Guardian Accuses Big Business of Undermining Biden’s $3.5 Trillion Climate Plan

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Accountable.US has accused Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Disney of backing “shady groups” working to oppose President Biden’s $3.5 Trillion climate bill.

Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

Amazon and Microsoft also supporting groups fighting legislation despite promises to combat the climate crisis, analysis finds

Oliver Milman @olliemilman
Fri 1 Oct 2021 16.00 AEST

Some of America’s most prominent companies, including Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Disney, are backing business groups that are fighting landmark climate legislation, despite their own promises to combat the climate crisis, a new analysis has found.

A clutch of corporate lobby groups and organizations have mobilized to oppose the proposed $3.5tn budget bill put forward by Democrats, which contains unprecedented measures to drive down planet-heating gases. The reconciliation bill has been called the “the most significant climate action in our country’s history” by Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the US Senate.

“Major corporations love to tell us how committed they are to addressing the climate crisis and building a sustainable future, but behind closed doors, they are funding the very industry trade groups that are fighting tooth and nail to stop the biggest climate change bill ever,” said Kyle Herrig, president of watchdog group Accountable.US, which compiled the analysis.

“Hiding behind these shady groups doesn’t just put our environment at risk – it puts these companies’ household names and reputations in serious jeopardy,” Herrig said.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/apple-amazon-microsoft-disney-lobby-groups-climate-bill-analysis

The link on the Accountable.US website mostly just seem to reference the Guardian article.

The groups they’re talking about include the US Chamber of Commerce and Business Round Table, so some of the “shady groups” at least are not hollow front organisations.

Frankly I’m not sure what to make of this. Did someone in the Chamber of Commerce lose the memo?

Whatever the answer, I suspect the US climate scene is about to become a lot more complex.

5 13 votes
Article Rating
76 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Vuk
October 2, 2021 10:04 am

What would they expect, follow lemmings over the cliff. Lunatics taken over the asylum.

Vuk
Reply to  Vuk
October 2, 2021 10:20 am

Faced with energy shortages it appears that government officials have softened their attitude towards oil and gas drilling industry.
“Sharp cuts in methane from leaking gas drilling platforms and production sites could play a major role in the greenhouse gas emissions reductions necessary to fulfil the Paris climate agreement, and should be a key aim for the Cop26 UN climate talks, new research suggests.
Cutting global emissions of methane by 40% by 2030 is achievable, with most cuts possible at low cost or even at a profit for companies such as oil and gas producers. It would make up for much of the shortfall in emissions reductions plans from national governments, according to the Energy Transitions Commission thinktank”
It appears the Guardian’s correspondent agrees.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/30/cutting-methane-should-be-a-key-cop26-aim-research-suggests
As DM would say ‘ drill baby drill’, but plug your hole, no stinking methane wanted around here.

n.n
Reply to  Vuk
October 2, 2021 10:56 am

Vegans without chambers. Moo!

leitmotif
Reply to  Vuk
October 2, 2021 2:20 pm

Cutting global emissions of methane by 40% by 2030 “

Wow that’s a reduction from 0.00017% of the atmosphere to 0.0001%.

We’re saved.

Greg
Reply to  leitmotif
October 2, 2021 9:16 pm

Guardian:

Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

As usual the Guardian is lying. This is NOT a “climate bill”. It is a massive 2600 page 3.5 TRILLION dollar spending bill which contains more pork than a pig farm.

One small part of that concerns the climate agenda.

observa
Reply to  Vuk
October 3, 2021 7:11 am

Faced with energy shortages it appears that government officials have softened their attitude towards oil and gas drilling industry.

Their attitudes to energy shortages are getting a whole lot softer all around-
Rolls-Royce set for huge nuclear power payday in Eastern Europe (msn.com)

Dave Fair
Reply to  Vuk
October 3, 2021 11:40 am

Fascinating. A front group for CliSciFi claims oil and gas companies don’t know how to reduce costs and improve profits. Who to believe, them or your lying eyes?

From their Wikipedia puff piece:

  • “Increased investment, keeping in mind that the investment required by the transition is estimated to be between $300-600 billion USD annually. At this level, the cost would not cause a significant macroeconomic challenge, relative to the approximately $20 trillion in anticipated savings and investments annually. The issue is more one of a shift in the mix of investments: moving away from fossil fuels and toward low carbon technologies and energy-efficient equipment and infrastructure.
  • Public governance, with the introduction of coherent and predictable policies which favour the energetic transition, along with the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies and the introduction of carbon pricing.

Draw your own conclusions. BTW, I think their “public governance” means effective nationalization of all of the energy sector. Good luck with that!

Vuk
Reply to  Vuk
October 2, 2021 12:53 pm

There is a prospect of a ding-dong in the UK between government and the green energy generators. Government is proposing to redirect their subsidies to save energy trading companies from imminent bankruptcy.
“The (subsidy) scheme is a keystone of efforts to use more wind and solar electricity, and is funded by energy consumers through surcharges totalling roughly £6bn per year. The money is funnelled into subsidies for renewable energy generation.
Doug Parr, Greenpeace policy director, said: ‘Trust will be squandered in a big way if the Government chooses to suspend the certificates.’ ”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/02/energy-firms-set-green-levy-lifeline-emergency-plans/

Last edited 1 month ago by Vuk
Gerry, England
Reply to  Vuk
October 3, 2021 5:03 am

Their crazed idea is to move the windmill/solar tax from electricity to gas as part of their hare-brained – which personally I think is an insult to hares everywhere who would likely do a better job than the lying oaf Johnson and his band of inadequates – to make us give up gas heating. The likes of EDF want it moved to general taxation so it will be hidden.

There are 5 energy supply companies facing a deadline of 31 October to pay their green taxes or I presume the government will declare them bankrupt. There is a fear one of the Big 5 suppliers could go down.

niceguy
Reply to  Vuk
October 2, 2021 6:23 pm

In France, parents usually say:
“Child, you wouldn’t jump off a bridge because your buddies do. So…”

Note: it’s a very lame phrase; also very problematic. Terrible epistemology here!!!

You should probably jump, unless useful context was left unmentioned (like: you saw them eating mushrooms, licking frogs…). That such context might possibly and legally be left unmentioned is what makes the sentence absolute garbage from a scientific point of view. In the Justice system, you swear to say the truth and the whole truth. That would even consider making half backed statement (for moral reasons) about buddies jumping off bridge without the proper context of the jumping (the whole truth) makes you a despicable people.

The most probable(*) explanation is that there is a very serious and immediate danger from staying on the bridge. Keyword here is immediate: while they jump, you cannot debate the merits of jumping. You have to take an immediate best estimate decision.

(Also, if your buddies had the habit of jumping off high bridges for no reason what-so-ever, they would be dead or crippled, and wouldn’t still have that habit anymore.)

(*) I know probabilities are ill defined here, but not that much. Poker players speak of ill defined but almost well defined proba all the time!

so you shouldn’t do something (take drugs, etc.) just because your friends do.

Well, here we are:

  • “adults” are justifying doing something because other countries do it
  • “scientists” sign a petition or endorse a viewpoint because they saw many colleagues doing the same…

Obviously signing a petition or endorsing a declaration is not the kind of no debate/urgent decision making needed to jump off bridges.

Tom Halla
October 2, 2021 10:04 am

Yeah! Everyone who opposes our holy cause is a vendido, a sellout, as no one could possibly honestly disagree with our sheer obviousness/sarc

SxyxS
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 2, 2021 11:40 am

Nah… this is just a bone for the plebs to keep up the illusion of independency and to stir up the woke to act even more crazy.

The real message here is.
“My dear woke corporate butt kissers.
You parrot all the crap the big corporations tell you,while you pretend to hate corporations(because the corporations tell you).You will follow any lie and any agenda we pull out of our butts.
But from time to time we must give you the illusion that we are not a single huge company but oppose each other.
And if we can give you the feeling that we fight for the small man by telling you that you should fight for a 3.5 trillion dollar spending plan(hidden cloward piven strategy) that was created by the same billionaires who own Joe Biden than we did the perpect brainwashing. “

2hotel9
October 2, 2021 10:17 am

Too funny! The people who own and operate Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Disney are 100% in support of the Faux Joe Xiden Admin and its goals. Leftists angry at the leftists they have praised and worshiped. It just don’t get any funnier!

n.n
Reply to  2hotel9
October 2, 2021 11:02 am

They support progress with “benefits”, including single/central/monopolistic models, but are hesitant to support energy and resource droughts when they cannot insource/outsource/obfuscate to compensate for deficits.

2hotel9
Reply to  n.n
October 3, 2021 5:12 am

They “feel” they will be in charge and not suffer from what they push on everyone else. Operating on “feelings” is not a viable business model. Anti-trust is plodding down the corridor with the inevitability of death.

SxyxS
Reply to  2hotel9
October 2, 2021 11:54 am

There is a huge difference between supporting an administration and controlling it.

Every single of these CEO’s has more real power than Joe Biden who can not even prevent his assistants from muting his microphone during a press conference and who isn’t even allowed to speak in the white house while other statesman are.
Biden has no clue what’s inside the Bill(he isn’t even able to lift this bill that is several thousand pages strong. Im dead serious.) while the CEO’ s know and pay some of the guys who wrote the Bill.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  SxyxS
October 2, 2021 1:17 pm

“Every single of these CEO’s has more real power than Joe Biden who can not even prevent his assistants from muting his microphone during a press conference and who isn’t even allowed to speak in the white house while other statesman are.”

Another example: Yesterday, Biden went to Congress and met with Democrats about the spending bills and after the meeting Biden himself offered to take questions from the assembled Democrats, but Biden’s aides put a stop to it and would not allow it.

Think about that. This is our leader.

2hotel9
Reply to  SxyxS
October 3, 2021 4:56 am

No, the point is all these businesses and their owners are 100% in support of what is being done, they just think they will be exempted from the damage. A good analogy is the bolsheviks, they thought they would be exempt from purges and run everything, instead they were purged and erased instead of exempted. Left always does this, uses people and then destroys them.

As for this bill, no one knows what is actually in it. I have spent over 100 hours trying to wade through it. Guess what? It keeps changing. That is a tactic that Nannee loves. Reading the bill tells you nothing, she just keeps altering it. Little Chucky runs interference in the Senate. When the rules can be changed in the middle of the game they can do as they please. Even democrats are balking at it now, they see what they put in bills being changed and removed without debate or any justification, they see they are being used and are figuring out THEY are going to be the ones blamed and punished.

And as for the CEOs and big tech companies? The writing is on the wall, the fate of Ma Bell, the Big 3 oil companies and the robber barons is coming for them and they can’t stop it or hide themselves. They wanted celebrity and notoriety, well they got it and now they can’t hide.

Dave Fair
Reply to  2hotel9
October 3, 2021 11:56 am

In the U.S., the normal course of money legislation is for the appropriate House Committee to originate it and debate and amend it. With grandiose, far-reaching and controversial legislation, the “leaders” (actually their minions) take over and control the process in secret. Remember Pelosi’s “We have to pass the bill to learn what it is in it.” in relation to Obamacare? And what a joke that one turned out to be on the American people.

2hotel9
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 4, 2021 4:49 am

Our Representative Republic has been usurped long ago.

Sara
Reply to  SxyxS
October 3, 2021 9:42 am

Okay, so as someone who thinks ahead on these matters and the (potential) consequences that may follow foolish mishandling by the current (lack of) Administration, should I continue to stock ahead or hold off for a bit? Should I get more oil lamps and lamp oil and wicks?

Seriously, it’s as though I’m back in the days just before the banks shut their doors and the market crashed, and everything screeched to a halt, or even earlier.

I don’t mind moving back to the late 17th-early 18th century, I’d just like a little warning about it. That’s all.

markl
October 2, 2021 10:21 am

Political movements cobbled together with varying minority interests are doomed to eat themselves.

2hotel9
Reply to  markl
October 3, 2021 4:59 am

Yep, look at Black Lies Matter and pantifa. All they can do is destroy, totally incapable of building anything and that frustration has already led to them attacking their own members. Love it.

Dave Fair
Reply to  markl
October 3, 2021 12:09 pm

They try to paper over that reality with concepts like “intersectionality,” where the idea is we hang together or hang (don’t get what we want) separately. The current nut-cutting of practical governance is revealing its weakness.

Ron Long
October 2, 2021 10:25 am

Maybe large companies (and small companies, and rational somewhat educated people) oppose the $3.5 trillion proposal because it it a destructive lurch to Socialism. The congressional Representative Occasional Cortex has proposed a Civilian Climate Corp. to fight global warming and there are billions of dollars in the $3.5 trillion dedicated to this nonsense. The Democraps are trying to buy votes with our tax money, by paying people to sit at home smoking weed and playing video games. Unfortunitly it appears to be working.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Ron Long
October 2, 2021 10:30 am

There seem to be a whole lot of people who are more than delighted to sit at home smoking weed and playing video games as long as they are getting a guaranteed minimum income that will pay for it. Aren’t these the chronically unemployable?

n.n
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 2, 2021 11:05 am

That or invegs (involuntarily vegetative).

Sara
Reply to  n.n
October 3, 2021 9:52 am

Or just lazy f—s who used to be referred to as “bums”.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 3, 2021 12:20 pm

I recently met a young woman that referred to a sub-group of those that she said in her circle are called “Hobosexuals;” the bums that use young women to support them because they won’t get or hold a job and usually don’t have a valid driver’s license. You often see them out and about being driven place to place by young women. Their demeanor and clothing usually shows them to be beneath the levels of the young women they are with.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 3, 2021 1:57 pm

Interesting. I was under the impression that young ladies today were encouraged to stand up for themselves and not be used by no-account cads. My generation fought long and hard so these ladies would not have to put up with situations like this. Where is their self-respect?

Vuk
Reply to  Ron Long
October 2, 2021 11:26 am

AOC uttered what could be the quote of the day, by accusing her colleagues of being “fundamentally unserious” .

Scissor
Reply to  Vuk
October 2, 2021 12:09 pm

Did she say that at a $30,000 per plate dinner while wearing a $15,000 dress that said, “Tax the rich” on it?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Scissor
October 2, 2021 12:47 pm

You don’t actually believe that she paid for her dinner, or the dress?

Elle W
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 2, 2021 4:42 pm

But I’m sure she paid income tax on the value of the gifts she accepted! /sarc

Dave Fair
Reply to  Elle W
October 3, 2021 12:26 pm

By law, she either pays taxes on the value of the gifts or she and the gift-giver(s) have to declare it as a campaign donation to the Federal Elections Commission. In any case, they are clearly ideological statements (the substance of which may be intended or not) by her controllers.

Burgher King
Reply to  Ron Long
October 2, 2021 12:18 pm

The US Chamber of Commerce has long supported the outsourcing of America’s manufacturing base to China and to other low cost countries. Most all of the wind turbines and the solar panels the Green New Deal would buy would be made in Asia or in Europe.

So …. Why would any US corporation which obtains the manufactured goods and equipment it sells from Asia and from other low cost countries — and the US Chamber of Commerce, a lobbying group — oppose the 3.5 trillion dollar bill?

Rather than buying many billions of dollars worth of renewable energy components, the great bulk of the 3.5 trillion dollar infrastructure bill gives many billions of dollars to the NGO’s, the non-governmental organizations. Only a small portion of the money goes to energy producing hardware and to what we think of as ‘infrastructure’.

Most of these non-governmental organizations are community action groups located in the large urban areas controlled by the Democrats. Those community action groups will be allowed spend these many billions of dollars any way they want to. We can be sure these NGO’s won’t be buying wind turbines, or solar panels, or replacements for our deteriorating roads and bridges.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Burgher King
October 2, 2021 7:09 pm

“The US Chamber of Commerce has long supported the outsourcing of America’s manufacturing base to China and to other low cost countries”

The “US Chamber of Crony Capitalism” is more accurate and fitting.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ron Long
October 2, 2021 1:31 pm

“The Democraps are trying to buy votes with our tax money,”

That’s exactly what they are doing.

I’m hoping that the radical Democrats in the U.S. House like AOC will blow up the $1.2 Trillion infrastructure spending bill, after Senator Manchin and Sinema blow up the $3.5 Trillion (Keep Democrats in Power Forever) spending bill, in the U.S. Senate.

Then the Congress can revisit these bills and hopefully the Republicans can remove all the pork and special interest money contained in them. Let’s just do this all over again, only do it a little better this time without the pork.

All we really need is about $200 billion for infrastructure, the rest of the $1.2 Trillion infrastructure bill is just Democrat pork meant for Democrat special interests and for keeping Democrats in power.

The $3.5 Trillion spending bill is not needed at all and should be voted down. We already have enough money circulating in the system. The Feds have only spent about 25 percent of the money they have to help people with their rent, for example. They are rolling in money.

Senator Manchin says the $3.5 Trillion spending bill is fiscal insanity. Yet he turns around and says he will go for a figure of $1.5 Trillion instead. How is that also not fiscal insanity, Joe Manchin?

Manchin said he sent a letter to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Schumer before the negotiations on the $3.5 Trillion spending bill began, telling him that his (Manchin’s) spending limit was $1.5 Trillion and Manchin wouldn’t agree to any more.

Schumer failed to tell the other Democrats what Manchin told him, and so the other Democrats were surprised the other day when Manchin came out publicly against the $3.5 Trillion spending bill.

AOC made a fool of herself trying to ridicule Manchin afterwards.

Manchin said he wasn’t a liberal, and if the liberals wanted more spending, they should elect more liberals to Congress. Right now they don’t have enough, I guess is the message to take away. 🙂

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 2, 2021 10:26 am

Just maybe some of these CEOs are starting to realize that the 3.5 Trillion spending bill is a bridge too far? If the Western economies go down the tubes so will their companies, going Green doesn’t look so good after all.

n.n
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 2, 2021 11:08 am

To serve man. #MeToo?

Last edited 1 month ago by n.n
Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 2, 2021 11:13 am

Yes, lip service to climate change nonsense is one thing but destroying the economy chasing sunshine, breezes and rainbows, that’s a little different.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 2, 2021 11:28 am

And it depends on what infrastructures the money will be spent; some are certainly in the interest of those companies (e.g., transportantion).

Peter Jones
October 2, 2021 10:33 am

If it’s written by the Guardian beware! Question everything they write…

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Peter Jones
October 2, 2021 2:18 pm

I prefer to seriously believe the opposite of anything they print, until proven otherwise.

Sean
October 2, 2021 10:43 am

Green advocacy is often a dalliance of the wealthy particularly when it can be used to distract from their excesses. However, all these companies rely on a middle class with disposable income for their own prosperity. It sounds like Accountable.US is simply doing what leftists do best, silence the people they disagree with. With energy prices higher in the US due to the new administration policies toward fossil fuels and both European and Asian markets suffering energy shortages coupled with very high prices, I suspect the public is beginning to find out who has their best interests in mind.

Philip
October 2, 2021 10:56 am

It just means that those corporations aren’t suicidal, they support enough stuff tokeep the crazy people off their back, hopefully they’ll realize that solar and wind are expensive dead ends.

CD in Wisconsin
October 2, 2021 11:18 am

If western governments decide to phase out fossil fuels in the years ahead from climate alarmist activist group pressure, we can all look forward to economic collapse and death from starvation since wind and solar don’t cut it.

So we can all choose to die from starvation or from what the alarmists believe is an overheating planet. That is some choice. I am a skeptic, so I will pass on choosing altogether. I would love to pose this dilemma to Oliver Milman, The Guardian and its followers if they would listen.

Thomas Gasloli
October 2, 2021 11:21 am

Google and Amazon want their portion of the pork: taxpayer funded broadband build out. Why ATT, Verizon, TMobile, Comcast, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon can’t spend their own billions to build it out is one of the mysteries of American capitalism.

The Democrats in DC aren’t socialists, they are corporatist & fascist exponents of crony capitalism. The US Chamber of Commerce is willing to jump on board for an appropriate subsidy.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
October 2, 2021 12:10 pm

You are buying into the Stalinist trope of thinking fascists are not socialists. Not Marxist, but definitely socialist. Elizabeth Warren is recycling Mussolini’s economic policies. To be pedantic, a fasci has much the same definition as a soviet, a workers council. Neither country actually employed such councils in practice, but the ideological cover was similar.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
October 3, 2021 12:33 pm

What’s not to like about government funding one of your costs of doing business?

AndyHce
October 2, 2021 12:01 pm

Is someone trying to say that these mega corporations actually act towards the general good regarding some political concerns?

Doonman
October 2, 2021 12:04 pm

Wait. Al Gore is on the Board of Directors for Apple. Did they tell him Apple opposes democrat solutions to global warming?

Oldseadog
October 2, 2021 12:14 pm

Well, even if The Guardian is right, (I suppose it happens occasionally, even if it is only the date on the banner,) I am sorry but I’m still not going to use Amazon.

Editor
October 2, 2021 12:59 pm

Perhaps its because the 3 trillion is not going on climate, but on socialism

fretslider
October 2, 2021 1:35 pm

The Guardian – built on slavery and a dodger of taxes

“ In 2011 this blog ran a Guy News investigation into the Guardian’s offshore tax dodge in the Caymans. ”

https://order-order.com/2014/01/21/guardian-sells-autotrader-for-1-billion-moment-of-truth-for-guardianistas/

Not a reputable newspaper Mind you the capos aren’t exactly savoury either

richard
October 2, 2021 1:53 pm

the good news
Dems Are SELF DESTRUCTING as CIVIL WAR Erupts on LEFT!!!- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUXmjoLaEXg

leitmotif
October 2, 2021 2:15 pm

Oliver Milman is a Guardian leech and is just one of many Guardian leeches namely:

George Monbiot
Damian Carrington
Fiona Harvey
Graham Readfearn
Katharine Murphy
Greg Jericho
Nick Cohen
Larry Elliott
Jeff Sparrow
Adam Vaughn
Matthew Taylor

All are climate change alarmists; all are thoroughly ignorant; all are thoroughly dishonest.

Did I miss anyone out? I hope not.

Debit where debit’s due.

willem post
October 2, 2021 2:21 pm

No wonder business is opposed to the cost of GOING GREEN = going to hell
Look at the cost of going green.
The $3.5 trillion would just be a down payment

Excerpt

WORLD AND US PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CAPITAL COST
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-consumption

World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the US Energy Information Administration, EIA. 
See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on to page 4 of PowerPoint

Most of this growth is expected to come from countries not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.
 
Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.
 
PARIS AGREEMENTS
 
China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America, need to use low-cost energy, such as coal, to be competitive. They would not have signed up for “Paris”, if they had not been allowed to be more or less exempt from the Paris agreements

Obama agreed to commit the US to the Paris agreements, i.e., be subject to its financial and other obligations for decades. 
However, he never submitted the commitment to the US Senate for ratification, as required by the US Constitution. 
Trump rescinded the commitment. It became effective 3 years later, one day after the US presidential elections on November 3, 2020.

If the US had not left “Paris”, a UN Council likely would have determined a level of renewable energy, RE, spending, say $500 billion/y, for distributing to various poorer countries by UN bureaucrats. 
The Council would have assessed OECD members, likely in proportion to their GDPs. 
The US and Europe would have been assessed at 100 to 150 billion dollars/y each.
The non-OECD countries likely would continue to be more or less exempt from paying for the Paris agreements.

SUMMARY OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE WORLD AND US

The analysis includes two scenarios: 1) 50% RE by 2050, and 2) 100% RE by 2050.
The CAPEX values exclude a great many items related to transforming the world economy to a low-carbon mode. See next section.

50% RE by 2050

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $24,781 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 5.76%/y
 
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $7,233 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 8.81%/y

100% RE by 2050

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $60,987 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 10.08%/y
 
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $16,988 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 13.42%/y

Dave Fair
Reply to  willem post
October 3, 2021 2:21 pm

People, always remember: The U.S. House of Representatives must initiate all money legislation. Additionally, its members, Representatives, must stand for reelection every two years. Only those from ideologically safe Leftists Districts (a minority) would vote for $100 billion-plus each year to be given to the UN. Even if the House managed to pass it in one year, the next, new Congress is not obligated to continue funding it.

Neither Obama nor Xiden could commit the U.S. House of Representatives to spending money, now or in the future. There is some “slop” in the U.S. budget that allows a President to throw around a billion or so and the authority to reallocate a small percentage from fund to fund. Obama gave money (including real cash in small bills to fund terrorists) to Iran and Trump used some defense money to construct parts of the Southern Border Wall.

John Bell
October 2, 2021 2:50 pm

If it passes then every politician will invest in greenness until the subsidies run out, then reinvest in fossil fuels.

Gunga Din
October 2, 2021 3:04 pm

“Biden’s” plan?
Let’s be honest. Joe’s not in charge of anything, not even talking to the Press.
It’s “Behindhim’s” plans that are disasters.

Serge Wright
October 2, 2021 3:12 pm

I’ve never understood why big tech are so embedded with a hard left socialist regime that is against the concept of private enterprise and free markets. If their censorship antics bring down the very democracy that allowed them to succeed in the first place then they have no one else to blame but themselves for their own demise. The only problem is that they will take down everyone else in the process. A future google search on the word “Democracy” would return a definition of “Utopian society of net zero, subsistence living, non binary humans, where people are granted privileges based on the darkness of their skin”. Time to flee to Mexico !!!

October 2, 2021 3:25 pm

I am sure they have always funded those mainstream business groups. Also, the climate(ish) fraction of that monster is less than 20%. It is mostly social(ist) programs. Nothing to see here.

Reply to  David Wojick
October 2, 2021 3:26 pm
October 2, 2021 4:12 pm

Given the proposed major funding mechanism for this monster is a big hike in corporate income taxes even these lefty giants might well be against it.

Peter K
October 2, 2021 4:55 pm

From an engineering point of view, If you are spending $3.5 trillion, then you must state a return on investment, rather than having a warm and fuzzy feeling, to quell the mass hysteria. For example the ROI must show measurable outcomes such as Global temperature will be reduced by 2C, Global CO2 will be reduced by 200ppm, electricity prices will be reduced by x% etc. Otherwise that money should be used elsewhere.

Duane
October 2, 2021 6:40 pm

It is just so unfair that companies try to influence the government not to eff up their businesses.

John the Econ
October 2, 2021 7:36 pm

Of course corporate America isn’t the least bit serious about the big green agenda beyond their zero-calorie virtue signaling. The Progressive green agenda which if followed to its logical conclusion would ultimately mean the end of prosperity for said corporations. How can an entertainment enterprise such as Disney justify its very existence if they took this supposed crisis the least bit seriously? Patagonia’s entire product line would not exist without fossil fuels.

No, it’s an act that they do to remain cool with their friends, fans and political benefactors.

RonK
October 3, 2021 12:11 am

I suspect that business realize that if the 3.5t and the 1.2t go through as written there will be a depression that will make the 1929 crash seem like a walk inghe park

LdB
October 3, 2021 12:50 am

Well here was me thinking it was a few of the democrats own who thought it was too much …. why blame your own when you can blame a conspiracy.

October 3, 2021 2:12 am

Everyone of rational mind should be opposing Commie Bernie and Dementia Joe’s $3.5Trillion socialist poison pill for capitalism and democracy.

Skeptic JR
October 3, 2021 5:54 am

Well, I mean. It’s the guardian. Who cares what they think besides their far left readers?

observa
October 3, 2021 7:37 am

Frankly I’m not sure what to make of this.

It’s simple. Leftists will twist anything to suit their dichotomous oppressor/victimhood meme the evils of capitalism and stuff sound economic management or any such considerations. Here’s a classic example-

“This is somebody who overcome huge barriers and prejudice to become an amazing innovator and performer in his field,”
‘A tale of triumph and tragedy’: Calls for black Victorian circus owner to be included in national curriculum (msn.com)

Really? He sounds like a great example of individual get up and go and entrepreneurship in a time of no social security or old age pension. Furthermore he was much praised and feinted by all, had no problems with interracial marriages and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery for his fishing skills what more is there to say?

Leftist hive mind- We know all that BUT… ‘it seems unthinkable he would not have faced some prejudice’.

October 3, 2021 9:07 am

The problem is that the “climate plan” includes a lot more than just climate stuff. When you write a bill that tries to do everything, you can’t be surprised when you don’t get whole hearted support from everyone.

“Climate plans” are great until a company has to pay 30% more taxes, then it’s not so good.

Last edited 1 month ago by kcrucible
Dave Fair
October 3, 2021 11:25 am

No, Eric, the Chamber just recognizes that Xiden’s scheme is “paid for” by massive tax increases on corporations and wealth-creators.

Walter Sobchak
October 3, 2021 12:23 pm

The So-called 3.5 T$ bill (it would actually be a lot more than that) is about 99% social welfare giveaways. Free college, free daycare, free home health aides. Etc. Calling it a Climate Plan is just as stupid and disingenuous as Biden claiming it costs nothing, because it has some tax increases.

Last edited 1 month ago by Walter Sobchak
%d bloggers like this: