Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/20/big-tech-climate-change
62 コメント
... 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.
Businesses are pro-abortions?
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...
> This law is incompatible with people’s basic rights to privacy, our community guidelines, the spirit of rideshare, and our values as a company.
> "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...
> This law is incompatible with people’s basic rights to privacy, our community guidelines, the spirit of rideshare, and our values as a company.
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."
They “believe” whatever gets them the most power in DC.
Ironically, that was where they had the most impact (because they are mass media after all and their workplace cultures are very influential). But none of these issues affect their bottom line
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"!
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"!
Question from an unknowing European: Lobbying on federal legislation is something that is allowed?
[deleted]
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.
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.
Thanks for this explanation :)
You’re welcome! I remember being confused by the concept as well, and now I feel more informed.
Yes. It's allowed in Europe too.
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?
Just like it is allowed (and officially sanctioned) in the EU
>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
works about as well as their 'self-driving' shtick
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Coal plants are closing down (and the planned ones are being canceled: 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, 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?
And any EV charged with non-coal electricity is far more climate friendly than ICE 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?
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
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
but yes self driving space is scam
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?
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.
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.
> 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) which four of the five companies haven't joined. (Did you see the sponsored content tag? I didn't the first time through!)
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) which four of the five companies haven't joined. (Did you see the sponsored content tag? I didn't the first time through!)
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?
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?
Oil basically powers the modern world. Everything from food production through material manufacturing to basic transport collapses without oil.
Food abundance, even if it's can be barely called that like corn syrup, is the most basic soma. No politician would even think risking it.
Meanwhile you could swap out Facebook for any other social network with barely any noticeable change in the economy and world. People can scroll through Twitter or Netflix instead. Big tech has very little leverage because they rely on network effects and censorship while being otherwise imminently replaceable.
That they're run by nerds doesn't help either.
Food abundance, even if it's can be barely called that like corn syrup, is the most basic soma. No politician would even think risking it.
Meanwhile you could swap out Facebook for any other social network with barely any noticeable change in the economy and world. People can scroll through Twitter or Netflix instead. Big tech has very little leverage because they rely on network effects and censorship while being otherwise imminently replaceable.
That they're run by nerds doesn't help either.
Oil powers tractors, but that can easily be electrically driven. Nitrogen Fertilizers, which is probably what you are referring to, are made using hydrogen, not oil. That hydrogen is usually produced using natural gas (again, usually not oil), but until the 1950s or so when steam reforming started to utter dominate, we tended to make it with hydropower electrolysis. There’s no fundamental reason you need oil for food abundance or transport. None whatsoever.
I think it's less that there are no viable alternatives and the very bleak consequences if food or power get screwed up. There's the saying "Nine meals between mankind and anarchy" that applies here. If you are messing with the food supply, you are playing with fire if things go sideways. People die, people starve, people riot.
So things have a strong incentive towards "if it aint broke don't fix it". You can argue a lot of it is in fact broken on some fundamental levels and the side effects of those two industries are massive but, at the moment, we have power and we have food (speaking for the US, not globally where that isn't the case).
The risk tolerance is very, very low. An unwillingness to accept any potential failure, regardless of impact, is frequently the single greatest problem for any change or reform.
So things have a strong incentive towards "if it aint broke don't fix it". You can argue a lot of it is in fact broken on some fundamental levels and the side effects of those two industries are massive but, at the moment, we have power and we have food (speaking for the US, not globally where that isn't the case).
The risk tolerance is very, very low. An unwillingness to accept any potential failure, regardless of impact, is frequently the single greatest problem for any change or reform.
The solution, then, is to build more supply. Energy austerity is never going to work. Clean energy abundance is the only possible way to a good future.
> easily
For for a couple of places yes. For the literal global economy it will take years to make the switch. I think renewable energy is great and we should definitely switch to it. But the sheer scale of the transition is enormous.
For for a couple of places yes. For the literal global economy it will take years to make the switch. I think renewable energy is great and we should definitely switch to it. But the sheer scale of the transition is enormous.
Right, and the only way to do it is to start. Action is the only thing that matters in the transition. But we should realize that it’s not at all hopeless. Post-WW2, our electricity production used to double about every decade or so, so we ARE capable of quickly scaling. We just have to BUILD.
I agree with you there, I don't agree with people that are against moving at all or even making it something important. I guess I just hear a lot of people act like the transition is trivial.
Also about the energy production doubling do you have a source?
Also about the energy production doubling do you have a source?
Yeah, from the EIA, US electricity production increased by a factor of 5.56x from 1950 to 1973. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
That’s 2.5 doublings in 23 years, or a bit better than one doubling per decade. Growth was still high after that, but doubling slowed a bit (we were running into limitations of gas and especially oil availability… we kind of stopped using oil for electricity after the 70s). Point being we absolutely can scale, particularly if we’re scaling something that is not as inherently limited as oil is. Solar in particular can scale out massively (as could nuclear if we got our act together).
That’s 2.5 doublings in 23 years, or a bit better than one doubling per decade. Growth was still high after that, but doubling slowed a bit (we were running into limitations of gas and especially oil availability… we kind of stopped using oil for electricity after the 70s). Point being we absolutely can scale, particularly if we’re scaling something that is not as inherently limited as oil is. Solar in particular can scale out massively (as could nuclear if we got our act together).
What do we use to make the electricity for the electric tractor? What raw materials do we need in order to make all of the solar panels that would provide electricity for the entire world?
By the way, I see the value in electric vehicles, but we need to recognize that the electricity has to come from somewhere and that all these new vehicles and batteries require raw materials that have to come from somewhere.
By the way, I see the value in electric vehicles, but we need to recognize that the electricity has to come from somewhere and that all these new vehicles and batteries require raw materials that have to come from somewhere.
Yes, we do have plenty of raw materials to make electricity for the whole world. For instance, over the lifetime of a solar panel, the amount of silicon needed to generate 1kWh of electricity is approximately 1/1000th that of the amount of coal, plus the silicon isn't burned up (but can be recycled). https://www.freeingenergy.com/do-we-have-enough-materials-to...
So in fact, it requires a whole lot less raw materials (even when you include the other materials needed in a solar panel and all the processing required) to provide human civilization with solar electricity (even with storage) than with coal.
So in fact, it requires a whole lot less raw materials (even when you include the other materials needed in a solar panel and all the processing required) to provide human civilization with solar electricity (even with storage) than with coal.
> Everything from food production through material manufacturing to basic transport collapses without oil.
Sure - but that's also true of computers.
Oh, I'm not saying tech companies should be equal to oil companies. But today's tech companies don't seem to have even 5% the power of oil companies.
Sure - but that's also true of computers.
Oh, I'm not saying tech companies should be equal to oil companies. But today's tech companies don't seem to have even 5% the power of oil companies.
I have worked a lot with lobbyists and part of the reason is that the tech companies dont work together. When the banks or oil companies go to capital hill their lobbyists are generally in alignment. The sense iv gotten from folks I talk to is that is not the case with the tech companies and instead they have competing opinions on things.
Another place you can see this illustrated is when the CEOs of these companies testify in front of congress. The bank CEOs all stay more or less on the same message. Comparatively on the tech side there is a lot more variance in message. Some of this is changing, you can clearly tell Zuck is getting much more coaching and Sundar Pichai is well prepped. Then you have Dorsey who is always a complete wild card.
Another place you can see this illustrated is when the CEOs of these companies testify in front of congress. The bank CEOs all stay more or less on the same message. Comparatively on the tech side there is a lot more variance in message. Some of this is changing, you can clearly tell Zuck is getting much more coaching and Sundar Pichai is well prepped. Then you have Dorsey who is always a complete wild card.
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.
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.
My guess: Big Oil, Big Pharma, Monsanto, etc, are old money. Big Tech is new money.
I'd wager that this one difference is the root of all the discrepancies you noticed.
I'd wager that this one difference is the root of all the discrepancies you noticed.
This comes across as an odd position - you don’t think big tech has the ear of the president? Aren’t there pictures of Obama dining with Silicon Valley “elite”?
You mention building houses. The answer is of course big tech can get that done - it’s just not a priority regardless of what they say
You mention building houses. The answer is of course big tech can get that done - it’s just not a priority regardless of what they say
When I look at copyright laws, they don't seem like they're written by big tech - they seem like they're written by Disney and the RIAA, without Youtube getting any say.
When I look at patents I see a system almost everyone in tech thinks is a joke, doing nothing but enriching a few Texan lawyers and judges.
When I look at immigration laws like H1B visas, I see a bizarre system that works for a few places like WiPro who are willing to scam the system, but that's useless for most of the tech industry.
When I look at Ajit Pai being appointed head of the FCC, I see an appointment telephone companies love - but that everyone in tech thinks is a recipe for rent extraction.
The fact that the guy who was president before the guy who was the president before the guy who's currently president once had dinner with some tech bigwigs doesn't count for much in comparison.
When I look at patents I see a system almost everyone in tech thinks is a joke, doing nothing but enriching a few Texan lawyers and judges.
When I look at immigration laws like H1B visas, I see a bizarre system that works for a few places like WiPro who are willing to scam the system, but that's useless for most of the tech industry.
When I look at Ajit Pai being appointed head of the FCC, I see an appointment telephone companies love - but that everyone in tech thinks is a recipe for rent extraction.
The fact that the guy who was president before the guy who was the president before the guy who's currently president once had dinner with some tech bigwigs doesn't count for much in comparison.
You can't be serious? There have been congressional hearing on big tech monopolies and stopping "disinformation". The CEOs of the FAANGS were intimately involved in the presidential election last year.
If anything, tech weight far more power than any of the other industries you mentioned.
If anything, tech weight far more power than any of the other industries you mentioned.
Maybe because most tech companies (especially those in SF) provide little value for society? We need oil and food in order to survive. Do we need Facebook, Google, Netflix, etc to survive?
yeah the right comparison would be with Hollywood. Hollywood might have lobbied for extending copyrights (they had no competitor back then), what else?
Has the tech industry been particularly pro-housing? It doesn’t seem to be where they’re focusing their lobbying efforts, despite some recent actions.
There hasn't been a ton of political activity with housing, but they have been one of the largest contributors to California YIMBY, which has been pushing forward a lot of the state level housing changes (ie the substantial ones):
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/us/california-today-strip...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/us/california-today-strip...
They certainly ought to be - rising housing costs mean rising salary costs. And what expenses does a software company have except salary costs?
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.
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.
Calling it "nihilistic" is a bit strong considering the robe matches her policy positions and congress votes.
It's all performative and a distraction from the fact that the Met Gala is literally an event for rich people to show off their incredibly expensive clothes that will only be worn once. Unmasked while the servant class is masked, helping them get ready, carrying their dresses and serving them food and drink.
Tax the rich is a fully coopted slogan and is in fashion among the ruling class. Wearing a dress that reflects their fashion is not storming the Bastille or making them uncomfortable at all. They loved it and it worked great, considering how many peasants are defending their largesse during a pandemic. Get back to me when Senators worth $50M and the attendees who paid $35,000 for a ticket are actually getting taxed.
https://youtu.be/Y4yq726SUpE?t=550
Tax the rich is a fully coopted slogan and is in fashion among the ruling class. Wearing a dress that reflects their fashion is not storming the Bastille or making them uncomfortable at all. They loved it and it worked great, considering how many peasants are defending their largesse during a pandemic. Get back to me when Senators worth $50M and the attendees who paid $35,000 for a ticket are actually getting taxed.
https://youtu.be/Y4yq726SUpE?t=550
That is the way those things work. invite someone important so that everyone else will pay the price. In general when a politician goes to a expensive dinner like that I assume they are paid to be there.
It’s well known she didn’t pay for that, but the optics are hilarious.
Only if your optics are so scoped in that you can't see the big picture.
what is the big picture? to me it looks like a politician wore an expensive dress to an expensive party and (apparently) didn't have to pay for either. I guess the way it relates to her positions is a tad hypocritical, but it's well within the realm of what I generally expect from a politician. I don't find the story particularly impressive or disappointing.
This has nothing to do with the tech industry's comparative lobbying power. From HN comment guidelines:
> Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
> Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
[deleted]
>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.
>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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.