Skip to main content

Deck.blue brings a TweetDeck experience to Bluesky users

With over 3 million users and plans to open up more broadly in the months ahead, Bluesky is still establishing itself as an alternative to Twitter/X. However, that hasn’t stopped the developer community from embracing the project and building tools to meet the needs of those fleeing the now Elon Musk-owned social network, formerly known […] © 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only. from TechCrunch https://ift.tt/TBbEAPF

Disclose your Scope 3 emissions, you cowards

If you want the inside scoop on which companies are serious about addressing their carbon emissions and which aren’t, take a look at the public comments submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding its proposed climate rule.

You can tell if a company is serious by its stance on so-called Scope 3 emissions. Depending on the business, Scope 3 emissions might make up a significant majority of a company’s carbon footprint. Such emissions can result from activities and assets a company doesn’t own or control, like leased office space, business travel or end-of-life processing of their products. They also might occur when customers use their products, like when someone drives their gas-powered SUV.

In short, if your company is serious about doing something about climate change, it should probably be estimating its Scope 3 emissions. If it’s making noise about being sustainable, at the very least it probably shouldn’t undermine attempts to make Scope 3 disclosures standard.


TechCrunch+ is having an Independence Day sale! Save 50% on an annual subscription here. (More on TechCrunch+ here if you need it!)


Which is why the comments on the SEC’s site make for some interesting reading. Companies ranging from Walmart and BlackRock to Fidelity, Gap, ExxonMobil and Southwest Airlines have made it clear that they’d rather not disclose their Scope 3 emissions, even with the safe harbor provisions the SEC is offering to limit liability. Those companies are effectively saying that they don’t take climate change seriously enough to fully understand — and disclose — their own impact on it.

There are many, many more companies that I’m not covering here that take a similar stance. So why am I singling these out? Walmart because it’s the world’s largest retailer. BlackRock and Fidelity because they’re the first- and third-largest asset managers. ExxonMobil because it’s the largest non-government-owned oil company. Gap because the company claims it “feel[s] an ethical responsibility to align our goals and strategies with the best science and industry practices,” according to its own climate values page. And Southwest because it is among the largest airlines in the U.S., no matter which measure you use.

Demur and delay

The arguments against disclosing Scope 3 data generally fall into three buckets: Companies complain that the data is too unreliable or uncertain, that it’s too hard to obtain or that it’ll expose them to lawsuits.

The first smells like a classic FUD campaign — fear, uncertainty and doubt. Cynthia Lo Bessette, Fidelity’s chief legal officer, told the SEC that Scope 3 data is “speculative, nascent, unreliable, and there are no current standards to ensure consistent and comparable data.”



from TechCrunch https://ift.tt/ySIgjAM

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

6 VCs explain why embedded insurance isn’t the only hot opportunity in insurtech

If you think embedded insurance is the only hot thing in insurtech these days, we’ve got a surprise in store for you: While it’s true that startups that help sell insurance together with other products and services are enjoying tailwinds, there are plenty of other opportunities in the space, several investors told TechCrunch+. You see, insurtech startups often need to take into account the myriad rules and regulations in place when they seek to innovate and embed insurance into products, which might make it difficult to pull it off. And given the current emphasis on achieving cost efficiency to extend runways in the broader startup ecosystem, it appears investors are open to insurtech startups that can build a sustainable business model, regardless of it including embedded insurance. “Insurtech startups that do not offer embedded insurance, and rather provide other innovative solutions will still attract VC funding this year, especially if they can show cost-efficient and sustainabl...

Ivella is the latest fintech focused on couples banking, with a twist

Money can make people moody. There are layers of privilege, or lack thereof, that can make even the simplest conversation about bills feel like baggage to deal with. Translate that discomfort to relationships and it can feel like an awkward — and fragmented — dance on who pays which bill when (and how). Ivella , a Santa Monica-based startup, wants to build banking products for couples to take away some of these tensions. Led by CEO and co-founder Kahlil Lalji , the startup is launching with a split account product that just raised $3.5 million in funding from Anthemis, Financial Venture Studio and Soma Capital. Other investors include Y Combinator, DoNotPay CEO Joshua Browder and Gumroad CEO Sahil Lavingia. Lalji, who helped creators with digital content before jumping into the world of fintech, says that the startup was born out of his own frustration at the expectation that couples would just use Venmo unless they were married. The best solution, so far, has been joint accounts...

Ethicists fire back at ‘AI Pause’ letter they say ‘ignores the actual harms’

A group of well-known AI ethicists have written a counterpoint to this week’s controversial letter asking for a six-month “pause” on AI development, criticizing it for a focus on hypothetical future threats when real harms are attributable to misuse of the tech today. Thousands of people, including such familiar names as Steve Wozniak and Elon Musk, signed the open letter from the Future of Life institute earlier this week, proposing that development of AI models like GPT-4 should be put on hold in order to avoid “loss of control of our civilization,” among other threats. Timnit Gebru, Emily M. Bender, Angelina McMillan-Major and Margaret Mitchell are all major figures in the domains of AI and ethics, known (in addition to their work) for being pushed out of Google over a paper criticizing the capabilities of AI. They are currently working together at the DAIR Institute, a new research outfit aimed at studying and exposing and preventing AI-associated harms. But they were not to ...