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.
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.
So you're saying when it comes time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So you're saying when it comes time (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: So you're saying when it comes TIRE IRON!!! (Score:2)
As much as I dislike libtards, they seem on the whole considerably more intelligent and likeable than you.
That ugly bird crying in the youtube video
Thats you that is.
3.5T may not be best solution (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:3.5T may not be best solution (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:3.5T may not be best solution (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't actually use red and green leds for the white light.
It's a phosphor that converts blue light to white.
Re: (Score:2)
Still butt hurt about light bulbs?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm only butt hurt about the price of "Philips" Hue bulbs.
Re: (Score:2)
They price them in units of ass-pain, I believe. I would have more if not for that pricing strategy.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
You're a fucking moron if you don't understand the argument being made.
Re:3.5T may not be best solution (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Much wow!
Re:3.5T may not be best solution (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
If they could cut employee costs further, why haven't they ...
Because some forms of cuts have risks associated and maximizing growth of revenue is prioritized: management of a company in growth mode tend to want to focus on goals of increasing sales and such and see that cuts they make don't result in the effect of stymying growth you are getting and hoping for: many cuts can be saved for a later date when the value of making them becomes more pronounced giving the managers something to brag about, and th
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like some companies are running a welfare state.
They really need to tighten up.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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%
Companies are getting the SMEAR treatment (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: So you're saying when it comes time (Score:3)
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.
While you have your hat off. (Score:2)
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.
Re: So you're saying when it comes time (Score:2)
No. It is just propaganda. It is not a climate bill. It is a complete dishonest deranged disaster only lunatics would support.
Re:So you're saying when it comes time (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember way back when the "Buy American" movement? Whatever happened to that? I sure hope people "voted with their wallets" and "put their money where their mouths are". We complain about the "wealth" others have, but don't realize we fueled that wealth through our choices, or lack of. Don't like empty promises? Chose someone else to do business with.
Ah, consumerism as a form of political participation. Mmm... isn't that choosing between choices that the corporation have already chosen for you? What kind of democratic participation would that be? At least with politicians, if they turn the popular opinion against themselves, they risk losing power. I can't remember any corporate executive boards & shareholders being selected by public elections. Can you? How would you like your future to be decided by Amazon, Apple Inc., CVS Health, ExxonMobil, UnitedHealth Group, Berkshire Hathaway, McKesson Corporation, AmerisourceBergen, Alphabet Inc., et al.?
Re: (Score:2)
Buy America was driven by unions. Unions have lost a ton of power since then. Big business likes free trade, cheaper labor, etc. "Buy America" is essentially an anti big-business stance and a pro worker stance. And that causes a lot of people to spin with perpetual motion - like workers but being pro worker makes me socialist therefore I must be opposed to worker's rights but then that hurts my paycheck so therefore I must like workers, spin, spin, spin.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations were happy to move to low cost countries and screw the American worker.
As individuals, we don't have a choice. We have to buy cheap stuff from China since that's all that WalMart carries.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they can screw workers it doesn't matter what country they're in.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't see why I need to move. I like it here.
Any other place would also have evil capitalism (or evil communism; or evil xxxism) so no point in moving.
As far as buying cheap stuff from China... I don't have a choice, do I?
Never been an IT guy but I do kind of like them since they do a good job of dealing with reality.
The Outer limits. (Score:2)
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.
So how much time do we actually have? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Wow, it must take a really long time to do all the research necessary to make those predictions.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious typo. 2100 is the universal target for predictions on climate change, i.e. "by the end of the century". For example, Paris Accords climate targets are against this benchmark.
Lining up with around 300% GDP growth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
rubber hits the road (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We're STILL suffering the consequences of the "new deal".
Isn't Capitalism Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The government gave me the Internet. I'm keeping that.
Our "democracy" ... (Score:2)
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.
Re: Our "democracy" ... (Score:2)
We've never had democracy. From the beginning, it was government by and for the wealthy. It's gotten worse the last 50 years, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm more attracted to anarchism but that is irrelevant to this discussion.
We live in a capitalist kleptocracy and that is definitely not working.
Competitive advantage (Score:2)
Wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not disingenuous. It's pure propaganda.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Do away with tariffs. [nytimes.com] Let the tap flow free.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. You could googleit.
It seems to be too much since that's what some people are complaining loudly about.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know.
So it could be 0% and you would have still made that comment.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think an infrastructure bill will create any jobs?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think an infrastructure bill will create any jobs?
I am sure it will create some jobs, but with median household income in US of $68,703 for $3,500,000,000,000 it would have to create 50,943,918 jobs to make sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, whatever it takes to get ANYONE in Washington to start caring about debt.
We have to consider that Biden's first act that passed pretty easily (CARES act was it?) was trillions of dollars.
That's already gone.
They have the separate actual real infrastructure bill, with real world things the US really needs ready to go. There's some crap in there too, but it seems most of that $1.5 trillion will go to things most everyone can agree up
Well this is fun.. (Score:3)
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.
ffs, sources please?!! (Score:4, Insightful)
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 the bill passes (Score:2)
Does anyone really believe we will meet targets? (Score:3)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Link? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
misdirection (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone should oppose that bill (Score:2)
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.
Wow! Talk about misleading (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Important to know WHY they oppose it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It's not just climate, (Score:2)
Climate Bill??? (Score:2)
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
That's because it doesn't do that (Score:2)
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.
Just because they share the same goal (Score:2)
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)