California to require big firms to reveal carbon emissions in first law of its kind

Measure signed into law by Gavin Newsom on Saturday is strong blueprint for national climate accountability, experts say

A groundbreaking California law will force large companies doing business in the state – including major global corporations – to disclose their planet-heating carbon emissions.

The measure, signed into law by the governor, Gavin Newsom, on Saturday, will be the nation’s first of its kind, serving as a blueprint for national climate accountability.

It comes as federal regulators have dragged their feet on crafting similar rules, which could be finalized this month.

SB 253 will require California regulators to create rules by 2025 for public and private companies whose annual revenues exceed $1bn. That affects about 5,300 corporations, including Chevron, Wells Fargo, Amazon and Apple.

TimewornTraveler,

I wonder if they’ll be allowed to include their “offsets” in the final calculation. The “offsets” are just a math trick that represents potential change in a very specific hypothetical and doesn’t actually represent any good being done. In other words, releasing a million parts carbon, then planting a million trees in one park, is not a net zero on the earth

brlemworld,

I’m unaware of a federal legal standard around that so I kind of doubt it.

brianorca,

If they are allowed, they would probably be required to itemize it so the offsets can be verified separate from the emissions.

PatFussy, (edited )

I work at a big company in California and I do the calculations for a big chunk of emissions. Ima tell you now, the request that california is giving is unreasonable and will most likely force companies to adopt life cycle assessments(LCA) information from dubious sources(most likely based on spend). These companies will fight tooth and nail to show that they are green and will accept any sources to purport that. They will then shuffle information when audits happen to obfuscate and conceal the true numbers because they have to maintain that identity (think BMW and volkswagen scandal). This will make it more challenging down the line.

I think if a government body wants these numbers, they should just do their own audit NOW and do their own zero waste LCA analyses. There are a bunch of different tools right now as it is not regulated so they give different results. The data used in these software might use the GHG protocol info or it might be completely different. They would need to hire contractors to get a specific baseline for all parties before the companies start figuring out how to game the system by mucking up their numbers.

dudewitbow,

Im not saying every company can do it do to size, but Framework posted their LCA last month and thry are a california based company. Companies only 3 years old.

PatFussy, (edited )

Yeah i just took a quick glance at their numbers that I believe they got from Sphera. I would automatically assume this publication is bullshit given that their scope 3 emissions are 2.5x less than scope 2. What this is suggesting is that the electricity they consume produces more GHGs than all the emissions from their logistics and materials used. Getting raw materials shipped inbound, shipping out in combinations on freight, the materials then go to landfill and decompose… they are saying that their electricity use is 2x more pollutant than that.

Then again, maybe they dont buy and sell physical products that much or their products are extremely energy intensive to make. I am not familiar with them.

dudewitbow, (edited )

They are a company whose trying to change the laptop industry by offering a repairable laptop that can be upgraded. By not soldering in components and not locking or changing the shape of components, their goal is to make laptops easy to repair and upgrade. All cpu/mobo upgrades have the same pcb dimensions, screens are easy to replace due to the ease of opening the bezels. They outright say theirselves that they are not ecologically sustainable (meaning other lapop producing companies are far worse)

PatFussy, (edited )

If they are selling pieces or components individually, then i would assume they would have an even higher transportation impact. This makes me even more skeptical of their numbers.

As i was saying earlier, if companies like these are allowed to fluff numbers without regulation then later on it will be more difficult to prove the contrary.

dudewitbow, (edited )

Tou can buy parts individually, but its not often that someone buys parts individually unless something breaks. The poont is it minimizes skus (two case designs (13", 15" built around repairability) designs dont go to waste if one thing breaks. They also open their own marketplace for users to resell their used parts as parts can freely be used in other builds.

They dont have much to hide, the point is that they claim theirselves who is pro repair, minimal sku and choose your own ports is not sustainable, then any laptop manufacturer who designs laptops that are going to be desposed if a single part breaks is going to have it worse, over several different Skus with different case/mobo/layout and part selections. As they would heavily fail in the 2nd R (reuse) category.

Sir_Kevin,
@Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Agreed. This is like when the police investigate themselves. Somehow they always find that the police did nothing wrong. It’s foolish to think this will be any different.

tallwookie,

this will negatively impact freight shipping companies - what’s to stop those companies from just dropping freight at the State’s border and forcing some regional/CA-specific freight shipper to take on the task/fees related to emissions to complete shipping?

good idea, poorly implemented.

bleistift2,

How come California manages to make sensible legislation? From it really is the one of its kind in the US.

sturmblast,

progressive and forward tthinking people

SmoothLiquidation,

And enough of a population to be a good chunk of the market share. No business can simply boycott the state like they could if Vermont or Washington passed laws like this first.

TimewornTraveler,

it’s trash legislation that only appears good for a future presidential run

Zeth0s,

How do they measure it? No way those measures are more meaningful than underestimated napkin calculations

Parabola,

So, because it’s not flawless and foolproof the first try, it’s not worth doing?

We’d have nothing if that’s how the world operates my friend. Any step is a good step

Zeth0s, (edited )

No, because it results in a big greenwashing fraud, exactly as “carbon offsets”. We are talking about the same scam. But making it “institutional” gives an aurea of credibility to these scams

kubica,
@kubica@kbin.social avatar

Companies are required to put filters like baghouses. They must have an idea of what is going on or else they would just pretend that they don't need it. If those things exist there must be numbers behind them.

Zeth0s, (edited )

CO2 production is much higher than what comes out of chimneys. And this law is talking about all firms, 99% of which have not a factory directly producing products, but are service providers and middlemen. They will spit random figures to keep everyone happy based on some standardized bourocratic meaningless calculation. As they are already doing now for the “carbon offset” scams

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • [email protected]
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • oklahoma
  • Socialism
  • KbinCafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • KamenRider
  • All magazines
    •