California Requires Companies To Report Carbon Emissions (bbc.com) 67
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Major corporations like Apple and Disney will be forced to disclose their carbon emissions under a new Californian law approved on Monday. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill -- passed by the state legislature -- requiring companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to report greenhouse gas emissions. Similar efforts are moving slowly at the federal level. Mr Newsom praised the law's aims, but questioned how it will be carried out.
"This important policy, once again, demonstrates California's continued leadership with bold responses to the climate crisis," Mr Newsom wrote in a signing statement. "However, the implementation deadlines in this bill are likely infeasible." He added that he is "concerned about the overall financial impact of this bill on businesses." The California Air Resources Board must put a system in place for reporting emissions by January 1, 2025, a little more than a year from now, under the law.
"This important policy, once again, demonstrates California's continued leadership with bold responses to the climate crisis," Mr Newsom wrote in a signing statement. "However, the implementation deadlines in this bill are likely infeasible." He added that he is "concerned about the overall financial impact of this bill on businesses." The California Air Resources Board must put a system in place for reporting emissions by January 1, 2025, a little more than a year from now, under the law.
Huzzah! (Score:3)
Let the number fudging begin!
Re: (Score:3)
If you've been following US economics at all over the past 50 years, I think you'll find that the number fudging started a long time ago.
Re:Huzzah! (Score:4)
MORE companies are relocating their businesses outside of California to more business friendly states.
Re: (Score:2)
Fantastic,
Make those red states blue!
GO CA
Re: (Score:3)
They may try, but it doesn't make sense to a sensible, thinking person.
If you are fleeing a state because of what the politicians did to it....oppressive regulations, over taxation, etc....why would you leave that, and move somewhere that doesn't have that, yet start voting for it again?
How was it again, the Einstein defined insanity?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't. You just heard someone say he defined insanity a certain way and didn't bother to check on it. I mean that might not be insanity, but stupidity kind of fits.
Red states are also dumb as hell when it comes to business these days. Tesla moved to a state where it can not legally sell cars because of stupid government laws. The electric grid is unreliable due to government regulations, I could go on and on about Texas stupid anti business laws, but yo
Re: (Score:3)
It is a stupid policy because it encourages "environmental theater" rather than real solutions.
We don't need each company to implement some silly bespoke program to greenify themselves. That isn't their core competency, and they are unlikely to do it efficiently.
It makes far more sense to fix the grid that everyone uses in the most efficient way. That most likely means solar panels in the High Mojave and big wind turbines in the mountains or maybe offshore. Then, big companies can pull green energy from the
Re: (Score:2)
The issue that I have with this policy is that it won't give California ANY idea about how much GHGs are being produced. Also, the only numbers that are going to be produced are going to be gargantuan because they've limited it to the largest of the large companies. Its pure theatre.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue that I have with this policy is that it won't give California ANY idea about how much GHGs are being produced.
Thisis the silliest comment I have read so far. Of course it will give them some idea: they know some companies will try to game the system, but they can adjust for it and get an idea of the actual numbers.
At the very least, this gives a better idea than no numbers at all. Observability needs to start somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not suggesting that any cheating or misrepresenation of any kind is going to occur. That's an unrelated problem for which there are already laws in place. My issue with this is that its only capturing numbers from the biggest of big companies, of which there are few. There are so many more less-than-a-billion dollar companies that the state's numbers are going to be meaningless and skewed to the incredible. If they then use these number as the basis of any additional regulations or reporting, well
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, for when you want numbers for a whole country/region. Having companies report their emissions, and being able to audit their reporting methodology, allows to get an idea about which companies need to be incentivized to lower their emissions (or to be taxed or whatever if they don't). It allows countries/state to take actual actions against individual companies (although I will agree with you that we usually already know the biggest emitters).
At the very least, if those numbers are public, and they s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get it. Just like politicians during covid lockdowns.
Re:Huzzah! (Score:4, Interesting)
The grid is only 1/3rd of the problem. Having companies disclose their carbon emissions (and the methodology they used so that it can be independently reviewed) includes other things: transportation, heating, manufacturing related emissions (chemicals industries still rely at least partly on fuel burning)...
Re: (Score:1)
You are correct.
It does not make any sense.
After all the power companies know how much CO2 they produce, same for the sellers of gasoline.
I doubt a company like Apple - pick any - has: ... and if it does: it will be most likely solar on a parking lot
a) big influence on CO2 production
b) produces its own power
So: the amount of CO2 they produce as a company is the amount of electricity they get billed for ... which is in the balance sheet.
Or do you want them to report the CO2 produced when the concrete was mad
Re: (Score:3)
Sure but who should get the carbon on their accounting. Would the concrete company have produced the product if Apple was not contracting to buy it?
With energy from fuels, who should have the carbon on their books, the oil company that dug it out of the ground or the electric utility the burned it, or the consumer who does not have a lot of control over where their generation comes from or how that used the power?
If a WFH employee spends the day in front of workstation, who owns the carbon for that, the el
Re: (Score:1)
You account for when/where the carbon dioxide is produced.
Not at the head of the supply line.
How often do you want to account for it? Everyone in the chain of intermediate products has to report what his suppliers produced? Makes no sense.
Re: (Score:1)
Each company will be required to implement policies and procedures to track and improve their carbon footprint. It will be embedded in their tracking KPIs and the financial reporting systems. They will hire consultants and auditors to maintain their certifications.
This also explains why the IRS is staffing up - there are financial reporting and tax implications to be managed.
Re: (Score:3)
"We emitted 50 billion tons of CO2 but we offset all that carbon by handwaving money into a friend's equity fund that tracks corporations that sell carbon offset vouchers by running recycling plants for paper and glass. So we actually have net zero carbon emissions and our 5 billion hours of GPU render time to produce Disney Plus Product #4,395,210 is actually saving the environment. You may now consume our products knowing your original sin has been thoroughly atoned for. You're welcome."
Re: (Score:2)
Let the number fudging begin!
For a few, like Disney, that are so invested in properties like Disneyland that it would take an apocalypse for them to leave. But other companies will simply do what many have already done: get the Uhauls packed, and head for Texas or Florida.
Re: (Score:2)
And let the greedy lawyers start brewing up bullshit class action suits. "My baby died because of your carbon emissions!!!"
Carbon emissions (Score:2)
0.2 oz.
0.22 oz.
0.21 oz.
California is the leader... (Score:3, Insightful)
California is the leader in onerous regulations.
And while you might think it's for the greater good, it's not. Yesterday Governor Newsom vetoed a bill that would have brought insulin prices to $35/mo. His reason: California will "soon" be making its own insulin at $30/mo. "Soon" is undefined, and of course none of this sets a precedent other states can follow nor benefit from.
California. All about its performative politics, and it's not even a red state!
Re:California is the leader... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:California is the leader... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your logic is exactly the politician's syllogism: "We must do something. This is something. We must do this!"
Some of us prefer that governments have a sound expectation that their policies will help things, rather than just trying new things for novelty's sake.
Re: (Score:2)
The trick is to not live in California. Let them do somethings, and then the other 49 of us can look at how those somethings went.
And it's still a great place to visit, too!
Re: (Score:2)
Your logic is exactly the politician's syllogism: "We must do something. This is something. We must do this!"
Some of us prefer that governments have a sound expectation that their policies will help things, rather than just trying new things for novelty's sake.
Nonsense. Companies will try to game the regulation, but they can only game it so much. The numbers will be off by double-digit percentage points, but they won't be off by orders of magnitude, and the resulting numbers will very likely be good enough to enable some useful action to follow.
In many cases, the regulation won't even require companies to do anything other than report numbers they already have. Lots of big corporations already track their carbon emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you think this is for all for not? Both the public and government is largely ignorant of what needs to be changed the most badly. Getting them to report this information will enable the journalists to report on who the worst polluters are which can be used to spur change.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this is a bad idea, and maybe many of the ideas California is trying will fail, but thank goodness _somebody_ is trying new ideas. The only certainty is that we we will not solve the problem if we do nothing.
This is the same reasoning that allowed FDR to seriously hose things up economically while supposedly fighting the Depression. The justification was almost word for word what you quoted: "At least we're trying new ideals!". When that's the ethos, more often than not, those ideas are bad, and usually make the given problem worse.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
California is the leader in onerous regulations.
And while you might think it's for the greater good, it's not. Yesterday Governor Newsom vetoed a bill that would have brought insulin prices to $35/mo. His reason: California will "soon" be making its own insulin at $30/mo. "Soon" is undefined, and of course none of this sets a precedent other states can follow nor benefit from.
California. All about its performative politics, and it's not even a red state!
Well, you are free to bypass all the onerousness of this carbon emissions legislation by adopting new production techniques that don't result in massive amounts of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. You are not too lazy and apathetic to modernise, innovate and remain competitive? ... are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah...it just might be easier to leave the damned state and go to another one that is more business friendly, there's LOT's of the out there...less taxes, reasonable regulation, common sense laws.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno if I'd want to use the word "pigsty" (check your spelling)....when defending a state that has its major cities (SF, L.A.) lined with homeless tents, poop and needles strewn about on the city streets all about.....
Not aware of that same problem prevalent in the states one might leave California for....
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno if I'd want to use the word "pigsty" (check your spelling)...
pigsty
noun
noun: pigsty; plural noun: pigsties; noun: pig-sty; plural noun: pig-sties
a pen or enclosure for a pig or pigs.
a very dirty or untidy house or room.
"she was fed up with living in a pigsty"
Re: (Score:1)
Nah...it just might be easier to leave the damned state and go to another one that is more business friendly, there's LOT's of the out there...less taxes, reasonable regulation, common sense laws.
Well, there is always the lazy and apathetic option of going somewhere where people are ignorant enough to want to live in a pigstie ;-).
You would be hard pressed to find a bigger pigsty than California has become. The postcard perfect picture of beautiful beaches in the sun are all staged and don't represent the true scene.
Re: (Score:2)
Poisoned drinking water,
air pollution,
shorter life span
Yes please move these things to the states where the main population of that state is already mostly poor and underfunded.
For this is the way
Re: (Score:2)
Guess you didn't understand why the insulin bill was vetoed then. It mandated insulin prices of $35/mo for the consumers, but didn't do anything to set the wholesale price of the drug. So the unreasonable prices charged by the insulin manufacturers would still be in place, and insurers would pass these costs along to customers in the form of increased premiums.
So the reason the bill was vetoed is that you cannot solve the high insulin cost problem without controlling the wholesale price of the drug. This is
If they are going to do this (Score:1)
Re:If they are going to do this (Score:5, Insightful)
But it is not something that most companies would do as part of their normal business operations
Well, they should. This is called taking into account negative externalities [wikipedia.org] of your operations. This is already done in some industries, and is now considered as normal: if a chemical company spills some dirty stuff in a river, it is expected to report it, clean it up, and usually pay a fine as a deterrent so that it doesn't happen again.
Well, if your company is spilling GHG emissions into the atmosphere, it should be responsible for cleaning it. And yes, that means it will have an impact on the consumer price for the product you are selling. There is no free lunch. If you say the state/country should be responsible for cleaning it up, where do you think tax-money is coming from?
Re: (Score:2)
At least with consumer prices, if there is competition in the market then it is likely that some of the cost will go to the profit margin. Most consumer goods are not priced on a cost+margin basis, the price is set by what the company believes will maximise profit.
Re: (Score:2)
It is called Cost of Business
Same thing as following osha rules
from all employees? (Score:2)
Re:from all employees? (Score:5, Informative)
If only we had people who already thought about that, and made a framework to explain what and how carbon emissions should be accounted for a company, so that it doesn't get counted twice or more. Oh, wait [wikipedia.org] (scope 1, 2, 3).
But I understand you may never have heard on it, it is fairly recent, only since 1998 (sarcasm).
this will spawn a new industry (Score:1)
Ineffective non-compliance penalty (Score:1)
Will make little difference, bc already happening (Score:2)
Even big private equity firms like Blackstone, which are decidedly uninterested in carbon emissions (as opposed to, say, Microsoft or Apple), already report on this. They have to because of investor demand. So it won't make much difference
Re:Will make little difference, bc already happeni (Score:4, Insightful)
Even big private equity firms like Blackstone, which are decidedly uninterested in carbon emissions (as opposed to, say, Microsoft or Apple), already report on this. They have to because of investor demand.
LOL. No.
They do this because it helps to keep the screaming harpies at bay, and they can, as a bonus, claim ESG Good Boy Points for being "proactive". The cost is negligible compared to the perceived PR benefit. Most investors don't give a rat's ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Even big private equity firms like Blackstone, which are decidedly uninterested in carbon emissions (as opposed to, say, Microsoft or Apple), already report on this. They have to because of investor demand.
LOL. No.
They do this because it helps to keep the screaming harpies at bay, and they can, as a bonus, claim ESG Good Boy Points for being "proactive". The cost is negligible compared to the perceived PR benefit. Most investors don't give a rat's ass.
No, companies care about ESG scores primarily because of the effect on their share prices, not general PR. There is a significant amount of money in ESG-focused mutual funds, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a significant amount of money in ESG-focused mutual funds, for example.
There was. Now there is a constantly shrinking amount of money and inflows to those funds have basically stopped now. Expect them to all close down in the next 5 years except for 1 or 2 which will be linked to major environmental groups and exist to lose their money for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You couldn't display your ignorance more about how BX operates if you tried. US investors don't care much, but European institutional investors require carbon reporting as part of the price to play. BX couldn't give two shits about PR benefits, they are focused on meeting attracting and retaining LPs. That's why they have a target of 15% reduction in carbon intensity rather than a net zero goal -- LPs are demanding that they make some limited carbon reductions, but not a full net zero goal.
How about a law to report speeding violations? (Score:2)
And if you guess fewer incidents than what the state measured you pay twice the penalty!
Carbon or Greenhouse? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is carbon in both CO2 and methane, so they could just report the amount of carbon (in Megagrams) as long as they specify its just the carbon.
What GHG compliance companies lobbied for this? (Score:2)
Follow the money.
Compliance costs are an expense that will get passed onto consumers. When they get too high the company moves operations to Texas or China.
California is determined (Score:1)
They really do want businesses to leave. The state would be better off splitting into at least two to get away from this ridiculous state gov.
In a shocking turn of events (Score:2)
the state of California implements an onerous regulation that will put additional requirements (and expenses) on businesses that will accomplish nothing and make people feel better.
Whose greenhouse emissions? (Score:2)
My CA employer is a typical software company with just over 1 billion in revenue. Most of the software runs in the AWS cloud.
What emissions do they have to track? Employees driving to work? AWS data center energy usage? Or does Amazon track that? Does Amazon who is HQ'd in Washington but has huge presence in CA report these numbers?
Oh yeah, my employer also has physical presence in two other states. How does that figure in?