32 ms·
Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill
- fdschoeneman 5y agoThere are lots of reasons to oppose this bill; why assume climate change is the only reason? And if it's fair to assume the opposition is to the portion of these taxes and regulations meant to address climate change, why assume the opposition is to efforts to remediate climate change writ large when the opposition might just be to these specific measures? Also, why is explicitly political stuff, let alone badly written political stuff, of particular interest to the people who read hacker news? Is it a pun on hack journalism? If so, well. I get it. Kinda.
- nvr219 5y agoWhat makes this badly written?
- acomjean 5y agoThe bill doesn’t yet exist. It’s currently being negotiated because of the slim majority Democrats have in the US it needs centrists and liberal factions of the party to agree, which you’d think would be easy… but in a strange political way they’re trying to throwing everything into one bill (childcare/ healthcare/ environment ).
- fdschoeneman 5y agoUnsupported premises. Assumptions. Good writing should help us see things we didn't before. This does not.
- tlear 5y agoThe current talking points I assume. The zero cost joke did not work so this the new spiel? It is amazing that these primitive propaganda tricks work on so many otherwise smart people here.
- squabble 5y agoWhy do they put many unrelated things in the same bill? Smaller, independent pull requests seems like a better way.
- rkuykendall-com 5y agoActual answer: Because the code management system is built with certain merge restrictions: - A PR can be merged with 50 or more code reviews and approvals if it has 0 rejections - If there are any rejections, the requirement is a little more intense, at 60 or more code reviews and approvals - Once per year, one PR can be merged per year with 50 code-review approvals and any number of rejections. - The company has 100 developers and at least 41 will reject every single PR summited for review - It takes agreement of 50 developers to change the merge rules, and there are 48 or fewer who want to do so This is why there are so many unrelated changes in one PR. It's probably the only one they will be able to merge this year.
- squabble 5y agoOther than the once per year point, these all seem like reasons to make smaller PR's.
- Guthur 5y agoThis article, per usual, is creating a completely false narrative. Just by opposing a particular bill that is ostensibly aimed at controlling the climate does not mean you are opposed to all actions aligned with that bills outward goals.
- chillacy 5y agoNot just that, but the article doesn't even mention until halfway in that this bill is a 3.5TN budget bill, very much full of other non-climate proposals. Most people will read and comment on the title.
- AmericanChopper 5y agoThis has to be one of the most reprehensible pieces of flat-out propaganda I’ve seen from The Guardian.
- opheliate 5y agoLiterally in the second paragraph: > oppose the proposed $3.5tn budget bill put forward by Democrats That makes it pretty clear to me that it's a $3.5TN budget bill. Also, that sentence is a link, so it's underlined. Difficult to miss.
- fdschoeneman 5y agoThe title of the piece leaves little room for nuance.
- cm2187 5y agoI think the key part of the parent post is "very much full of other non-climate proposals", not the 3.5 number.
- cm2187 5y agoThis is unfortunately the most common form of intellectual dishonesty in newspapers. I would be curious to know the actual stats of what % of visitors read the headline, the subheadline, first paragraph, and last paragraph. I would bet something like 100%, 60%, 30%, 5%. So the favorite way for journalists to lie is to bury deep in the article the facts that contradict or mitigate the headline, so the article technically has the facts somewhere, but the vast majority of readers will be misled nevertheless.
- blue_box 5y agoBefore blaming them, we should ask why they are against it. “provide payments to prop up carbon-free nuclear energy” I would be also against a bill that includes this.
- drusepth 5y agoAre you against carbon-free nuclear energy, or against payments propping such energy up?
- lordlic 5y agoThe article says why. The US Chamber of Commerce has fought tooth and nail against climate legislation because they view themselves as "job creators" and see anything that threatens corporate profits as an existential threat to society. They've only recently been forced to admit that climate change even exists, but it's still like pulling teeth because they insist that any solutions have to be technology driven from the private sector, with no mandates whatsoever from government. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chamber_of_Commerce#Climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chamber_of_Comme... and try to keep from retching.
- Lammy 5y ago> they view themselves as "job creators" and see anything that threatens corporate profits as an existential threat to society On a totally unrelated note, just think how much activity an Arctic shipping corridor could add to the globalized economy :) https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/new-unexpected-shipping-route-243485 https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/new-unexpected-shipping-r...
- throwawaysea 5y agoCould you explain your position? I feel like nuclear energy is one of the best options we have available for a reduction in carbon emissions, with very high safety despite public fears: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_nuclear_power_is_hurting_the_environment/up-next https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_... Or is your opposition more due to the proposed subsidy?
- yoz-y 5y agoAh. The good old “let’s name the law something inopposable so anybody against it will generate clickbait headlines”.
- rc_mob 5y agotrademark for this tactic is owed by Fox News
- aaronbrethorst 5y agoThe Build Back Better bill (or reconciliation bill) is the only real climate legislation that will plausibly be signed into law in the United States in the 2020s. It offers a meaningful path forward for the US to curb its carbon emissions. Opposing it means you oppose doing anything about mitigating the climate crisis within the United States from a federal legislative perspective within a timeframe where we can reasonably imagine stopping temperatures from increasing past 1.5° or 2.0°C. It is revenue neutral and paid for by increasing taxes on the richest Americans and corporations. That’s why Apple and Disney are opposed to it. Notably, their tax liabilities will still be lower than they were in 2017.
- refurb 5y agoNope. That’s just playing politics. “Yeah the bill has a lot of terrible parts to it, but if you don’t support it you just don’t care about the earth”. Nonsense.
- djbebs 5y agoSo its not revenue neutral.
- thomasahle 5y agoRevenue neutral doesn't mean you can't increase taxes. It just means the funding isn't based on borrowing.
- flurben 5y ago"Revenue neutral" just means a bill will not increase government revenues. edit : You can downvote me all you want, it isn't going to change the definition of the term. https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/revenue-neutral/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/revenue-neutral/
- thomasahle 5y agoI suppose you may be right that revenue-neutral is not the right word, or at least people are starting to use it in a new way focusing more on debt than tax. It is pretty clear that what Biden tweets about is the impact on debt, not taxes: https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/sep/29/can-joe-bidens-agenda-really-cost-zero-dollars-gui/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/sep/29/can-joe-biden...
- asaddhamani 5y agoWe need “unprecedented measures” to stop and reverse the “unprecedented” damage we have caused to the planet and its climate. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and if the past year of climate catastrophes has shown us anything, it’s high time we act. Yes, the proposed changes might be inconvenient but it’s time we suck it up and do the needful. Small steps are not good enough. We need drastic measures.
- aaronbrethorst 5y agoThe proposed changes include a $12,000 tax rebate on buying a new electric car, weatherization incentives for homes, and will probably include sweet deals on solar panels. Where’s the inconvenience?
- optimiz3 5y agoOnly if the vehicle is built in a union shop, which the leading EV manufacturer is not. The credit is significantly reduced otherwise. Also, gas burning PHEVs (Prius) count as EVs which is such a limp handout to legacy auto and does little to push R&D forward.
- VBprogrammer 5y agoHonestly, I'll never understand American politics. Linking a EV tax credit to unionisation just boggles my mind.
- apendleton 5y agoIt's basically a bribe -- there was pretty well-sourced reporting that UAW was going to lobby against the electric vehicle package because electric require less manufacturing labor than ICE cars do (ugh), so this was the way to buy them off. It's sort of annoying, but probably tactically the right move given how much power labor has in Democratic politics.
- 5y ago
- cliftonk 5y agoIt sounds like the bill is proposing significant tax increases and the companies are fighting the tax increases. If I put a bill forward to lower taxes and execute baby seals, corporations would vote for it.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y agoOf course, businesses will support executing baby seals. Baby seals are a source of premium leather that has nice waterproofing qualities.
- Proven 5y agoThey aren't stupid - they know how that nonsense ends. The rest of the inert, woke US enterprises should better join them ASAP before climatists run the entire world into the ground.
- Fckd 5y agoUSA along with other developed nations shamelessly asks undeveloped nations to cut their 1kw per home usage.
- akomtu 5y agoIf software was developed the way politicians pass laws, Linux would get one master commit every few years with thousands of unrelated things in it, from typo fixes to sketchy telemetry, with a 1500 pages long description, and the commit would be branded as "build security better". The review would be a months long show where maintainers of all factions with their own agendas would try to negotiate behind the closed doors. Linus would be advocating for splitting the "pile of garbage" into individual commits, but the agitated mob (who thinks Linux is a game on Xbox) would be trying to bully him on Twitter for having a different opinion.
- refurb 5y agoPlenty of laws get passed with specific language and quick votes. The difference here is that the Democrats are trying to pass a massive spending bill and have a very slim majority in the house and Senate, so they need “all hands on deck”, so they need to offer some sugar to everyone to get it passed.
- amelius 5y agoYes, but is a benevolent dictator the solution?
- sepnax 5y agoHere's what I propose, to lessen the effect of populism: The elections are held in a tournament format. People are divided into randomised brackets. People then in that bracket decide who amongst them is most fit to be a leader. This is then repeated recursively until enough politicians are selected.
- amelius 5y agoAfter a few iterations you only have "leader" personalities left, at which point things might get as ugly as politics itself.
- reillyse 5y agoIn fairness this is a feature of the American political system, the business of making laws does not have to be done this way. It’s just a sign of how dysfunctional the system is.
- Procedural 5y agoWho needs climate when you have Apple+ and Disney+
- justshowpost 5y agoAs AAPL and DIS shareholder I support the decision to not buy any more climate hoax stuff (this time its ridiculously expensive and equ[it]able bogus one)
- black_13 5y agoApple is a piece of shit. I worked in an Apple affiliated call center and this was an atrocious low paying job that took advantage of Texas’ and the then recession to get labor at bargain prices. After ten years of pulling my self from mire that was 2008 my application at Apple was put jnto quest because had quit the call center job some 8 years before. Apple came to Austin so it could avoid paying taxes it uses slave labor in china and really doesn’t have product that is that necessary. They dont pay their taxes, they over and over are not a contributor to the common good of this country.
- Jyaif 5y agoNotably absent are Google and Facebook.
- KozmoNau7 5y agoThis goes for all big corporations, all of them lie through their teeth and only care about the appearance of caring, because that's a lot more profitable than actually caring. Reduce your consumption and lifestyle. Buy as little as possible, preferably second-hand. Maintain and repair what you already own. Become politically active or at least vote for people who are not in the pockets of big business.
- Factorium 5y agoThe best solution to climate change is a price on Carbon. Anything else is just pork. If we don't want to impose a carbon price on ourselves, we can do it to others via import tariffs.
- tda 5y agoAnd preferably tax carbon as close to the source as possible (crude oil). Because leaving oil in the geound is so much easier than putting it back in.
- PartiallyTyped 5y agoShouldn't it include methane? Methane is far more potent green house gas than Co2.
- johnchristopher 5y agoLike a carbon coin ? That you get once you have proven you took out some CO2 from the atmosphere. Like in the ministry of future novel: https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-coin-climate-change-crypto https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-coin-climate-change-cryp... ?
- Broken_Hippo 5y agoI disagree: It might be part of the solution, but simply taxing carbon means that rich folks or companies can pollute. We need green methods put into law to force folks to cut their emissions and pollutants - and punish those who run afoul of the laws, including steep fines, possible business shutdowns, and personal liability/criminal charges for CEOS and other folks running the company, especially if they cover up their polluting. I'd much rather just deny good that do not meet standards. Again, tariffs just make it so moneyed folks can just pay to avoid stuff.
- wdn 5y agoExactly this. We are seeing Bill Gates telling us HOW to save the planet for being the biggest person polluter but he CAN buy carbon credit to offset his carbon footprint. Hypocrite!
- fortran77 5y agoWhere is the group of concerned Apple Employees signing a petition telling the company to stop doing _this_? C'mon Cher Scarlett!
- treebot 5y agoI don't think the climate problem can be solved without some form of authoritarianism. For most people, climate change does not affect their everyday lives. It primarily affects future generations, and non-humans. Caring about future generations is a form of long term thinking that most humans don't care for or are not capable of. Most people's long term thinking stops at their five year plan, or their kids' future. Very few people think about hundreds of years into the future, let alone thousands. Will this planet be habitable two thousand years from now? Very, very few people think that far ahead. Even less people care about the fate of non-humans. Then when you throw in the fact that a lot of people have an incentive today to fight back against measures to combat climate change, because it would reduce their profits or threaten their job, the outlook is even more hopeless. We are never going to get a majority of people on board with fighting climate change, at least not until it's affecting a majority of people's everyday lives. And by then, it will be far too late. I think the only way is for the minority, who do think long term, to seize power and impose their will on the majority. And, I have to add, because most people think authoritarianism in any form is bad, that in this situation, the authoritarianism would be good, just, appropriate and the best course of action.
- mrfusion 5y agoYikes. So scary that this is the top comment. Climate change can definitely be addressed at the corporate level with carbon taxes and even caps. No need to throw away our free and open society. The fact that your go-to is to attack human rights is terrifying.
- 5y ago
- mrfusion 5y agoIt’s such a shame there are so many things going on in one giant bill. Who knows which part of it they oppose. Wouldn’t it be nice to work on and debate one issue at a time.
- aaomidi 5y agoIt would. But then you'd need 60 votes because we refuse to get rid of the filibuster.
- loourr 5y agoIt's a complete farce to caricaturize the $3.5T reconciliation bill as a climate bill. While there are some provisions that are intended to have an impact on the climate, like EV tax credits, these are poorly constructed and reward things like hybrid cars made in mexico and assembled by unions over electric cars made in the US. It also fundamentally changes business incentives in many ways by increasing capital gains tax, increasing income tax, increasing business tax and requiring companies to take on a whole bunch of enforcement on behalf of the federal government for other social policies they would like to enact. A bill that's intended to improve the climate would look like nuclear power plant regulation reform or removal of tax credits for oil production or a carbon tax. Not some poorly constructed bill that lines the pockets of their favorite special interest groups who recently got a fresh coat of green paint. The fact that all of these companies oppose the bill should speak to how poorly constructed it is.
- HelixEndeavor 5y agoWow, you're telling me their claims of being climate friendly are just performative advertising? Who'da thunk!