Corporate America dusts off a familiar playbook . Microsoft, and other major corporations are largely sticking to old tricks from Trump's first term to curry favor and influence policy. Quartz William Gavin Feb 23 2025 Microsoft, and other major corporations are largely sticking to old tricks from Trump's first term to curry favor and influence policy. President Donald Trump has adopted Silicon Valley’s mantra of “move fast and break things,” leaving uncertain companies grappling with a potentially expanding trade war, slews of executive orders, and no end of legal questions. The second administration will “bring about a new era of American governance, with new rules, new norms, and risks” Frontline Government Relations CEO Michael Glassner, a top 2024 Trump campaign adviser said as he launched his new lobbying firm in January. That already appears to be true. But major American companies are already largely sticking to old tricks from Trump’s first term to curry his favor — and influence his administration’s policy. Executives at companies including General Motors (GM) and Ford Motor Co. (F) have traveled to Washington to meet with trade groups and Republicans in Congress, while Airbus (AIR) and others are lobbying to support programs they care about. Trump’s inaugural committee broke fundraising records as companies sought his attention. More than half a dozen firms — from Facebook parent Meta (META) to Coinbase (COIN) — have hired Trump loyalists as consultants or for their boards, as some did during the president’s first term. And lobbyists with connections to Trump have gotten plenty of new clients, Bloomberg News reports. But it was Apple CEO Tim Cook on Monday who showed why companies continue drawing from a well-worn playbook for a successful relationship with Trump.                                                       

Apple’s $500 billion plan......During Trump’s first term, Cook managed to balance developing a good relationship with the president, even as he criticized some of his positions. The CEO built his goodwill with the president through focused one-on-one phone calls and meetings, close relationships with Trump’s family, and a willingness to let things slide, according to the Wall Street Journal. “Tim Cook calls Donald Trump directly,” Trump told reporters in 2019. “That’s why he’s a great executive because he calls me, and others don’t.”After Trump issued the so-called “Muslim ban,” Apple (AAPL) joined a lawsuit opposing the action and Cook penned a memo criticizing the policy. But Trump continued to meet with Cook and mention him throughout his presidency, often labeling him a “great executive” and touting Apple’s investment plans, even if he got the details wrong. 

On Monday, a few days after meeting with Trump, Apple said it would invest $500 billion in the U.S. over the length of his term, with a focus on manufacturing. In a statement, Cook said Apple is bullish on American innovation.Trump rushed to take credit, claiming that Apple wouldn’t invest even as little as 10 cents if it didn’t have faith in his administration. That may help Cook again secure Apple an exemption from Trump’s tariffs.........Quid Pro Quo- the motto of the Trump administration- read on      https://qz.com/apple-donald-trump-corporate-america-ai-investments-1851766158?utm_source=quartz_newsletter_breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2025-02-24_breaking&email_hash=7AO1Tet1pT4IGm3ROuv2FEUsL4NYo21w1A2/EZKavI4=  

Climate Finance Is a Top Story to Watch in 2025 World Resources Institute January 30, 2025 By Ani Dasgupta For more than 20 years, WRI has identified annual “stories to watch.” These are the year’s moments, issues and decisions that we believe will shape the future trajectory of the world. In the past, we’ve highlighted things like dangerous heat in cities, major elections and their effects on geopolitics, food system reform and more. This year is different. There aren’t stories to watch in 2025. There’s just one — but it affects everything from climate action to nature conservation to human rights. It’s a story that too often flies under the radar despite vast implications for the future of life as we know it. It’s climate finance — and this year is a bellwether of the world’s ability to provide it at scale. We also know that without significant emissions reductions from all nations — wealthy and developing alike — the world will not meet its decarbonization goals, exposing everyone to the existential crisis that is climate change. Finance from richer countries to developing ones isn’t charity; it’s an investment in a safer world. Finally, ambition and finance are two sides of the same coin. You can’t get ambitious nature and climate policies without the finance to execute them. Finance and ambition are a virtuous cycle — and this is the year to unlock both. So let’s dive deep into what’s needed to achieve the $1.3 trillion goal, and what to watch this year to see if it’s coming to fruition. 

2025 Is the Year to Care About Finance for Climate and Nature.......At last year’s UN climate summit (COP29), wealthy nations agreed for the first time in 15 years to increase the amount of money they provide for climate mitigation and adaptation in developing nations. The new target — $300 billion annually by 2035 — is better than the previous goal of $100 billion a year by 2020. But it’s still a far cry from what’s needed. That’s why leaders from all nations also agreed that all actors should work together to mobilize $1.3 trillion per year by 2035 for the countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. This $1.3 trillion recognizes the gap between what developing nations can realistically provide domestically for things like clean energy development and climate-smart agriculture, and what will be needed from external sources. It will be extremely difficult to secure the $1.3 trillion. But make no mistake: We must do it. We know what will happen without adequate climate finance: Resource-strapped communities will suffer the most from increasingly devastating droughts, floods, wildfires and heatwaves, even though they’re least responsible for causing the problem. That’s why delivering the $1.3 trillion isn’t just about finance — it’s about justice. We also know that without significant emissions reductions from all nations — wealthy and developing alike — the world will not meet its decarbonization goals, exposing everyone to the existential crisis that is climate change. Finance from richer countries to developing ones isn’t charity; it’s an investment in a safer world. Finally, ambition and finance are two sides of the same coin. You can’t get ambitious nature and climate policies without the finance to execute them. Finance and ambition are a virtuous cycle — and this is the year to unlock both. So let’s dive deep into what’s needed to achieve the $1.3 trillion goal, and what to watch this year to see if it’s coming to fruition. 

1) What’s the Money For?......In short, the $1.3 trillion must support two goals: building resilience in developing nations while also securing their low-carbon growth.  The effects of climate change are growing ever-more costly and dangerous, but the risks aren’t evenly distributed. Vulnerable nations — those with the fewest resources to respond — are projected to face more than half a trillion dollars in climate-related damages every year by 2030. Meanwhile, finance for building resilience remains paltry, with a $360 billion gap between what’s needed and what’s provided every year. Of the adaptation finance that is flowing, less than one-fifth reaches the communities who need it most......read on     https://www.wri.org/insights/climate-finance-progress-2025?apcid=0065aea2164a6d4199768d01&utm_campaign=wridigest&utm_medium=email&utm_source=wridigest-2025-02-13   

“This shows very, very, very well the need for transparency and traceability,” says a study author, Patricia Villarrubia-Gómez, a plastic pollution researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre. “[We need] to know who is producing what, so they can take responsibility, right?” The branded half of the plastic was the responsibility of just 56 fast-moving consumer goods multinational companies, and a quarter of that was from just six companies.

The two tobacco companies Altria and Philip Morris International combined made up 2% of the branded plastic litter found, both Danone and Nestlé each produced 3% of it, PepsiCo was responsible for 5% of the discarded packaging, and 11% of branded plastic waste could be traced to the Coca-Cola company. “The industry likes to put the responsibility on the individual,” says the study’s author, Marcus Eriksen, a plastic pollution expert from The 5 Gyres Institute. “But we’d like to point out that it’s the brands, it’s their choice for the kinds of packaging [they use] and for embracing this throwaway model of delivering their goods. That’s what’s causing the greatest abundance of trash.” The Guardian approached Altria, Philip Morris International, Danone, Nestlé, PepsiCo and The Coca-Cola Company. It said: “We care about the impact of every drink we sell and are committed to growing our business in the right way.” It has pledged to make 100% of its packaging recyclable globally by 2025, and to use at least 50% recycled material in packaging by 2030. Nestlé said it has reduced its virgin plastic usage by 14.9% in the last five years, and supports schemes around the world to develop waste collection and recycling schemes. However, while many of these companies have taken voluntary measures to improve their impact on plastic pollution, the experts behind the study argue they are not working. Plastic production has doubled since the beginning of 2000 and studies show only 9% of plastic is being recycled.

When the team collected data on self-reported yearly plastic packaging production for each of these multinational companies and compared it with the data from their 1,500-plus litter surveys, their statistical analysis showed that every 1% increase in plastic production was directly correlated with approximately a 1% increase in plastic pollution. “Actually seeing this one-to-one increase, I was like, wow,” says study author, Kathy Willis, a marine socio-ecologist from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia. “Time and time again from our science we see that we really need to be capping how much plastic we are producing.”.....read on              https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/24/survey-finds-that-60-firms-are-responsible-for-half-of-worlds-plastic-pollution