9 ms·

Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

81 points by davidodio 5y ago

_red 5y ago
>Lets strip mine 1000s of tons of rock to get lithium batteries and charge them with coal and claim the cars are climate friendly! works about as well as their 'self-driving' shtick
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  Coal plants are closing down (and the planned ones are being canceled: https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1437704409048358919/photo/1 https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1437704409048358919/ph...). And any EV charged with non-coal electricity is far more climate friendly than ICE https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/jec/activities/wtw https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/jec/activities/wtw, and with improvements in battery production, EV design and more renewable energy on the grid everywhere, it just gets better year over year. What's your point?
  - 1234letshaveatw 5y ago
    I always have appreciated the fact that EVs are future proof- older model vehicles can benefit from clean energy advances in power generation. Today my car may be partially coal powered but tomorrow it could be ??? Compare that to ICE MPG improvements like start-stop tech, while it is a neat development it does nothing for older vehicles
- bratcomplex 5y ago
  once it’s out out the ground it’s life cycle is nearly infinite(in our time frame reference) and isn’t single use. Battery’s have a very very long lifecycle befor turned back into new batteries. And it’s more efficient to burn fossil fuels in a power plant to power a ev than it is to burn them directly in a vehicle. but yes self driving space is scam
- epistasis 5y ago
  Lithium is not typically mined from rock today, though it may be in the future. And "concerns" about that mining would carry far more weight if there was also concern about one or both of 1) extracting 1000s of tons of rock for steel and other parts of car manufacturing, or 2) extracting many multiples of that from the earth in the form of fossil fuels, which end up in the atmosphere and change the climate. If a typical car travels for 200,000 miles, and gets 30mpg, then that car will consume 47,000 pounds of gasoline (requiring even more oil extraction), and emit 128,000 pounds of CO2 in its lifetime. Though all of my personal political effort is directed at ways for people to live their lives with less car and still live their life as happy or happier, I find gripes about lithium extraction to be completely counterproductive to my goals. For all their faults, EVs' extraction of lithium is an order of magnitude better than the alternative and the status quo. And the people complaining about lithium are not proposing anything better, the are proposing sticking with fossil fuels.
  - otikik 5y ago
    > If a typical car travels for 200,000 miles, and gets 30mpg, then that car will consume 47,000 pounds of gasoline (requiring even more oil extraction), and emit 128,000 pounds of CO2 in its lifetime. For non-imperialists: If a typical car travels for 320,000 kilometers, and gets 13km/l, then that car will consume 25,000 liters of gasoline (requiring even more oil extraction), and emit 58,000 Kgs of CO2 in its lifetime.
SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
We need to be very skeptical of arguments that say “only X%” without explaining what they think the number should be and why. Is there any value of X where this article would not have been written?
- epistasis 5y ago
  Maybe 25-50%, or so? The $65M denominator on that percentage is also very low compared to typical industries, so the combination of low percentage and low denominator sticks out. Though I tend to credit tech for not lobbying a ton, unilateral disarmament is not always viewed positively. Also, the only reason this editorial/article is being written at all is that tech is viewed as "friendly" and amenable to persuasion. Though I do find it offensive that the tech companies are members of the Chamber of Commerce without refuting the Chamber's bad actions. That would be free! In fact, that's probably the biggest red flag for me in the article. It is not anti-business to support climate action, quite the opposite. Yet somehow the Chamber pushes forward ridiculous and outdated politics that will harm most business in the end, while only benefitting fossil fuel companies and investors. Tech really needs to stand up to bad organizations, or drop their membership. Their membership is a political action that is in direct contradiction to their stated goals.
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    > Also, the only reason this editorial/article is being written at all is that tech is viewed as "friendly" and amenable to persuasion. Well, I agree with that, but I think this implies that the article is disinformation. The author knows that millions of dollars spent on climate policy advocacy is pretty good compared to a lot of businesses; she writes "their engagement is almost nonexistent" not because that's an accurate assessment, but because she was paid to frame it this way by a climate policy group (https://www.theclimatepledge.com/us/en/Signatories https://www.theclimatepledge.com/us/en/Signatories) which four of the five companies haven't joined. (Did you see the sponsored content tag? I didn't the first time through!)
michaelt 5y ago
It's always struck me as odd how many other industries have managed to get many staunch defenders among our rulers, while the tech industry seems so powerless, in comparison. Loads of senators are happy to side with oil companies and deny climate change, in spite of all the evidence and threat to the planet. No-one among legislators is in favour of pointless bureaucracy - and yet tax preparation software companies are somehow able to get legislative support for making the process more difficult and block efforts to make it easier. And no politicians are publicly pro-subsidy or pro-unhealthy-food - yet they're happy to give loads of public money to the corn industry. Hell, go back a few decades and the government will literally invade countries on behalf of banana importers, of all things. Why is it other industries have such vast power, while the Tech industry - some of the richest corporations in the world - can't even get the Bay Area to build some houses?
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  I see the opposite, big tech is massively benefiting from the lack of regulation of whatever kind so their interest is to lobby politicians to sit on their ass instead. I mean there is a huge assymetry between the regulation of the press and the non-regulation of the digital press which disguises itself as communication media, or the lack of any kind of gig work regulation. It's like the law is lagging 20 years behind , which is like eons in the digital age. And if they cared about the housing situation they 'd have turned the workers to remote long before covid. In fact i d wager many of the tech millionaires benefit from the high prices of their own real estate investments. Plus the high prices ensure a continuous churn of eager immigrant workers, concentrated in a small area.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  When you have legislators going to $35k/meal events while wearing ‘tax the rich’ clothing, you get the clear sense it’s all a nihilistic game.
  - PoignardAzur 5y ago
    Assuming you're referring to AOC going to the MET Gala, I feel you're implying she spent $35k of taxpayer money to get there, while she was in fact invited. Calling it "nihilistic" is a bit strong considering the robe matches her policy positions and congress votes.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
>Tech companies, which have some of the deepest pockets in corporate America, have been racing to come out with increasingly ambitious climate pledges. Amazon has a target to be net zero by 2040 and to power its operations with 100% renewable energy by 2025, and Facebook has a target of net zero emissions for its entire supply chain by 2030. >In 2020, Microsoft pledged to become carbon negative by 2030 and by 2050 to have removed all the carbon the company has ever emitted. Apple has committed to become carbon neutral across its whole supply chain by 2030. >And Google has pledged to power its operations with 100% carbon-free energy by 2030, without using renewable certificates to offset any fossil-generated power. “The science is clear, we have until 2030 to chart a sustainable course for our planet or face the worst consequences of climate change,” Google and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai said in a video announcing the policy. >Yet this strong pro-climate rhetoric is not being matched by action at a policy level, according to the report. “These gigantic companies that completely dominate the stock market are not really deploying that political capital at all,” said InfluenceMap executive director Dylan Tanner. So it seems that Big Tech is actually taking concrete steps to become carbon zero, and even carbon negative. The article is complaining that they are not spending enough money lobbying for climate legislation. I actually think that they are doing the right thing, taking concrete steps to prevent adding more carbon, and actually removing carbon from the atmosphere (Microsoft). And they are at least spending some money lobbying for more climate policy. However, with regards to climate policy, most governments are where pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by actual action (see Paris Accords, for example). I think Big Tech is actually doing a lot better than a lot of other institutions.
- cure 5y ago
  > So it seems that Big Tech is actually taking concrete steps to become carbon zero, and even carbon negative. The article is complaining that they are not spending enough money lobbying for climate legislation. Yes. It is good that they are cleaning up their own house, but to avoid the worst of the climate crisis we need all the leverage we can get. We are out of time, we need to act now. In other words, big tech also needs to step up their lobbying, because federal legislation is the biggest lever we have.
Proven 5y ago
Of course, why would it be? The idea is to get past all the government-imposed nonsense, improve public image in the process, and get on with one's business. (Honestly I don't even know why they bother with the image part, I graylist and eliminate climatist virtue-signallers when making purchasing decisions and I can't believe that on the whole they benefit from it). It seems the Guardian fanatics are upset that Big Tech doesn't believe. Compliance is a necessary, but not sufficient condition!
zohch 5y ago
... I mean ... if anyone thought that big business's support of anything is anything more than self centered, I dunno, I guess it's nice to be naive. Businesses are pro LGBT, pro-climate, pro-abortion only because they know that is where the legislative, regulatory and media power is. I would actually find it surprising if the author of this article though that big-tech's pro-climate rhetoric was founded in some deep rooted morals that the companies have.
- epistasis 5y ago
  Businesses are pro-abortions?
  - zohch 5y ago
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tripwire-texas-abortion-john-gibson-gaming-tweet/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tripwire-texas-abortion-john-gi... > "His comments disregarded the values of our whole team, our partners and much of our broader community," the company said, noting that vice president Alan Wilson is now interim CEO. If businesses aligns perfectly with establishment power structures on everything else, why would they not on this? I don't blame them, they are after all bottom feeding power hungry money grubbers, it's just what they do, they can't help it. Tripwire had no choice but to get rid of their CEO, and their CEO was naive for thinking that his opinion would be tolerated. That would basically be suicide for the business if they tolerated it as all establishment power structures would do whatever they can to penalize them. Some more: https://www.lyft.com/blog/posts/defending-drivers-and-womens-access-to-healthcare https://www.lyft.com/blog/posts/defending-drivers-and-womens... > This law is incompatible with people’s basic rights to privacy, our community guidelines, the spirit of rideshare, and our values as a company.
    - epistasis 5y ago
      People who were against the PATRIOT act were not "pro-terrorism" and similarly being opposed to this sort of law certainly doesn't mean that one is "pro-abortion."
  - 5y ago
r0f1 5y ago
Question from an unknowing European: Lobbying on federal legislation is something that is allowed?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thehappypm 5y ago
  What is "lobbying"? Lobbying is a process where subject-matter experts discuss policy with lawmakers. Lawmakers are not necessarily experts in 100% of topics, are they? So the industries have experts that lawmakers talk to. And of course, these industries make political contributions. With no lobbyists, lawmakers are likely to be fairly clueless. With too much money and influence, lobbyists really call the shots, and Congress is basically subservient to them. There's a space in between where lawmakers are informed but don't owe lobbyists anything.
  - r0f1 5y ago
    Thanks for this explanation :)
    - thehappypm 5y ago
      You’re welcome! I remember being confused by the concept as well, and now I feel more informed.
- burkaman 5y ago
  Yes. It's allowed in Europe too.
- campl3r 5y ago
  Lobbying isn't something that's not done I the EU or most european countries I'm aware of. Which countries are you referring to, which don't have lobbying?
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  Just like it is allowed (and officially sanctioned) in the EU
bserge 5y ago
People's pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by actions. The majority "cares" in polls, but won't lift a finger. And really, in the end what's it matter if a few million humans kick the bucket? No one's gonna miss us and there's gonna be plenty of space for everyone else.
xyzzy21 5y ago
Not just Tech ALL "ESG" is 100% fraudulent and not one bit about "Environment, Social & Governance". They are literally the very opposite of their stated morals, objectives and means. Completely "doublespeak"!

81 points by davidodio 5y ago

_red 5y ago

>Lets strip mine 1000s of tons of rock to get lithium batteries and charge them with coal and claim the cars are climate friendly! works about as well as their 'self-driving' shtick

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
Coal plants are closing down (and the planned ones are being canceled: https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1437704409048358919/photo/1 https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1437704409048358919/ph...). And any EV charged with non-coal electricity is far more climate friendly than ICE https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/jec/activities/wtw https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/jec/activities/wtw, and with improvements in battery production, EV design and more renewable energy on the grid everywhere, it just gets better year over year. What's your point?
- 1234letshaveatw 5y ago
  I always have appreciated the fact that EVs are future proof- older model vehicles can benefit from clean energy advances in power generation. Today my car may be partially coal powered but tomorrow it could be ??? Compare that to ICE MPG improvements like start-stop tech, while it is a neat development it does nothing for older vehicles
bratcomplex 5y ago
once it’s out out the ground it’s life cycle is nearly infinite(in our time frame reference) and isn’t single use. Battery’s have a very very long lifecycle befor turned back into new batteries. And it’s more efficient to burn fossil fuels in a power plant to power a ev than it is to burn them directly in a vehicle. but yes self driving space is scam
epistasis 5y ago
Lithium is not typically mined from rock today, though it may be in the future. And "concerns" about that mining would carry far more weight if there was also concern about one or both of 1) extracting 1000s of tons of rock for steel and other parts of car manufacturing, or 2) extracting many multiples of that from the earth in the form of fossil fuels, which end up in the atmosphere and change the climate. If a typical car travels for 200,000 miles, and gets 30mpg, then that car will consume 47,000 pounds of gasoline (requiring even more oil extraction), and emit 128,000 pounds of CO2 in its lifetime. Though all of my personal political effort is directed at ways for people to live their lives with less car and still live their life as happy or happier, I find gripes about lithium extraction to be completely counterproductive to my goals. For all their faults, EVs' extraction of lithium is an order of magnitude better than the alternative and the status quo. And the people complaining about lithium are not proposing anything better, the are proposing sticking with fossil fuels.
- otikik 5y ago
  > If a typical car travels for 200,000 miles, and gets 30mpg, then that car will consume 47,000 pounds of gasoline (requiring even more oil extraction), and emit 128,000 pounds of CO2 in its lifetime. For non-imperialists: If a typical car travels for 320,000 kilometers, and gets 13km/l, then that car will consume 25,000 liters of gasoline (requiring even more oil extraction), and emit 58,000 Kgs of CO2 in its lifetime.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago

We need to be very skeptical of arguments that say “only X%” without explaining what they think the number should be and why. Is there any value of X where this article would not have been written?

epistasis 5y ago
Maybe 25-50%, or so? The $65M denominator on that percentage is also very low compared to typical industries, so the combination of low percentage and low denominator sticks out. Though I tend to credit tech for not lobbying a ton, unilateral disarmament is not always viewed positively. Also, the only reason this editorial/article is being written at all is that tech is viewed as "friendly" and amenable to persuasion. Though I do find it offensive that the tech companies are members of the Chamber of Commerce without refuting the Chamber's bad actions. That would be free! In fact, that's probably the biggest red flag for me in the article. It is not anti-business to support climate action, quite the opposite. Yet somehow the Chamber pushes forward ridiculous and outdated politics that will harm most business in the end, while only benefitting fossil fuel companies and investors. Tech really needs to stand up to bad organizations, or drop their membership. Their membership is a political action that is in direct contradiction to their stated goals.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  > Also, the only reason this editorial/article is being written at all is that tech is viewed as "friendly" and amenable to persuasion. Well, I agree with that, but I think this implies that the article is disinformation. The author knows that millions of dollars spent on climate policy advocacy is pretty good compared to a lot of businesses; she writes "their engagement is almost nonexistent" not because that's an accurate assessment, but because she was paid to frame it this way by a climate policy group (https://www.theclimatepledge.com/us/en/Signatories https://www.theclimatepledge.com/us/en/Signatories) which four of the five companies haven't joined. (Did you see the sponsored content tag? I didn't the first time through!)

michaelt 5y ago

It's always struck me as odd how many other industries have managed to get many staunch defenders among our rulers, while the tech industry seems so powerless, in comparison. Loads of senators are happy to side with oil companies and deny climate change, in spite of all the evidence and threat to the planet. No-one among legislators is in favour of pointless bureaucracy - and yet tax preparation software companies are somehow able to get legislative support for making the process more difficult and block efforts to make it easier. And no politicians are publicly pro-subsidy or pro-unhealthy-food - yet they're happy to give loads of public money to the corn industry. Hell, go back a few decades and the government will literally invade countries on behalf of banana importers, of all things. Why is it other industries have such vast power, while the Tech industry - some of the richest corporations in the world - can't even get the Bay Area to build some houses?

cblconfederate 5y ago
I see the opposite, big tech is massively benefiting from the lack of regulation of whatever kind so their interest is to lobby politicians to sit on their ass instead. I mean there is a huge assymetry between the regulation of the press and the non-regulation of the digital press which disguises itself as communication media, or the lack of any kind of gig work regulation. It's like the law is lagging 20 years behind , which is like eons in the digital age. And if they cared about the housing situation they 'd have turned the workers to remote long before covid. In fact i d wager many of the tech millionaires benefit from the high prices of their own real estate investments. Plus the high prices ensure a continuous churn of eager immigrant workers, concentrated in a small area.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
When you have legislators going to $35k/meal events while wearing ‘tax the rich’ clothing, you get the clear sense it’s all a nihilistic game.
- PoignardAzur 5y ago
  Assuming you're referring to AOC going to the MET Gala, I feel you're implying she spent $35k of taxpayer money to get there, while she was in fact invited. Calling it "nihilistic" is a bit strong considering the robe matches her policy positions and congress votes.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

>Tech companies, which have some of the deepest pockets in corporate America, have been racing to come out with increasingly ambitious climate pledges. Amazon has a target to be net zero by 2040 and to power its operations with 100% renewable energy by 2025, and Facebook has a target of net zero emissions for its entire supply chain by 2030. >In 2020, Microsoft pledged to become carbon negative by 2030 and by 2050 to have removed all the carbon the company has ever emitted. Apple has committed to become carbon neutral across its whole supply chain by 2030. >And Google has pledged to power its operations with 100% carbon-free energy by 2030, without using renewable certificates to offset any fossil-generated power. “The science is clear, we have until 2030 to chart a sustainable course for our planet or face the worst consequences of climate change,” Google and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai said in a video announcing the policy. >Yet this strong pro-climate rhetoric is not being matched by action at a policy level, according to the report. “These gigantic companies that completely dominate the stock market are not really deploying that political capital at all,” said InfluenceMap executive director Dylan Tanner. So it seems that Big Tech is actually taking concrete steps to become carbon zero, and even carbon negative. The article is complaining that they are not spending enough money lobbying for climate legislation. I actually think that they are doing the right thing, taking concrete steps to prevent adding more carbon, and actually removing carbon from the atmosphere (Microsoft). And they are at least spending some money lobbying for more climate policy. However, with regards to climate policy, most governments are where pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by actual action (see Paris Accords, for example). I think Big Tech is actually doing a lot better than a lot of other institutions.

cure 5y ago
> So it seems that Big Tech is actually taking concrete steps to become carbon zero, and even carbon negative. The article is complaining that they are not spending enough money lobbying for climate legislation. Yes. It is good that they are cleaning up their own house, but to avoid the worst of the climate crisis we need all the leverage we can get. We are out of time, we need to act now. In other words, big tech also needs to step up their lobbying, because federal legislation is the biggest lever we have.

Proven 5y ago

Of course, why would it be? The idea is to get past all the government-imposed nonsense, improve public image in the process, and get on with one's business. (Honestly I don't even know why they bother with the image part, I graylist and eliminate climatist virtue-signallers when making purchasing decisions and I can't believe that on the whole they benefit from it). It seems the Guardian fanatics are upset that Big Tech doesn't believe. Compliance is a necessary, but not sufficient condition!

zohch 5y ago

... I mean ... if anyone thought that big business's support of anything is anything more than self centered, I dunno, I guess it's nice to be naive. Businesses are pro LGBT, pro-climate, pro-abortion only because they know that is where the legislative, regulatory and media power is. I would actually find it surprising if the author of this article though that big-tech's pro-climate rhetoric was founded in some deep rooted morals that the companies have.

epistasis 5y ago
Businesses are pro-abortions?
- zohch 5y ago
  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tripwire-texas-abortion-john-gibson-gaming-tweet/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tripwire-texas-abortion-john-gi... > "His comments disregarded the values of our whole team, our partners and much of our broader community," the company said, noting that vice president Alan Wilson is now interim CEO. If businesses aligns perfectly with establishment power structures on everything else, why would they not on this? I don't blame them, they are after all bottom feeding power hungry money grubbers, it's just what they do, they can't help it. Tripwire had no choice but to get rid of their CEO, and their CEO was naive for thinking that his opinion would be tolerated. That would basically be suicide for the business if they tolerated it as all establishment power structures would do whatever they can to penalize them. Some more: https://www.lyft.com/blog/posts/defending-drivers-and-womens-access-to-healthcare https://www.lyft.com/blog/posts/defending-drivers-and-womens... > This law is incompatible with people’s basic rights to privacy, our community guidelines, the spirit of rideshare, and our values as a company.
  - epistasis 5y ago
    People who were against the PATRIOT act were not "pro-terrorism" and similarly being opposed to this sort of law certainly doesn't mean that one is "pro-abortion."
- 5y ago

r0f1 5y ago

Question from an unknowing European: Lobbying on federal legislation is something that is allowed?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
thehappypm 5y ago
What is "lobbying"? Lobbying is a process where subject-matter experts discuss policy with lawmakers. Lawmakers are not necessarily experts in 100% of topics, are they? So the industries have experts that lawmakers talk to. And of course, these industries make political contributions. With no lobbyists, lawmakers are likely to be fairly clueless. With too much money and influence, lobbyists really call the shots, and Congress is basically subservient to them. There's a space in between where lawmakers are informed but don't owe lobbyists anything.
- r0f1 5y ago
  Thanks for this explanation :)
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    You’re welcome! I remember being confused by the concept as well, and now I feel more informed.
burkaman 5y ago
Yes. It's allowed in Europe too.
campl3r 5y ago
Lobbying isn't something that's not done I the EU or most european countries I'm aware of. Which countries are you referring to, which don't have lobbying?
cblconfederate 5y ago
Just like it is allowed (and officially sanctioned) in the EU

bserge 5y ago

People's pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by actions. The majority "cares" in polls, but won't lift a finger. And really, in the end what's it matter if a few million humans kick the bucket? No one's gonna miss us and there's gonna be plenty of space for everyone else.

xyzzy21 5y ago

Not just Tech ALL "ESG" is 100% fraudulent and not one bit about "Environment, Social & Governance". They are literally the very opposite of their stated morals, objectives and means. Completely "doublespeak"!