[As California is pummeled by unprecedented storms and wildfires,
corporations are fighting a landmark bill exposing their true
contributions to climate change. ]
[[link removed]]

THE CLIMATE CULPRITS HIDING THEIR ROLE IN CALIFORNIA’S EXTREME
WEATHER  
[[link removed]]


 

Rebecca Burns
August 21, 2023
The Lever
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ As California is pummeled by unprecedented storms and wildfires,
corporations are fighting a landmark bill exposing their true
contributions to climate change. _

Vehicles cross over a flood control basin in Palm Desert, Calif. On
Aug. 20, 2023. , AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill

 

One of the nation’s most important climate fights is currently
playing out under the radar in California, where state residents are
weathering an unprecedented tropical storm
[[link removed]].
Oil and industry lobbying groups are spending millions in a last-ditch
attempt to block first-of-its-kind legislation that would require
thousands of large companies doing business in the state to fully
disclose their carbon emissions, a move that would effectively set
national policy.

In the final weeks of California’s legislative session, which ends
in mid-September, Assembly members are expected to vote on the climate
transparency bill. With a federal version of the measure still delayed
[[link removed]]
— and nearly certain to face lengthy legal challenges
[[link removed]]
from industry — California’s legislation could expedite a public
reckoning over corporations’ true contributions to climate change.

The bill has already passed the state Senate, and if it survives a
secretive appropriations hearing
[[link removed]]
later this month, it will go before the full Assembly — where a
previous version failed by just four votes
[[link removed]]
last year following a fierce opposition campaign.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who has been burnishing his climate
credentials
[[link removed]]
for a possible presidential run
[[link removed]],
has yet to weigh in on this year’s climate proposals in his state. A
spokesperson told _The Lever _that the governor plans to evaluate the
bill if it reaches his desk.

So far this year, industry opponents have reported spending more than
$7 million on state lobbying efforts that included attempting to
influence or nix the climate disclosure bill, according to a _Lever
_review of state records. Those opponents include gas and oil
companies, which spent more than $1 million, as well as a host of less
well-known climate culprits
[[link removed]].

Eight cement and asphalt companies, whose carbon-intensive production
processes are responsible for more global emissions
[[link removed].]
than airline travel, together spent nearly $150,000 on lobbying during
the first half of this year.

Airlines are also lobbying heavily on the bill, as are a laundry list
of household brands including almond company Blue Diamond Growers,
Coca-Cola, Costco, In-N-Out Burger, Pepsi, Rite Aid, and Walmart. If
the measure passes, all of those companies will be required, for the
first time, to calculate the carbon emissions that occur across their
value chain — not just those involved directly in their day-to-day
operations. Such indirect emissions can account
[[link removed]]
for nearly 90 percent of a company’s total carbon footprint.

Most
[[link removed].]
of
[[link removed].]
the
[[link removed]]
same
[[link removed]]
corporations
[[link removed]]
fighting
[[link removed]]
the [[link removed]] bill
[[link removed]] have already set “net-zero
commitments” — or “aspirations,”
[[link removed]]
in the parlance
[[link removed]]
of major oil companies — to dramatically cut their carbon emissions
in the coming decades. But thanks to fuzzy definitions
[[link removed]]
and accounting sleights of hand
[[link removed]],
such voluntary corporate commitments are frequently “mere
blather,” according to Michael Gerrard, the founder of Columbia
University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

Take Chevron, which has spent $150,000 this year
[[link removed]]
on lobbying, including against the disclosure bill and related
legislation. The oil and gas giant’s “2050 net-zero aspiration”
[[link removed]]
depends on “canceling out” emissions through the purchase of
so-called carbon offsets
[[link removed]]
that supposedly subsidize climate-friendly projects elsewhere. But a
recent report
[[link removed]]
concluded that more than 90 percent of those offsets should be
“presumed ‘junk’ until proven otherwise.”

“We are awash in greenwashing,” Gerrard said. “We need standards
to set forth what a legitimate net-zero commitment is.”

As Goes California

More than a year ago, the federal Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) proposed [[link removed]] rules
requiring public companies to disclose climate risks
[[link removed]]
to their bottom line, a category that encompasses everything from
manufacturing facilities in flood-prone areas to oil holdings that
could drop in value as the energy transition proceeds.

The SEC proposal stops well short of rules already on the books
[[link removed]]
in the European Union, which require companies to report the risks
that their business models pose to the broader environment
[[link removed]], not just
investors. But that approach hasn’t stopped the GOP from attacking
the proposed rule
[[link removed]]
as part of its broader war against sustainable investing
[[link removed]]
and SEC Chairman Gary Gensler
[[link removed]]
for his role in the proposal.

This month, more than 80 congressional Democrats sent a letter
[[link removed]]
to Gensler urging him to enact the new climate reporting requirements
as quickly as possible. A final rule could come this fall
[[link removed].],
but the agency is reportedly mulling
[[link removed]]
watering down its requirements. The draft rule drew a record-breaking
14,000 comments
[[link removed]] and
widespread pushback from business lobbying groups like the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce.

As its parent organization fights to kill federal rules, the
California Chamber of Commerce has led opposition to state climate
disclosure legislation on the grounds that it is “premature”
[[link removed]]
while those federal rules are pending.

The state Chamber of Commerce donated nearly $1.4 million
[[link removed]]
to candidates for state legislature last year. Defeating the climate
disclosure bill, introduced in January by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D),
is one of the group’s top priorities
[[link removed]]
this session.

Last year, the bill fell just four votes short of passage when
corporate Democrats joined with Republicans
[[link removed]]
to block it on the Assembly floor. Fourteen of the current Democratic
Assembly members who abstained or voted “no” last August have
received a total of $327,000 from gas and oil interests during the
last election cycle, according to data from the National Institute for
Money in Politics.

Donate To The Lever [[link removed]]
Three of those Democrats — Assemblymembers Joaquin Arambula, David
Alvarez, and Jacqui Irwin — changed their “yes” votes to
abstentions at the last minute, helping ensure the bill’s defeat.

Asked by _The Lever _about how he plans to vote this year, a
spokesperson for Arambula said that he was studying the bill. Alvarez
and Irwin did not respond to requests for comment.

“We feel pretty confident that we have a path to passing it,” said
Melissa Romero, senior legislative manager for California
Environmental Voters, a key backer of the plan. “But our opposition
is stacked with the most influential moneyed interests in the
state.”

Wiener’s bill would apply to more than 5,300 large companies doing
business in the state, regardless of whether they’re publicly
traded, effectively setting new nationwide standards.

Nothing in the new measures, should they pass, requires companies to
actually reduce their emissions — just to calculate and disclose
them. But past environmental regulations, including those governing
the release of toxic chemicals
[[link removed]], show that
mandatory disclosure is an important first step toward fast and
efficient decarbonization, according to Columbia University’s
Gerrard.

“It’s a very important part of the toolbox,” he said. “I have
very little sympathy for the companies that are complaining about the
burdens of this kind of disclosure. These are orders of magnitude
lower than the burdens that climate change itself is imposing.”

===

* Climate Change; Climate Transparency Bill; California Politics;
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]