech industry — which is to do everything they can to appear to lead on climate, without actually doing the things required to solve the problem. Their work, viewed in isolation, seems worthy. But given the reality of the problem and the speed and scale of action required, it’s far from sufficient. 

Instead of driving change at a societal level, Apple has almost exclusively focused on its own impacts, calling for vague action on climate such as corporate or federal emissions targets, but almost never asking for federal regulation. The company has been virtually silent on specific policies, including during the Senate battle over the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which eventually passed — and during the recent legislative action to dismantle much of the IRA. 

Even in their much-lauded television ad that spoofed an “audit” by Mother Nature, the company never once mentioned public policy, focusing solely on operations. And yet, Cook hasn’t been entirely silent: he donated a million dollars to Trump’s inauguration, tacit support for his anti-climate policies.

A different playbook 

Apple and Cook could really lead by deploying a different playbook: the one business has always used to drive change in society. That approach uses power, voice, lobbying force, political influence, money, marketing machinery and customers to create the right social, economic and legal incentives to drive desired outcomes. 

This successful corporate influence playbook has been in place since 1972. At that time, big businesses, offended by stringent legislation such as the Clean Air and Water Acts, National Environmental Policy Act, the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Civil and Voting Rights Acts, created the Business Roundtable specifically to wield political influence against regulation. It worked. Together with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they stopped labor law reform, lowered taxes and turned public opinion against government intervention. (Who serves on the board of directors of the Business Roundtable now? Why, Tim Cook does.)

This history leads to a logical triptych: business knows it can move the needle on issues it cares about; it says it cares about climate change; therefore it ought to act in ways that will help match the urgency of the crisis. 

But broadly, and specifically in the tech world, that hasn’t happened. Instead, companies have focused on reducing their own carbon footprints through actions such as energy efficiency, clean power purchases, funding for technology innovation and helping suppliers clean up their operations. They market products that help users and customers reduce emissions. But by their voluntary, small-scale nature, those actions can’t provide the speed and scale of market transformation needed. That requires regulatory market rules to steer the economy rapidly to a zero-carbon future. 

Yet when it comes to political pressure, an analysis by the nonprofit research firm InfluenceMap shows that big tech companies focused just 4 percent of their federal lobbying activities on climate. Like Apple, they rarely support specific policies — instead choosing to heavily market their own operational greening, leaving many with the (misleading) impression that what we need is simply for more companies to follow their lead. These actions give the government a pass; after all, if business is solving the problem, why bother with regulation?

Breaking a taboo

If Cook were to publish an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal pointing out that climate had become a business risk and that federal regulation (not just incentive-based legislation) is essential, it would change the corporate game. 

Because Apple and Cook are so well respected, the move would galvanize other business leaders and silence elected officials tipping back into climate denial. Cook could single-handedly break the taboo against business advocating for regulation. Next, he could charge his company with reaching out to customers, asking for their help to pressure elected officials. (Most consumers care about climate change.) 

Cook could also:

• Make public Apple’s climate lobbying (or lack thereof) now occurring behind closed doors and commit to allocating substantial lobbying dollars specifically to climate. 
• Speak up to defend key EPA regulations under attack. (Ironically, while Cook met at the White House, Trump’s EPA was actively dismantling the foundation of American climate law, a rule called “the endangerment finding.”) At the state level, Apple could push for stronger climate policies, and use their freshly announced investments as leverage. 
• Use the company’s considerable global influence in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere it operates to help enact stronger climate regulations.

The Trump administration has flipped the calendar back more than 20 years, to an era when people didn’t even believe the planet was warming. With climate deniers running all federal divisions, and agencies either gutted or weaponized in support of fossil fuel expansion, we have limited tools in the climate fight. In the absence of government, corporations are one of the most powerful agents of change. And one of the most effective tools they have is their influence.

The ability to solve — or significantly move the needle on — a problem that condemns hundreds of millions of people to suffering carries with it the moral obligation to act. As one of the most powerful people in business, Tim Cook has the leverage to change the state of play on climate in the U.S. At this particular moment in history, he could do even more, taking a stand for democracy itself, which would solve multiple problems at once — including ensuring the stable governance needed for successful business. How could he not?