Big tech vows to fight the climate crisis but employs fossil fuel-linked lobbyists. Guardian Oliver Milman 5 JULY 2023 The biggest players in tech have contracted with lobbyists that also represent some of the biggest fossil fuel companies.  Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon – some of the largest technology firms in the world – have all vowed to confront the climate crisis and have each set goals to slash planet-heating emissions. But they have also hired US lobbyists that work with the fossil fuel companies that are worsening global heating. Apple has contracted lobbyists who also work for the Koch Industries network, well known for its work to undermine confidence in climate science and stymie action to cut emissions, as well as the coal mining company Peabody, among other fossil fuel companies, according to F Minus, a new database of state-level lobbying disclosures.

Microsoft has hired a lobbyist who also pushes the interests of ExxonMobil to lawmakers, while Google shares lobbyists with at least seven fossil fuel companies, including Kinder Morgan, the Colonial Pipeline Company and the American Petroleum Institute. Meanwhile, Amazon, which has come under severe pressure from some employees to do more on climate, has fossil fuel-aligned lobbyists in 27 different US states.

“Big tech goes to great lengths to be seen as green, but its lobbying strategy tells another story,” said James Browning, executive director of F Minus. “Big tech is empowering and enabling the fossil fuel industry by retaining its lobbyists in dozens of states. Retaining mainstream tech companies helps these fossil fuel lobbyists cloak their radical agenda in respectability.” Browning said the lobbyists used by big tech have had tangible impacts in frustrating attempts to tackle the climate emergency, citing efforts by Amazon’s lobbying firm to push for a 2021 bill in Ohio to prevent local governments from shifting away from fossil fuels. Microsoft’s lobbying firm, meanwhile, worked against another 2021 bill, this time in Colorado, aimed at helping communities most affected by the climate crisis, Browning said. All of the big tech companies were contacted for comment on the apparent conflict with their stated climate goals, with only Microsoft issuing a statement in response. “There is no ambiguity or doubt about Microsoft’s commitment to the aggressive steps needed to address the world’s carbon crisis,” a spokesman for the Seattle-based software company said.

The use of lobbyists who also work to further the aims of fossil fuel companies is jarring given the climate pledges made by the leading technology companies. Apple has boasted of its progress in cutting emissions and vowed that its entire supply chain will be be carbon neutral by 2030, while Amazon’s founder, Jeff Bezos, has called climate change the “biggest threat to our planet” while rolling out a fleet of electric delivery vehicles and promising to get the online retailer to net zero emissions by 2040.Microsoft and Google have also set lofty climate goals, and all of the companies have made forays into the renewable energy arena and said they support concerted global action to curb dangerous global heating. 'We must end the revolving door of lobbyists moving from fossil fuel corporations to groups working on climate issues'-  Representative Ro Khanna of California

These stated ideals haven’t always played out in practice, however. All of the big tech companies were contacted for comment on the apparent conflict with their stated climate goals, with only Microsoft issuing a statement in response. “There is no ambiguity or doubt about Microsoft’s commitment to the aggressive steps needed to address the world’s carbon crisis,” a spokesman for the Seattle-based software company said......read on    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/05/big-tech-vows-to-fight-climate-crisis-but-employs-fossil-fuel-linked-lobbyists

The Federal Reserve System has more influence over the rate of economic growth—certainly nationally and arguably globally—than any other institution. When it sets the federal funds rate, the Fed affects the decisions of producers and consumers far and wide. When it lowers the rate, producers borrow more, from Midwest farmers to Silicon Valley techs. Likewise, consumers borrow more for everything from cars and houses to laptops and smartphones. People roll their sleeves up, the economy is stimulated, and GDP grows. At least, that’s what the Fed hopes. At times, though, the Fed finds itself “pushing on a string,” dropping the federal funds rate with little effect on economic activity. But the Fed has numerous tools and tactics for stimulating economic activity, and it has a long track record of doing so.That was a good thing for much of the 20th century, but it was bad for the environment. By the latter decades of the century, the global economy was clearly in ecological overshoot. This realization, stemming from fuller integration of the natural sciences, gradually spawned the poorly funded but conceptually powerful field of ecological economics. Today, the calls to look “beyond GDP” are going mainstream, and they’re not just about the GDP metric. They’re a diplomatic way of saying that economic growth—increasing production and consumption of goods and services in the aggregate—is no longer a suitable goal for the world, all things considered.

Meanwhile, growth remains ingrained in Fed culture, given the Fed’s deep ties to Wall Street. Its governors are typically economists or lawyers, many of whom move in and out of the private banking sector, Fortune 500 corporations, government, politics, and academia. Among its professional staff, the Fed employees over 400 Ph.D. economists, practicing a profession notorious for the “invention of infinite growth.”Beyond its culture, the Fed is mandated, pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act amendments of 1977, to proactively promulgate economic growth.  In particular, it must “maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates…so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.”Strictly speaking, then, growth per se is not the goal, but rather a means to achieve “maximum employment.” The logic is straightforward. All else equal, a growing GDP entails an increasing number of jobs. That’s especially important when a population is growing at a significant rate.If the real economy is growing, with more jobs and all, “growth of the monetary and credit aggregates” (a growing money supply, especially) is needed for “stable prices.” Incidentally and conversely, growing the money supply is conducive to a growing real economy, at least in the short term.But with those 1977 amendments, Congress was trying to have its cake and eat it too. By then, the Phillips curve, demonstrating the inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation, had been circulating for almost 20 years. Lowering the federal funds rate was growthmanship 101, but it  was (and is) inflationary. Readjusting the rate upward helps stabilize prices, but it’s recessionary.The “dual mandate” of the Fed turned out to be mission impossible, and the source of tremendous political and financial strain. BuTt there’s a simple cure: the steady state economy. This will surely take an act of Congress, prefaced as follows.

Mission Possible, and Proper for the 21st Century.......the Federal Reserve System has more influence over the rate of economic growth—certainly nationally and arguably globally—than any other institution. When it sets the federal funds rate, the Fed affects the decisions of producers and consumers far and wide. When it lowers the rate, producers borrow more, from Midwest farmers to Silicon Valley techs. Likewise, consumers borrow more for everything from cars and houses to laptops and smartphones. People roll their sleeves up, the economy is stimulated, and GDP grows.At least, that’s what the Fed hopes. At times, though, the Fed finds itself “pushing on a string,” dropping the federal funds rate with little effect on economic activity. But the Fed has numerous tools and tactics for stimulating economic activity, and it has a long track record of doing so.

That was a good thing for much of the 20th century, but it was bad for the environment. By the latter decades of the century, the global economy was clearly in ecological overshoot. This realization, stemming from fuller integration of the natural sciences, gradually spawned the poorly funded but conceptually powerful field of ecological economics. Today, the calls to look “beyond GDP” are going mainstream, and they’re not just about the GDP metric. They’re a diplomatic way of saying that economic growth—increasing production and consumption of goods and services in the aggregate—is no longer a suitable goal for the world, all things considered. Meanwhile, growth remains ingrained in Fed culture, given the Fed’s deep ties to Wall Street. Its governors are typically economists or lawyers, many of whom move in and out of the private banking sector, Fortune 500 corporations, government, politics, and academia. Among its professional staff, the Fed employees over 400 Ph.D. economists, practicing a profession notorious for the “invention of infinite growth.”

Beyond its culture, the Fed is mandated, pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act amendments of 1977, to proactively promulgate economic growth.  In particular, it must “maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates…so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.”Strictly speaking, then, growth per se is not the goal, but rather a means to achieve “maximum employment.” The logic is straightforward. All else equal, a growing GDP entails an increasing number of jobs. That’s especially important when a population is growing at a significant rate.If the real economy is growing, with more jobs and all, “growth of the monetary and credit aggregates” (a growing money supply, especially) is needed for “stable prices.” Incidentally and conversely, growing the money supply is conducive to a growing real economy, at least in the short term.But with those 1977 amendments, Congress was trying to have its cake and eat it too. By then, the Phillips curve, demonstrating the inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation, had been circulating for almost 20 years. Lowering the federal funds rate was growthmanship 101, but it  was (and is) inflationary. Readjusting the rate upward helps stabilize prices, but it’s recessionary.

The “dual mandate” of the Fed turned out to be mission impossible, and the source of tremendous political and financial strain. But there’s a simple cure: the steady state economy. This will surely take an act of Congress, prefaced as follows. Mission Possible, and Proper for the 21st Century......the Federal Reserve System has more influence over the rate of economic growth—certainly nationally and arguably globally—than any other institution. When it sets the federal funds rate, the Fed affects the decisions of producers and consumers far and wide. When it lowers the rate, producers borrow more, from Midwest farmers to Silicon Valley techs. Likewise, consumers borrow more for everything from cars and houses to laptops and smartphones. People roll their sleeves up, the economy is stimulated, and GDP grows. At least, that’s what the Fed hopes. At times, though, the Fed finds itself “pushing on a string,” dropping the federal funds rate with little effect on economic activity. But the Fed has numerous tools and tactics for stimulating economic activity, and it has a long track record of doing so. That was a good thing for much of the 20th century, but it was bad for the environment. By the latter decades of the century, the global economy was clearly in ecological overshoot. This realization, stemming from fuller integration of the natural sciences, gradually spawned the poorly funded but conceptually powerful field of ecological economics. Today, the calls to look “beyond GDP” are going mainstream, and they’re not just about the GDP metric. They’re a diplomatic way of saying that economic growth—increasing production and consumption of goods and services in the aggregate—is no longer a suitable goal for the world, all things considered.

Meanwhile, growth remains ingrained in Fed culture, given the Fed’s deep ties to Wall Street. Its governors are typically economists or lawyers, many of whom move in and out of the private banking sector, Fortune 500 corporations, government, politics, and academia. Among its professional staff, the Fed employees over 400 Ph.D. economists, practicing a profession notorious for the “invention of infinite growth.” Beyond its culture, the Fed is mandated, pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act amendments of 1977, to proactively promulgate economic growth.  In particular, it must “maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates…so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.”

Strictly speaking, then, growth per se is not the goal, but rather a means to achieve “maximum employment.” The logic is straightforward. All else equal, a growing GDP entails an increasing number of jobs. That’s especially important when a population is growing at a significant rate. If the real economy is growing, with more jobs and all, “growth of the monetary and credit aggregates” (a growing money supply, especially) is needed for “stable prices.” Incidentally and conversely, growing the money supply is conducive to a growing real economy, at least in the short term.But with those 1977 amendments, Congress was trying to have its cake and eat it too. By then, the Phillips curve, demonstrating the inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation, had been circulating for almost 20 years. Lowering the federal funds rate was growthmanship 101, but it  was (and is) inflationary. Readjusting the rate upward helps stabilize prices, but it’s recessionary. The “dual mandate” of the Fed turned out to be mission impossible, and the source of tremendous political and financial strain. But there’s a simple cure: the steady state economy. Mission Possible, and Proper for the 21st Century Unfortunately, the steady state economy is a cure that the Fed, as currently cultured, is bound to reject. At best, the Fed might view it as one part cure and two parts poison. Led by Kevin Warsh, the anti-regulation, pro-growth Chair at the time, the Fed would likely be one of the last bastions of growthmanship, even if the rest of the polity moved toward steady statesmanship......read on       https://steadystate.org/special-report-introducing-the-sustainable-monetary-policy-act/

The researchers started with known final emissions of the products — such as gasoline or electricity from coal-fired power plants — produced by the 111 biggest carbon-oriented companies going as far back as 137 years, because that’s as far back as any of the companies’ emissions data go and carbon dioxide stays in the air for much longer than that. They used 1,000 different computer simulations to translate those emissions into changes for Earth’s global average surface temperature by comparing it to a world without that company’s emissions.Using this approach, they determined that pollution from Chevron, for example, has raised the Earth’s temperature by .045 degrees Fahrenheit (.025 degrees Celsius). The researchers also calculated how much each company’s pollution contributed to the five hottest days of the year using 80 more computer simulations and then applying a formula that connects extreme heat intensity to changes in economic output.

This system is modeled on the established techniques scientists have been using for more than a decade to attribute extreme weather events, such as the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave, to climate change. Mankin said that in the past, there was an argument of, “Who’s to say that it’s my molecule of CO2 that’s contributed to these damages versus any other one?” He said his study “really laid clear how the veil of plausible deniability doesn’t exist anymore scientifically. We can actually trace harms back to major emitters.”Shell declined to comment. Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and BP did not respond to requests for comment. “All methods they use are quite robust,” said Imperial College London climate scientist Friederike Otto, who heads World Weather Attribution. People talk about making polluters pay, and sometimes even take them to court or pass laws meant to rein them in.......read on     https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-liability-lawsuits-damage-trillions-5ad21e47b2aa16cc90cb7669f56297f1