Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Microsoft Apple

Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Disney Among Companies Backing Groups Against Climate Bill (theguardian.com) 175

mspohr writes: Some of America's most prominent companies, including Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Disney, are backing business groups that are fighting landmark climate legislation, despite their own promises to combat the climate crisis, a new analysis has found. A clutch of corporate lobby groups and organizations have mobilized to oppose the proposed $3.5tn budget bill put forward by Democrats, which contains unprecedented measures to drive down planet-heating gases. The reconciliation bill has been called the "the most significant climate action in our country's history" by Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the US Senate.

Most large US corporations have expressed concern over the climate crisis or announced their own goals to cut greenhouse gases. Jeff Bezos, one of the world's richest people, has said that the climate crisis is the "biggest threat to our planet" and the company he founded, Amazon, has created a pledge for businesses to cut their emissions to net zero by 2040. Microsoft has promised to be "carbon negative" within a decade from now and Disney is aiming to use only renewable-sourced electricity within the same timeframe. But these leading companies, and others, either support or actively steer the very lobby groups that are attempting to sink the bill that carries the weight of Joe Biden's ambitions to tackle the climate crisis, threatening one of the last major legislative efforts that will help decide whether parts of the world plunge into a new, barely livable climatic state.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Disney Among Companies Backing Groups Against Climate Bill

Comments Filter:
  • by Baconsmoke ( 6186954 ) on Friday October 01, 2021 @11:05AM (#61851091)
    to put their money where their mouth is they don't want to do it? Why that's a complete and utter surprise that no one could possibly have foreseen. I mean it would be awful if these companies only made 60 billion dollars instead of 80 billions dollars. How can they possibly survive on such a paltry amount of money? Let us all remove our hats and offer a moment of silence for how much these companies have truly suffered in these trying times.
    • by thevirtualcat ( 1071504 ) on Friday October 01, 2021 @11:13AM (#61851109)

      Companies: We're really concerned about climate change. We're doing stuff about it.
      Government: Okay, we'll hold you do that.
      Companies: wait no

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Not all 'plans' or 'proposals' are feasible or reasonable. Just putting a popular name on an action does not make it the best solution or even a good attempt. When not even one party can agree, then maybe a closer look at a proposal is needed to improve it.

      So sick of 'professional journalists' simply kneejerk childish writing simply based on names of actions without any serious discussion or concern about the details.

      • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Friday October 01, 2021 @11:37AM (#61851231)

        Implantation outweighs ideology every time.

        I have seen things done that oppose my actual ideology, that have been implemented well, and thoughtfully that while I may not like the idea, I am not going to fight it just because it isn't my approach to the problem. I have also seen things in support of my Ideology that have been handled so poorly, that I have to say I am against it.

        This article is nonsense, because it never goes into the real detail on why these companies are against it, or which parts in general. Also the bill is still in progress, so these companies are lobbing their concerns of the current state. It could be something where these big companies may have an unfair restrictions put on them, while allowing their closest competitors a lot of immunity.

        While my Ideology is that a the bigger companies should deal with a larger percentage of the burden. That can be a poorly implemented method where the big company just because of its size is oppressed with too much regulation while its competition can go at full speed. Thus allowing them to pollute at a much greater level than before.

         

        • Imagine if years ago the governments had passed laws not only making incandescent bulbs illegal, but make neon bulbs the only legal ones. Without any change in the law, that means LED bulbs would not have happened, or would have happened much later instead.

          I'm not saying something similar is happening here, but remember that governments are usually slow to react while companies are usually more pro-active. I don't see a conflict of interest here, I'm seeing a conflict of how to arrive to the same goal.

          • The law to restrict the use of incandescent laws happened after the compact fluorescent bulb started to become a popular alternative. The LED bulb, needed the rather recent invention of the blue LED (having already Red and Green LED) So LED Bulbs can display white. Neon bulbs would just be Red.

            The only people who seemed to really care about laws on incandescent bulbs, were people who were watching conservative media, who decided to make a political tiff over it, probably only because it was law passed by

            • The law to restrict the use of incandescent laws happened after the compact fluorescent bulb started to become a popular alternative. The LED bulb, needed the rather recent invention of the blue LED (having already Red and Green LED) So LED Bulbs can display white. Neon bulbs would just be Red.

              The only people who seemed to really care about laws on incandescent bulbs, were people who were watching conservative media, who decided to make a political tiff over it, probably only because it was law passed by the Democrats, and they wanted proof of those democrats trying to over take freedom, so they jumped onto the Lightbulb war.

              I know people who are still pissed about their beloved incandescent lamps. Oh heck - I know a few who take a fit if you mention leaded gasoline.

              The problem with technology is that there are some who will oppose it until the actuarial tables take care of them.

              But yeah - I'm not certain what freedom I lost by replacing all my incandescent lamps with florescent then LED lights. I'm saving quite a lot on my electricity bill, and haven't changed one light since I got rid of the CFL's.

              Here's the unsung pa

              • by Toonol ( 1057698 )
                The freedom to choose your lightbulbs. It's part of a greater freedom, like the ability to complain about a TV show is part of a greater freedom. I'm 90% LED, but occasionally buy an incandescent... the light's better, and fluorescents/halogens are a terrible alternative to either.
                • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Friday October 01, 2021 @04:10PM (#61852079)

                  The freedom to choose your lightbulbs. It's part of a greater freedom, like the ability to complain about a TV show is part of a greater freedom. I'm 90% LED, but occasionally buy an incandescent... the light's better, and fluorescents/halogens are a terrible alternative to either.

                  The problem is where do we draw the line? You want to buy incandescent light bulbs, others have different infringements that are a bridge too far.

                  So very often, the people who "don't want nobody to tell me what to do", and believe being told what to do about anything is an infringement on their freedom, end up paying the ultimate price. A lot of people find wearing a seat belt infringes on their freedom and are now dead. I ride a motorcycle and know people that consider wearing a helmet to be a Nasty like destruction of their freedom.

                  A friend of my wife has a nephew - something like 25 yo, who was big on his freedom. Rode his Harley al fresco, deriding my decision to wear a helmet. "Pussy, letting the man dictate to you."

                  He was in an accident, and partially recovered, but with significant brain damage. Lives on SSI, will never be able to live alone. And cannot be licensed any more because of the brain damage. No motorcycling that he loved so much, But now that he's going to live off my tax dollars for his future (before the accident, he thought people who lived on the dole were lazy black people and communists, and needed to get a job or else. I think the else was some second amendment solution to the problem of those lazy people.

                  Irony abounds, for the poor guy. Lost his freedoms because of what he considered his freedom.

            • by Z80a ( 971949 )

              We don't actually use red and green leds for the white light.
              It's a phosphor that converts blue light to white.

          • by mspohr ( 589790 )

            Still butt hurt about light bulbs?

          • by Joviex ( 976416 )

            I'm not saying something similar is happening here, but remember that governments are usually slow to react

            So, its not happening here, and you are using garbage strawman arguments about events in the past to apply int he future.

            YOU are actually the problem in our society, continually giving air to the ignorant.

            • I'm saying that I don't know if that is what's happening here, which is the difference. What am I supposed to do, exactly? Read the article?! This is Slashdot, where half the comments aren't based on facts! Well, my own comments, anyway!

        • by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Friday October 01, 2021 @01:36PM (#61851617)

          It's simple.
          These corporations don't want to pay taxes.
          They have no "social conscience" so they don't have any inhibitions about taking actions which are destroying our environment.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01, 2021 @11:50AM (#61851287)

        Not all 'plans' or 'proposals' are feasible or reasonable. Just putting a popular name on an action does not make it the best solution or even a good attempt. When not even one party can agree, then maybe a closer look at a proposal is needed to improve it.

        So sick of 'professional journalists' simply kneejerk childish writing simply based on names of actions without any serious discussion or concern about the details.

        An unreasonable or unfeasible climate bill is one thing. Financially backing business groups whose mission is to fight any climate legislation is another thing.

        These companies have openly called for [scientificamerican.com] strong climate legislation [cnbc.com]. They [marketwatch.com] have supported [cnbc.com] Biden's climate bill [wemeanbusi...lition.org] and its goals [apnews.com].

        Yet when contacted by The Guardian regarding their support for these businesses fighting the climate bill? "None of the companies contacted by the Guardian would rebuke the stance of the lobby groups they are part of and none said they would review their links to these groups."

        Even before Biden became president, before he announced his climate plan [nytimes.com] back in early February of this year, these companies were doing little to support actual climate change policy. So much for putting their money where their mouths are [theguardian.com]. Only 6% of their lobbying dollars went towards fighting climate change.

        Apple, Amazon, Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Facebook and Microsoft poured about $65m into lobbying in 2020, but an average of only 6% of their lobbying activity between July 2020 and June 2021 was related to climate policy, according to an analysis from the thinktank InfluenceMap, which tracked companies’ self-reported lobbying on federal legislation.

      • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

        That is 3.5T over 10 years (assuming this bill is even passed at that level of funding). I think the US can handle spending an extra $350 billion a year. All they really need to do is stop building tanks that the Pentagon says they don't need and you would be well on your way there.

    • by mysidia ( 191772 )

      I mean it would be awful if these companies only made 60 billion dollars instead of 80 billions dollars.

      Yes... 80 to 60 would mean that there is a 20 billion difference, which equates to a 25% direct loss: that comes from the pockets of employees/workers, and jobs to be cut, and shareholders such as peoples' retirement plans - Actually lose not only the difference but the future value change result that difference over time which is a much larger amount.

      • by mspohr ( 589790 )

        Actually, that money comes out of the pockets of the business owners.
        Corporations already are squeezing employees to the max so they can't cut costs further there.

        • by mysidia ( 191772 )

          Corporations already are squeezing employees to the max so they can't cut costs further there.

          Not true that companies' management can't cut costs further there. It's quite possible they reduce the number of employees or cutback on expanding numbers of employees and switch to alternative solutions involving the hiring of less humans -- the PHBs are more prone to take steps like that in the event that revenue expectation is not being met: The lesser your revenue is, the fewer employees you can justify

      • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

        I assumed the OP was referring to net profits. There aren't very many businesses that split the net profits with the employees/workers. There also shouldn't need to be any job loses if you are talking net profits unless the execs/owners are so greedy that they can't survive on ONLY $60 billion.

      • by Toonol ( 1057698 )
        People think that all excess revenue is going into some rich guy's huge pockets. It's almost painful how poorly they understand how economics and finance works.
      • You do understand that when you make 80 billion you're talking about profit. Otherwise you didn't make money. So no, there is no reason these corporations would need to cut any thing or even raise prices. Companies like Apple and Microsoft are sitting on hundreds of billions in cash.

        So the whole rest of your point is moot. Nothing is lost, the company doesn't even lose value as that is speculatory in the first place.

        • by mysidia ( 191772 )

          when you make 80 billion you're talking about profit. Otherwise you didn't make money.
          So no, there is no reason these corporations would need to cut any thing or even raise prices

          This is false. The value of a business is mostly their ability to generate profits, That + the liquidation value on their assets minus liabilities.

          Reduction in even profit is a major problem, examples if Apple's profits were simply to be slashed down to $1 Billion a year with no significant growth: that would basically Destroy 94%

    • Just being for reducing carbon emissions doesn't mean you have to support every single "climate legislation" regardless of what the rules are. There are plenty of bad ideas in fight carbon emissions. If I suggest we reduce traffic deaths by saying no one should drive anymore starting tomorrow, you wouldn't support that... but an article like this would be written about you saying you were a liar about your previous beliefs, inconsiderate, for profit only, because you don't agree to every single thing that
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        They don't care if it's a good idea, if it will work out make things worse. They only care about their bottom line.

    • by SirSlud ( 67381 )

      I don't think Bezos can unilaterally overrule - in practice - what the entire executive and legal arm of an Amazon is tasked with trying to do. So while he can recognize the magnitude of the problem, he's not the one that can just wave his hands and make an entire cooperate apparatus suddenly ambivalent towards regulatory threats to maximizing profit and minimizing costs.

      Like - maybe on paper he could? I profess to not knowing exactly the extent of his executive power as it pertains to things that would be

    • "I mean it would be awful if these companies only made 60 billion dollars instead of 80 billions dollars"

      That's not how publicly traded companies work. Every decision is about making money and always lens towards the decision that improves their quarterly numbers over long term numbers.
    • I haven't read the bill or even it's summary, but something tells me that if it's worth 3.5tn, then there's probably a lot of stuff in there that has nothing to do with the climate, so it would be very disingenuous to simply claim that they're opposed to a climate bill.

    • Let us all remove our hats and offer a moment of silence for how much these companies have truly suffered in these trying times.

      While you have your hats off the least you could do is have someone pass one of the hats around and take a collection to help recover some of that lost 20 billion in sales.

    • No. It is just propaganda. It is not a climate bill. It is a complete dishonest deranged disaster only lunatics would support.

  • But these leading companies, and others, either support or actively steer the very lobby groups that are attempting to sink the bill that carries the weight of Joe Biden's ambitions to tackle the climate crisis, threatening one of the last major legislative efforts that will help decide whether parts of the world plunge into a new, barely livable climatic state.

    Simple. It's about control. They want to deal with climate change on their own terms. Not one's set by an external body like a government. There's also no accountability if they fail to mean their promises.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    I'm in my mid 50's right now. If this fuckery continues, which to all indications it's going to, is the world going to become too fucked-up to reasonably live in before I'm dead? Or am I going to have to live through all the cataclysmic, apocalyptic bullshit that corporations and dumbshit humans have inflicted on the world?
    • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      Current predictions are between 4% and 10% loss of global GDP growth (from around 300% expected) by year 2010.

      But you might die from heart attack from all the stress.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 )

        Wow, it must take a really long time to do all the research necessary to make those predictions.

        • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          It does. That's why we first have the data collectors, who's data is aggregated under IPCC, who's collated data can be used by economists to run against the economic factors and generate a prediction.

          Takes literally thousands to tens of thousands of people working full time to generate this data.

      • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        For those unaware of the obvious, climate target benchmark today and for the last twenty years is "by the end of the century" i.e. 2100. There's an obvious typo above.

    • If we say "yes you will live long enough to suffer the environmental cataclysm," will that motivate you to get up and do something about it?

  • by groobly ( 6155920 ) on Friday October 01, 2021 @11:11AM (#61851103)

    They talk the talk, but when it comes to money, reality begins to set in. Namely, they apparently recognize that this will irreparably damage the economy for years to come, including these companies' bottom lines, and in the end there will be no effect on the climate.

    Politicians are actually running on promises that they will improve the weather.

    • Won't necessarily damage our economies any more than the New Deal & other post-Great Depression economic strategies did. It'll be a large shift in how we produce & consume energy & goods with winners & losers. I'm guessing that Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Disney, et al. think that they'll be the losers in this.
      • Won't necessarily damage our economies any more than the New Deal

        We're STILL suffering the consequences of the "new deal".

  • by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Friday October 01, 2021 @11:13AM (#61851113)

    Capitalism rewards profit above all else. Our "democracy" has been corrupted by allowing corporations to bribe politicians to take actions that are detrimental to all of us.
    Corporations are not immoral, they are just amoral and that allows them to act without conscience. They have been compared to a psychopathic person.
    Time to reel in their "rights".
    - Antitrust - Break up monopolies
    - Political bribes - Outlaw corporate political lobbying and contributions
    - Strengthen regulation

    • You're mixing bad politics with capitalism. You can have capitalism with the government punishing bad companies, monopolies, etc. In communism, you don't even have a chance to buy something from a company, or even a chance to buy something.
      • by mspohr ( 589790 )

        Yes.
        What I proposed are steps that could be taken to improve capitalism in the US where it has evolved into a kind of neoliberal corporate kleptocracy. Best to work to improve this system in the US.
        Socialism and communism have also succumbed to these same problems so are not immune. The Nordic social democracies (recently joined by Germany) seem to do a much better job of keeping the capitalists under control.

    • by JBMcB ( 73720 )

      Capitalism rewards profit above all else.

      *Capitalism* rewards those who generate goods or services that people want.

      What we have now is a system that rewards those the most who can convince the government to hand taxpayers money over to them. The pharmaceutical companies didn't make the COIVD vaccines for free. Remember when the federal reserve bailed out the banks by giving them billions of dollars? Did you get any of that money? That period just happened to coincide with the largest growth of disparity between the rich and poor.

      "Build Back Bette

      • by mspohr ( 589790 )

        Capitalism rewards business owners who can convince people to buy stuff and who can keep their cost of production low by ignoring externalities (such as their contribution to climate change) and paying people less. (Move to a developing country and this is much easier.)
        Capitalists are happy to take government money as well as your money as long as they can avoid social costs.

    • I'm going to assume for a minute that this person is American because they felt no need to add an identifier to their post.

      Don't worry about your democracy. You don't have one any longer. It's a polite fiction tolerated by (specifically) the Republicans as long as the benefits accrue to them. Now that they do not, democracy is to be circumvented, waylaid, and ultimately discarded.

  • With the government setting the level of acceptable level of being "green" it dilutes their claims of greenness. Everyone is green now. I honestly would rather see businesses pressuring each other to be the most climate aware and active then have the gov set the minimum acceptable level because they can just all say they are compliant and we don't need to do any more.
  • Wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Friday October 01, 2021 @11:17AM (#61851139)

    The business groups in question, whatever the heck that means, are opposed to the 3.5 trillion bill. The climate change part is an anecdote in that bill. It is disingenuous to claim someone is anti climate change when actually they are opposed to other aspects of this massive bill. The 3.5 trillion bill is being framed as anti climate change, when we know it has little to do with that. The bill has infrastructure, healthcare, education, and child care. Maybe the business groups are opposed to central government based solutions to those problems.

    • by Cinder6 ( 894572 )

      It's not disingenuous. It's pure propaganda.

    • The business groups in question, whatever the heck that means, are opposed to the 3.5 trillion bill. The climate change part is an anecdote in that bill. It is disingenuous to claim someone is anti climate change when actually they are opposed to other aspects of this massive bill. The 3.5 trillion bill is being framed as anti climate change, when we know it has little to do with that. The bill has infrastructure, healthcare, education, and child care. Maybe the business groups are opposed to central govern

    • by mspohr ( 589790 )

      Business groups are opposed to paying taxes.
      They don't want to pay for anything... healthcare, education, child care, etc.
      Since businesses have done nothing to improve healthcare, education, child care, etc., it is left to the government to try to pick up the pieces here.

  • Dishonest smear (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sinij ( 911942 ) on Friday October 01, 2021 @11:17AM (#61851141)
    Yes, they must oppose $3.5 TRILLION unfunded spending bill because of climate change, and not because this economy-destroying deficit will result in inflation, higher taxes, job losses and inevitably less consumer spending toward their products.
    • Do away with tariffs. [nytimes.com] Let the tap flow free.

    • by boskone ( 234014 )

      Exactly. Most of these companies are investing real piles of money and research into meaningful green initiatives, but there are a LOT of really, really destructive things in that bill besides the inflation and job killing price tag.

      • by mspohr ( 589790 )

        Republicans and their corporate masters didn't worry about the deficit and inflation when they passed Trumps massive tax cuts on the wealthy.
        But now, they don't want to pay for things like education and health care.

        • by sinij ( 911942 )
          What percentage of $3,500,000,000,000 in that bill goes directly toward funding education and health care?
          • by mspohr ( 589790 )

            I don't know. You could googleit.
            It seems to be too much since that's what some people are complaining loudly about.

    • ... deficit will result in ...

      But a deficit caused by not taxing corporations doesn't have any negative effects, you mean. Reagan, Bush jnr, Trump have all proved the Laffer curve is not a universal economic consequence, that most times, it doesn't apply.

  • by Junta ( 36770 ) on Friday October 01, 2021 @11:25AM (#61851165)

    In one corner, the US government, notorious for giving a piece of legislation a very marketable name and tucking all manner of nuance, unrelated riders, and in some cases actually undermining the effort named by the title.

    In the other corner, a bunch of companies that all love Greenwashing or other responsible seeming behavior... so long as it doesn't cost anything or is vaguely risky to them.

  • by Arethan ( 223197 ) on Friday October 01, 2021 @11:28AM (#61851181) Journal

    This post is devoid of any specific details that would lend it any credibility.

    But these leading companies, and others, either support or actively steer the very lobby groups

    Cool beans. Can you name literally even one of those lobby groups? Can you show us how you made such a linkage?

    Thanks for sharing your opinion.

  • I hope it passes. When this many companies come out against something, especially the big tech companies, it is prolly a good deal for the common peoples.
  • by bb_matt ( 5705262 ) on Friday October 01, 2021 @11:45AM (#61851267)

    I sure don't.

    I hate to be a pessimistic, glass half full kinda guy, but ... I think we're screwed.

    Cop 26 will come and go, marked by the fact that many developing countries are unrepresented, marked by a lot of 'blah blah blah', some high-fives, backslapping and big words.

    Then, pretty much nothing will happen.

    We will likely tip over 1.5c by or before 2028 and 2c by the middle of the century, possibly even as early as 2040 - depends on tipping points.

    When will something happen?

    Well, when it really is too late. It just seems to be human nature to leave a looming crisis till the last moment.

    The best analogy I can think of, is a dangerous road intersection where people have said for years "there's going to be a major accident here, let's fix it now"
    Nothing gets done.
    There's a major road accident.
    It gets fixed.

    The problem is, the climate breakdown isn't actually 'fixable' as it stands - the only hope we are clutching to, is that we can limit the inevitable damage it will cause.

    Yeah, we're fucked. Enjoy the next decade, after that, it's going to get very nasty...

    • by sinij ( 911942 )
      Speaking of complex models and small self-selecting field of experts, how often economic models accurately predict the future and how often interventions (e.g., Greenspan) based on such models result in unanticipated harm?
  • Or is the summary just someone's fantasy posting?
    • Or is the summary just someone's fantasy posting?

      Its coming from yet another bullshit Guardian article I won't link to.
      If the Guardian likes that bill so much let them pay for it

  • While I don't believe it's possible to overestimate corporate greed, especially with that list of characters, it's also entirely possible that people oppose the bill because at some point SOME grownup in the room has to point out that we can't just can't keep writing checks with money we don't have.

    We're already the wealthiest people in the history of people, and we can't afford all the programs we want.

    The idea that the US gov't can spend ANOTHER $3.5 trn on essentially a Democratic wishlist without massiv

    • Isn't this what the debt limit showdown is about? Congress keeps writing checks they know they don't have the tax revenue or borrowing ability to pay for. Does anyone know how much of the $3.5 trillion are actually about climate change?
  • Everyone should oppose that 3.5 Trillion dollar spending bill.
    It is an insane level of spending, just shoveling truckloads of money to their special interest groups.

  • The $3.5 trillion is a catch of all for the Democrat's wet dreams. There is pretty much everything they've wanted in their over the past decades. It's not a "climate bill", though it does contain climate change initiatives. One of them is an incentive for electric cars that shits on Toyota, Tesla and Honda that make domestic EVs, but with non-union labor. The highest incentives only go to union shops. So, if you are against the bill because you think climate change is too important to be used as a playthin
    • The $3.5 trillion is a catch of all for the Democrat's wet dreams. There is pretty much everything they've wanted in their over the past decades.

      It's not a "climate bill", though it does contain climate change initiatives. One of them is an incentive for electric cars that shits on Toyota, Tesla and Honda that make domestic EVs, but with non-union labor. The highest incentives only go to union shops. So, if you are against the bill because you think climate change is too important to be used as a plaything by labor unions, you are evil and want to destroy the planet.

      Of if you are against the many "human infrastructure" provisions in the bill, you are against climate change.

      Of course Democrats could split each initiative into it's own bill and let it rise or fall on it's own...but they know they wouldn't be able to get half of it passed. So they play games with our climate to try and cram in all their other spending and to pay back their friends. We should not allow it to stand!

      It's the typical Washington game.

      Create a bill that spends $5,000,000,000 on pork projects for lobbyists and $50,000 on baby food and call it "Feed the starving babies act".

      Then when your political opponents vote against it you say "My opponent wants to starve babies".

  • Its quite possible to be in favor of reducing climate change, but be opposed to a specific approach to doing so. Have these companies said what it is about this particular bill that they don't want?
    • Its quite possible to be in favor of reducing climate change, but be opposed to a specific approach to doing so. Have these companies said what it is about this particular bill that they don't want?

      Yes. It is a massive spending bill that will increase taxes while killing the economy and jobs.

  • the $3.5T contains funding for other stuff too. Like free community college and subsidized child-care. Are we sure that the companies cited object to the climate part?
  • So one /. member posts another /. member's comments, as if this somehow lends legitimacy to the comments. A classic technique to push a narrative. The current budget bill being referred to is not a "Climate Bill".

    "America's most prominent companies...are backing business groups that are fighting landmark climate legislation, despite their own promises to combat the climate crisis."

    First, let's see proof of this rather than some a-hole saying so. Second, let's see what it is they oppose rather than take so

  • The bill takes several craptons of TAXPAYER money and gives it to other countries at which point it will disappear into a bureaucratic black hole while simultaneously raising the costs of everything the TAXPAYERS spend what money they have left on. At least the largest American companies have the good sense to understand this.

  • doesn't mean they will share the same path. Or recognize when a proposed path is in fact insane, bordering on suicidal.

He who steps on others to reach the top has good balance.

Working...