Environment

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Revealed: rightwing US lobbyists help craft slew of anti-protest fossil fuel bills

      by

      Revealed: rightwing US lobbyists help craft slew of anti-protest fossil fuel billsLegislation drafted by Alec part of backlash against Indigenous communities and environmentalists opposing oil and gas projects Republican-led legislatures have passed anti-protest laws drafted by an extreme-right corporate lobbying group in a third of all American states since 2018, as part of a backlash against Indigenous communities and environmentalists opposing fossil fuel projects, new research has found.The American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec) helped draft legislation criminalizing grassroots protests against pipelines, gas terminals and other oil and gas expansion projects in 24 states, under the guise of protecting critical infrastructure.Rightwing lobby group Alec driving laws to blacklist companies that boycott the oil industryRead moreAlec, which is funded by rightwing state lawmakers, corporate sponsors and trade groups, and wealthy ideologues, creates model legislation on a range of conservative issues such as gun control, abortion, education funding and environmental regulations.The laws were passed in 17 Republican-controlled states, including Oklahoma, North and South Dakota, Kansas, West Virginia and Indiana, where protesters now face up to 10 years in prison and million-dollar fines, according to a new report from the non-profit Climate Cabinet.The anti-protest bills, which were rolled out in response to the success of mostly Indigenous-led campaigns slowing down fossil-fuel infrastructure projects, have used intentionally vague language to create a chilling effect on free speech and assembly – both constitutionally protected rights, according to the report Critical Infrastructure Laws: A Threat to Protest & the Planet.“Indigenous-led demonstrations opposing fossil-fuel projects have been one of the most successful and effective forms of climate action to date … in an affront to the protected freedoms of our constitution, state legislatures have found a new legislative mechanism to oppress frontline communities and cause further harm and destruction to our planet,” said Jonathon Borja, co-author of the report.The first so-called critical infrastructure bills originated in Oklahoma in 2018, where the Republican state representative Scott Biggs referenced North Dakota’s Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL) protests and acknowledged that some anti-pipeline demonstrations had succeeded. “[The bill] is a preventative measure … to make sure that doesn’t happen here.”Other states followed after Alec created a model bill for lawmakers to copy. So far, the bills have not passed in any states where Democrats hold a majority in at least one legislative chamber, though some Democrats have voted in favor of them.In most of the bills, protesters, like those who participated in the DAPL demonstrations, could now face felony charges, while those charged with “aiding” protests could face harsh fines.Fossil fuel expansion projects halted by Indigenous-led campaigns represent the carbon equivalent of 12% of annual US and Canadian pollution, or 779m metric tons of greenhouse gases, according to data gathered by the Indigenous Environmental Network and Oil Change International.The report comes as the White House and Congress negotiate the final terms of a controversial permitting side deal with the Democratic West Virginia senator Joe Manchin, which could make it harder to legally challenge new pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure.In a statement Alec said: “Alec has long been a leader in promoting and protecting free speech … But protests can and do turn violent. And when they do, our critical infrastructure facilities must be protected.”TopicsUS politicsFossil fuelsEnergynewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Transformational’: could America’s new green bank be a climate gamechanger?

      by

      ‘Transformational’: could America’s new green bank be a climate gamechanger?Long championed by climate activists, the green bank would provide funding to expand clean energy use across the US Buried on page 667 of the Inflation Reduction Act is a climate policy that has been in the making for more than a decade.The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund provides $27bn in funding for projects aimed at lowering America’s planet-heating emissions. Some of those funds, roughly $7bn, will be dedicated to clean energy deployment in low-income communities – but the vast majority of the funds will be used to create America’s first national green bank, an initiative long championed by climate activists. Those activists hope that the national green bank, which will provide ongoing financial assistance to expand the use of clean energy across the country, will accelerate America’s transition away from fossil fuels.TopicsUS politicsAmerica’s dirty divideClimate crisisBiden administrationfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I want to work with everyone’: Alaska’s history-making new congresswoman

      by

      Interview‘I want to work with everyone’: Alaska’s history-making new congresswomanMaanvi Singh in Anchorage Mary Peltola, the first Alaska Native elected to Congress, having defeated former vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, is a relentless coalition builderAhead of her astonishing victory this week in a special election to fill Alaska’s sole congressional seat, Mary Peltola was delighted to get recognized at Costco. “I was approached by some people to do a selfie,” she laughed.It seemed like months of traversing the state for meet-and greets was paying off. “I am getting recognized more.”Wind in Democrats’ sails as Sarah Palin humbled in Alaska special electionRead moreNow, people all over the US are learning her name. Peltola, who is Yup’ik Eskimo, will make history as the first Alaska Native to represent the state in Congress, and as the first Democrat to hold the seat in nearly 50 years.On Wednesday, she prevailed over the Trump-endorsed former vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin and Republican party-backed Nick Begich III – in a state that favoured Trump by 10 points in 2020. She will serve out the remainder of the late Republican congressman Don Young’s term.A former state legislator and fisheries manager, Peltola campaigned as a relentlessly amicable coalition builder. “I want to work with everyone and anyone who is a reasonable person to find solutions to Alaska’s challenges,” she said.In a race where Palin’s celebrity – and her self-described “right-winging, bitter-clinging” attack dog energy – loomed large in the media and in voters’ minds, Peltola would often bring up her warm relationship with Palin. She’d talk about how both she and Palin were pregnant at the same time, while Peltola was serving as a legislator and Palin was governor. “Our teenagers are just a month apart,” she said. Before Palin left to campaign as Republican John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 elections, she bequeathed Peltola her backyard trampoline.Resolute nicenessPeltola was born in 1973, the year that Young was elected to office, and her father was a friend of the late congressman. While Young – a bombastic character with a taxidermy-stuffed office, a reputation for making racist and sexist jokes and a zeal for oil – was very much a contrast to Peltola, in demeanour and philosophy, voters in Anchorage nonetheless said they shared a sense of pragmatic bipartisanship.In 2010, Peltola helped to run the write-in campaign for Lisa Murkowski, the Republican senator with an independent streak now fighting for her political life after she voted for Trump’s impeachment.First elected to the state legislature in 1998, Peltola built a reputation for resolute niceness. She helped build the Bush Caucus – a bipartisan group of legislators representing the most rural and remote parts of the state – and showed a knack for winning over even her most conservative colleagues to advance policies on natural resource management and infrastructure.Peltola’s own politics diverge from the Republicans she is often willing to work with. In the US House race, she was the only candidate who endorsed abortion rights. “Alaska Natives have a history of forced sterilisation against their knowledge or consent,” she said. “People should have to build their families the way, when and how they choose. And for that to be infringed on is very troubling.”A majority of Alaskans support the right to choose – and after the supreme court decision to revoke the constitutional right to abortion access, the issue has energized voters in the Last Frontier as it has in other parts of the country.Peltola’s policies on climate adaptation also reflect the nuanced realities of Alaska – a state whose economy is intricately entwined with the oil and gas industry and whose people live at the Arctic edge of the climate crisis. Alaska is losing glacier ice faster than anywhere else in the world. “In the near term, we are tied to oil and gas. And in the near term, that is how we are paying our bills as Alaskans,” Peltola said. But “I have seen firsthand the effects of climate change across Alaska. We had over 250 wildfires this summer before June, we had the largest tundra fire we’ve ever seen in May.” Fisheries and salmon stock, which many Alaskans depend on for sustenance, are suffering, she added.Her platform focused on investment in renewable energy and a gradual transition for Alaska’s economy.A focus on bipartisanship could pay offIt remains unclear if Peltola’s moderate way will pave her path to victory in November when she’ll be running again in the race to serve the next full, two-year term in Congress. Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system, which the state tried for the first time with the special election, could be shaped as much by Alaskans’ scepticism about Palin as their support for Peltola.But in a state that tends to elect a Republican but where the majority of voters declare no party preference, her focus on bipartisanship could pay off.“We all have to help each other out if we’re going to survive. That’s the fundamental nature of Alaskans,” said Ivan Moore, an Anchorage-based pollster who has been tracking Peltola’s rise in Alaska politics. “We can be political assholes, just like everywhere else. But when push comes to shove, when it’s life and death, Alaskans will help each other. And I think Mary tapped into that.”“She speaks in a language that connects people,” said Shirley Mae Springer Staten, 76, an Anchorage-based arts educator who supported Peltola. “There’s a new wave of unkindness in politics these days, and I like that Mary Peltola pushes against that.”News of her victory this week came on Peltola’s 49th birthday – a “GOOD DAY”, she tweeted shortly after the elections division released preliminary results.Now more people know who she is. But she’s sticking with what works. “Support a regular Alaskan,” is the slogan.TopicsAlaskaDemocratsUS politicsSarah PalinClimate crisisinterviewsReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Polling shows that US voters favor climate bills – yet assume fellow Americans don’t | Adrienne Matei

      by

      Polling shows that US voters favor climate bills – yet assume fellow Americans don’tAdrienne MateiPart of the key to collective action may be to overcome the ‘false social reality’ that makes us assume no one else cares about the climate America is polarized, but a new study has revealed one issue on which the nation is surprisingly united: mitigating climate change.Yet Americans themselves underestimate the US population’s concern for the state of the climate and support for major climate mitigation policies – by a whopping 80–90%, according to researchers from Boston College, Princeton University and Indiana University Bloomington.In a peer-reviewed article, researchers shared the results of a nationwide survey of 6,000 Americans, for which participants were asked to estimate the percentage of Americans who were “at least somewhat concerned about climate change”. Participants also estimated the percentage of Americans they thought supported specific climate policies including carbon taxes for fossil fuel companies, renewable energy mandates, building renewable energy projects on public lands, and a Green New Deal.Regardless of political orientation, education, age, race, media preferences and income, the study found all Americans vastly underestimate how much their compatriots care about climate change and support green policies.“Climate policy and concern about climate change are much more prevalent than you think in the US,” one of the study’s authors, Gregg Sparkman, told Scientific American. “And virtually everyone in the country seems to greatly underestimate how popular climate policy is and to underestimate how concerned their fellow Americans are about climate change.”Despite polls by Yale’s Program on Climate Change Communication showing that a “supermajority” of 66–80% of Americans support these climate policies, the average American estimates that only a minority of 37–43% of the public are down for the eco cause. Republicans proved especially pessimistic about how much people care about climate change, though virtually half of Republicans are pro-climate policies, says Sparkman. In truth, the issue of securing a livable future appears to enjoy bipartisan support.It turns out that the feeling of being alienated in one’s concern for the environment is as widespread as it is unfounded. In fact, this study captures a phenomenon known as “pluralistic ignorance”, a shared misconception of the thoughts and behaviors of others. In this case, pluralistic ignorance results in what the authors call a “false social reality” in which many of us perceive that others aren’t willing to take action on climate issues, and overestimate how many Americans are indifferent to, or in denial of, climate change.Ending the misconception that most Americans don’t care about climate change and truly appreciating how popular eco-friendly policies are could give such measures valuable momentum and support, and encourage politicians to pursue greener agendas. Moreover, understanding that there’s nothing fringe about caring about the environment could help people feel more confident discussing their green politics with peers. The perception that people are unified in the desire for pro-climate legislation is a powerful thing – it becomes easier to take action when we know that people actually support collective solutions.The reassurance that we are all on the same side when it comes to reducing the effects of climate change could also help us manage climate anxiety and feel more optimistic about the future. Young people are especially struggling with the latter; a 2021 Bath University survey of more than 10,000 teens and young adults across 10 countries found that 75% believe “the future is frightening”, with researchers linking youth psychological distress to government inaction on climate change.Published in the wake of Democrats’ passing of the landmark Inflation Reduction Act, a $369bn investment in renewable energy and emissions reduction, this research suggests Americans are united in the fight against climate change, and that’s a good thing. Have no misconceptions about it: mitigating climate change will require a collective effort.
      Adrienne Matei is a freelance journalist
      TopicsEnvironmentOpinionClimate crisisUS politicscommentReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Time has run out’: UN fails to reach agreement to protect marine life

      by

      ‘Time has run out’: UN fails to reach agreement to protect marine lifeThis fifth round of discussions was meant to establish a UN Ocean Treaty that would protect biodiversity in international waters The latest round of talks at the United Nations aimed at securing protections for marine life in international waters that cover half the planet ended without agreement Saturday.The fifth round of discussions, which began two weeks ago, were designed to establish a UN Ocean Treaty that would set rules for protecting biodiversity in two-thirds of the world’s oceanic areas that lie outside territorial waters.Time running out to protect world’s oceans, conservationists say as UN treaty talks stallRead moreBut UN members failed to agree on how to share benefits from marine life, establish protected areas, or to prevent human activity with life on the high seas.“Although we did make excellent progress, we still do need a little bit more time to progress towards the finish line,” UN oceans ambassador Rena Lee said, according to Agence France-Presse.Many hoped that the New York session, which began on 15 August, would ultimately produce an agreed treaty text on “the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction”.But environmental campaigners, who noted that discussions had been continuing on and off for 15 years, expressed disappointment and blamed wealthy countries, including the US, of being too slow to compromise.Among the issues holding up the treaty is agreement on a process for creating protected areas as well as environmental impact assessments.“While progress has been made, particularly on ocean sanctuaries, members of the High Ambition Coalition and countries like the USA have moved too slowly to find compromises, despite their commitments,” said Laura Meller of Greenpeace’s Protect the Oceans campaign.Meller said that some groups, like the Pacific islands and the Caribbean group, had pushed to complete the agreement. But countries in the global north had only started working to reach compromises in the final days of negotiations, she said.“Time has run out,” Meller added. “Further delay means ocean destruction. We are sad and disappointed. While countries continue to talk, the oceans and all those who rely on them will suffer.”Greenpeace had warned Thursday that treaty talks were on the brink of failure because of the greed of countries in the High Ambition Coalition and others such as the US and Canada. At issue, the group said, was prioritizing hypothetical future profits from Marine Genetics Resources over protecting the oceans.Meller also said that Russia had blocked negotiations, refusing to engage in the treaty process and in attempts at compromise with the European Union “on a wide range of issues”.Monica Medina, the assistant US secretary of state, said her country remained committed to the goal of protecting at least 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. “We cannot let the tides and currents push us back,” Medina said. “We must keep going.”Unless the UN general assembly schedules a special emergency session to conclude negotiations, talks will not automatically resume until next year.If the body fails to do so, Greenpeace warned that “it will be challenging to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030 – the 30×30 target that scientists say is the minimum needed to give the oceans space to recover”.The failure to reach an agreement comes after world leaders at the UN Ocean Conference in Lisbon in July vowed to do everything in their power to save the seas. But despite uplifting calls to action in the closing statement, no clear commitments emerged.“While it’s disappointing that the treaty wasn’t finalized during the past two weeks of negotiations, we remain encouraged by the progress that was made,” said Liz Karan of the NGO Pew Charitable Trusts of the latest round of talks.Agence France-Presse and the Associated Press contributed reporting.TopicsUnited NationsOceansNew YorkUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      US President Joe Biden’s Green New Deal Goes Local

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      How a top US business lobby promised climate action – but worked to block efforts

      by

      How a top US business lobby promised climate action – but worked to block efforts Business Roundtable aims to weaken efforts that would enable investors to hold companies accountable for their climate promisesThree years ago today, in a statement that would be described as “historic”, “monumental” and “revolutionary”, America’s most powerful and politically connected corporations promised to “protect the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses”.The “Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation” came from the Business Roundtable, an influential Washington DC lobbying group whose 200-plus members include the chief executives of some of the world’s biggest companies, including Apple, Pepsi, Walmart and Google.Today, on the statement’s third anniversary, the Business Roundtable and its member CEOs continue to issue earnest statements about the climate crisis. But the organization is also working diligently – and spending liberally – to weaken efforts that would enable investors to hold companies accountable for their climate promises.An analysis by the Guardian found the lobby group has worked hard to protect a status quo in which corporations:
      Generate goodwill and positive PR by publishing bold climate goals, with little fear of being held accountable or legally liable for achieving those goals.
      Can choose to selectively disclose certain parts of their carbon footprint, or none at all.
      Are not required to reveal the greenhouse gas emissions generated throughout their supply chains – which, for most companies, make up the majority of their emissions.
      Make high-profile pledges to fight climate change, while paying to maintain memberships in the Business Roundtable and other trade associations that spend millions of dollars to lobby governments against meaningful climate action.
      In public the Business Roundtable’s leaders are still committed to change. Doug McMillon, the CEO of Walmart and previous chair of the Business Roundtable, has called the climate crisis “one of the greatest challenges facing the planet today”. In a statement on the group’s website, Mary Barra, the CEO of GM and the Roundtable’s current chair, declared that “we must act” to tackle climate change. “Meeting the scope of this challenge will require collective global action – business and government,” Barra said.The challenge “isn’t the lack of business commitment” said Johnson Controls CEO George Oliver in a video published by the Business Roundtable in January. “What we need is to be aligned with the public sector to make sure that we’ve got the proper policies in place that will enable us to do what we do so well.”Yet when the US government has tried to put the “proper policies” in place, the Business Roundtable has worked to undermine those efforts.In 2021, the organization spent millions of dollars to stop the Biden administration’s Build Back Better agenda, which included significant efforts to reduce carbon emissions and promote clean energy.And this year, after the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed a long-anticipated rule that would require publicly held companies to disclose their carbon emissions and the risks that climate change poses to their business models, the Business Roundtable declared its opposition to central aspects of the SEC proposal, including provisions that experts say are vital for the rule to give investors comparable and consistent information about corporations’ climate risks.Before releasing the proposed rules in March, the SEC had asked the public what such rules might look like. In its response, the Business Roundtable acknowledged that “climate challenges are creating growing risks in many parts of the economy” and deemed it “appropriate” for the SEC to regulate climate disclosures.The group noted that the present system of corporate climate reporting, in which some companies issue voluntary climate-related disclosures, has proven inadequate. “There are many conflicting demands on companies to provide disclosures under different frameworks, which is unnecessarily costly and time-consuming for companies,” the Business Roundtable’s comments read.But when the SEC shifted from requesting voluntary input to proposing mandatory requirements for climate disclosures, the organization appeared to change its tune. In a 17-page letter, the CEO lobby announced its opposition to the proposal and asked the commission to “revise and repropose the rule.”In an email to the Guardian, the Business Roundtable denied that its perspective had changed. “[Business Roundtable] members are committed to combating climate change and are supportive of a rulemaking. Our goal is for a pragmatic, attainable, and successful rule,” the group said. “Our members believe it is worth the extra time on the front end to repropose the rule.”Since April 2021, according to meeting memoranda published by the SEC, the Business Roundtable has met at least three times with the SEC about climate disclosures. (GM’s Barra, the chair of the Business Roundtable, also met separately with SEC chair Gary Gensler.)In the first half of this year, the group spent more than $9.1m lobbying the federal government directly, according to reports compiled by Open Secrets. In its public disclosures, the Roundtable reported lobbying Congress, the White House and the SEC about the climate disclosure proposal. (In an email, the Business Roundtable said it “met with the SEC to directly communicate our concerns” and “shared our point of view with members of Congress and administration officials.”)Despite asking for a new, and thus delayed, proposal, the organization’s own members continue to assure the public that they see the climate crisis as an urgent challenge. “We’re out of time,” Cummins CEO and Business Roundtable member Tom Linebarger said in the organization’s January climate video. “We’re getting ready, to get ready, to get ready to do things. And the problem is that we have to move now.”But “now”, it seems, does not mean now.One provision the Business Roundtable has rejected as “unworkable” is a requirement for companies to measure and report the greenhouse gas emissions generated by suppliers and customers throughout their supply chains, or what are known as “Scope 3” emissions. The provision would apply only to companies that have published emissions targets that include Scope 3, or for which supply-chain emissions are considered “material”.Scope 3 includes all greenhouse gas emissions that companies neither generate directly (Scope 1) nor purchase for their own energy needs (Scope 2), which means everything from the raw materials that go into creating a product to the transportation that delivers that product to a consumer.For most companies, Scope 3 emissions represent the majority of their carbon output. As Addisu Lashitew, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, has pointed out, more than three-quarters of Amazon’s 2021 emissions were considered Scope 3.Diagram showing Scope 3 emissions are everything indirectly related to productionThe Business Roundtable supports mandating Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions disclosures, and many companies already report them, in part because these direct emissions are easier to calculate and easier to reduce (sometimes through the purchase of dubious carbon “offsets”).Perhaps more importantly, however, because most firms’ emissions are primarily Scope 3, limiting their reporting to Scopes 1 and 2 makes them appear greener.In its comments to the SEC, the Business Roundtable called the proposal to require companies to measure and report Scope 3 emissions “overly burdensome” because “many companies still have limited systems in place to identify and disclose Scope 3 emissions” and some aspects of reporting value-chain emissions “remain[] challenging”.But “if you don’t have Scope 3 as a requirement, then what you have effectively done is cut out most of the emissions from the top-emitting industries,” Allison Herren Lee, the former acting chair and commissioner of the SEC, told the Guardian. “With emissions arguably being the most important item of disclosure for investors, how is a rule without Scope 3 going to achieve what investors need?”“There is an inherent degree of uncertainty in some of the data the proposal would require companies to disclose, and much of it is largely outside their control,” the Business Roundtable said in an email.A number of experts familiar with the SEC’s climate disclosure rulemaking acknowledged that tracking and reporting Scope 3 emissions could indeed be difficult for some companies, or at least more difficult than not doing so.But they suggested that the more fundamental question was not whether complying with the SEC’s rules would be more difficult than doing nothing, but rather if doing so would provide investors with information that they have requested and that would help them make more informed investment decisions.This argument would appear to align with the stated position of the Business Roundtable, which has repeatedly expressed its support for “market-based” efforts to address climate change, a view it reiterated in its comments to the SEC.“Information is the lifeblood of the capital markets, and capital markets are a central institution of a capitalist market economy,” George S Georgiev, a professor at Emory University and an expert on securities law, told the Guardian. “Climate-related financial information is demanded by investors, not by environmentalists.”Moreover, “there is no unanimity that Scope 3 reporting is problematic”, Georgiev said, noting that Apple, whose CEO, Tim Cook, sits on the Business Roundtable’s board of directors, is among the companies that have endorsed the SEC’s Scope 3 requirement. Apple’s existing reporting “attest[s] to the feasibility of reasonably modeling, measuring, and reporting on all three scopes of emissions, including scope 3 emissions,” the company told the Commission.In its comments, the Business Roundtable said that its member companies had already set a “high bar…for voluntary ESG [environmental, social and governance] disclosures,” and that a voluntary approach to climate reporting was already “providing more valuable information for investors”.But many investors, analysts, academics, voters and experts – even companies themselves – disagree. “There is near-universal agreement among scholars that voluntary disclosure rules alone are not sufficient,” Emory’s Georgiev said. “The same logic applies to climate rules.”“Climate is one of the most significant risks facing companies and investors,” said Danielle Fugere, the president and chief counsel of As You Sow, a shareholder advocacy nonprofit. “For companies to say that it is too costly to gather Scope 1 through 3 data, we simply think that it shows signs of weak management.”In a March letter, a group of investors managing nearly $5tn of assets warned that failing to require companies to disclose their Scope 3 emissions would render the SEC rules doubly ineffective: insufficient for addressing the climate emergency, and inadequate for providing investors with useful information, because voluntary figures allow companies to publish only the information that paints them in the best light.“There is a great amount of confusion,” Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, said in a speech last year. “If we are really going to tackle this, if we want to have 100% participation, the easiest way you could do that is having unified standards.” Fink is also a member of the Business Roundtable.In an email, the Roundtable said it was “unlikely” that the proposed Scope 3 disclosure provisions “would result in comparable, investor-useful information”. The group “believes it’s important to have reliable climate risk and emissions data, and our companies are leaders when it comes to transparency.”The group’s objections to the SEC’s Scope 3 requirements are only one aspect of its multi-tiered opposition to the proposed climate disclosure rules. And its opposition to the proposed rules is, similarly, only one example of many in which it has rejected efforts to hold its member companies accountable for their social and environmental pledges.In the three years since the organization released the “purpose of a corporation” statement, a number of studies have shown that Business Roundtable companies have failed to follow through on their “fundamental commitment to all of [their] stakeholders”.One analysis from London Business School and Columbia Business School found that companies whose CEOs signed the 2019 statement subsequently received more federal environmental infractions and had higher carbon emissions than similar firms that did not sign the statement.In another study, two Harvard Law School professors reviewed more than 600 public documents filed by Business Roundtable companies since the statement’s publication. Time and time again, the researchers found that when firms were presented with an opportunity to formalize the pledge in their corporate governance, they declined.In addition, by advocating and lobbying against government action on issues like climate change, the Business Roundtable gives its members space to publicly endorse (and claim credit for endorsing) legislative and regulatory action – such as Apple’s support for mandatory Scope 3 reporting, or Cummins and GM’s support for Build Back Better –all while knowing that the Roundtable will work behind the scenes in opposition.“Some individual companies aren’t going to write in and rage against the proposal because they know that will raise concerns with their investors, so they let some of the trade groups do that work for them,” said Allison Herren Lee, the SEC’s former acting chair and commissioner.In its comments to the SEC, the Business Roundtable urged lawmakers to take the lead on tackling the climate crisis, arguing that “although important, disclosures simply will not solve the problem”.“These are complex issues that need to be solved through the legislative process,” the group wrote.But the Business Roundtable continues to oppose efforts to address the climate emergency through the legislative process. The latest effort to tackle the climate crisis, the Inflation Reduction Act, includes billions of dollars in clean energy tax incentives, paid for in part by making sure corporations pay at least a 15% tax rate on profits. The bill could cut America’s carbon emissions by 40% by 2030.Yet on 6 August, just shy of the third anniversary of the statement in which Business Roundtable CEOs committed to “protect[ing] the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses”, the group declared its opposition to the bill, citing “tax provisions that would undermine American economic growth and competitiveness”.“I’m just so worried that our planet can no longer suffer from us debating and debating and debating,” said Cummins CEO Tom Linebarger, who, like all the CEOs named in this article, signed the 2019 statement. “It’s the existential crisis of our time.”TopicsClimate crisisApplePepsicoGoogleUS politicsanalysisReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Biden’s green deal: leadership after Trump’s denialism | Editorial

      by

      The Guardian view on Biden’s green deal: leadership after Trump’s denialismEditorialThe first major climate law passed in the US comes not a moment too soon for a burning planet When the House of Representatives passed landmark climate legislation on Friday, Joe Biden chalked up one of the surprise successes of his presidency. Only last month his ambitious agenda appeared sunk after a conservative Democrat and coal baron, Joe Manchin, refused to back it. His vote is crucial in an evenly divided Senate. However, the climate proposals were largely resurrected in the form of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), co-authored by Mr Manchin, which Congress approved.The first major US climate law comes not a moment too soon. It is the country’s best and last opportunity to meet its goal of halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and, with it, a world where net zero by mid-century is possible. After Donald Trump, Mr Biden can reclaim the mantle of global climate leadership for the US. But the act reveals the limits of his power.The Democrats’ initial $3.5tn plan was to expand education, fight poverty, lower healthcare costs and tackle climate change. That was whittled down to a $1.75tn bill that the House passed last year. But it got nowhere in the Senate. Mr Manchin refused to back the social security programmes and his centrist colleague Kyrsten Sinema refused to back the tax rises. What was left was $490bn in climate and healthcare investments.This deserves a small cheer from progressives. Mr Biden is pursuing a muscular policy of state intervention in the economy. The act for the first time gives the federal government the power to negotiate lower drug prices. Significantly for the climate, it represents a new US industrial policy that subsidises zero-carbon power production via tax credits. It also recognises that the US is falling behind China in green technology – spending $152bn less on renewable investments last year – and focuses on ways to encourage clean-energy manufacturing.Politics in the US is unfortunately far too influenced by the power of vested interests. The US remains addicted to fossil fuels, which generate 61% of its electricity. Its shale gas industry is looking to replace Russia as the major energy supplier to Europe. The upshot was that fossil fuel lobbyists won concessions in the climate legislation. The compromise means linking renewable development to new oil and gas extraction for which many communities will bear the disproportionate cost.Nevertheless, for every one tonne of emissions caused by the act’s fossil fuel provisions, the non-partisan Energy Innovation thinktank says 24 tonnes of emissions are avoided by its green provisions. This ought to help energise Mr Biden’s base ahead of the midterm elections. Despite Republican antagonism, climate action enjoys broad support in the US. A Pew Research Center poll suggests that 58% of voters think the federal government is doing too little to “reduce the effects of global climate change, compared with just 18% who say it is doing too much”.To be a truly transformative president, Mr Biden will need to remake society. What the act demonstrates is that he does not have the votes – yet – in his own party for such a programme. Mr Biden’s climate plans may fall short because he is relying on the carrot of spending rather than the stick of taxes to underpin an energy transition. Yet the wasteful consumption of the wealthy will have to be reduced with progressive taxation to make resources available for socially-useful spending. Ultimately the climate emergency needs a fundamental economic restructuring. Mr Biden’s new environmental law is a good start, but there’s a very long way to go.TopicsClimate crisisOpinionUS politicsJoe BidenNancy PelosiDemocratsRepublicanseditorialsReuse this content More