The Tell
‘ESG’ funds have more energy stocks than you might think

Last Updated: March 16, 2021
By Andrea Riquier

If it looks like a duck and invests like a duck…

GREENWASHING? PHOTO COURTESY ISTOCKPHOTO

Referenced Symbols

XLE
-2.85% IVV
-0.14% ESGU
-0.24% SNPE
+0.06%

Many of the largest exchange-traded funds that market themselves as having environmental, social and governance characteristics offer sector exposure that’s very similar to the broadest equity funds, according to an analysis published Tuesday from CFRA.

Those similarities may be most meaningful, and questionable, when it comes to energy, which is among the more controversial sectors of the market — not to mention one of the more financially weighty.

“While some investors think of ESG ETFs solely based on the Environmentally friendly pillar and presume there is little to no energy exposure, the most popular U.S. ESG ETFs look a lot like the broader equity market from the top-down,” CFRA’s head of mutual fund and ETF research, Todd Rosenbluth, wrote.

Related: Sustainable-investing flows have smashed records in 2020. What’s going on?

The Energy Select Sector SPDR XLE, -2.85%, which tracks the S&P 500 Index’s energy sector, lost 33% in 2020 as OPEC+ members splintered over production cuts and the coronavirus lockdowns rippled across the globe. But this year, with more discipline among the producers and investor enthusiasm over economic reopenings, the fund gained 41% through March 12.

Rosenbluth offers one example of what that means in real life: the iShares Core S&P 500 ETF IVV, -0.14%, one of the biggest, broadest, stock trackers in the market, has 3% of its portfolio devoted to energy. That compares to a 2.9% weighting for the iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF ESGU, -0.24% and 3.1% – that is, more than the broader ETF – for another ESG-themed fund, the Xtrackers S&P 500 ESG ETF SNPE, +0.06%.

With holdings that track each other so closely, it may not be surprising that ESG ETFs and the S&P 500 index are performing relatively the same in the year to date.

Through March 12, IVV had returned 5.4%; three broad ESG ETFs in Rosenbluth’s analysis outperformed it slightly and three underperformed it slightly, with returns ranging from 4.9% to 5.9%.

“Some investors have a false impression that they need to give up market-like returns when prioritizing doing good,” Rosenbluth wrote. “However, Broad ESG ETFs were built to serve as the potential core of the portfolio by choosing companies with relatively strong ESG attributes within a sector.”

Still, some investors may question the validity of funds calling themselves “ESG” if they seem to simply mimic traditional broad-market trackers. For many, “relatively strong ESG attributes” may simply not apply to fossil-fuel companies.

Financial world greenwashing the public with deadly distraction in sustainable investing practices

Tariq Fancy
Tue, March 16, 2021, 

The financial services industry is duping the American public with its pro-environment, sustainable investing practices. This multitrillion dollar arena of socially conscious investing is being presented as something it's not. In essence, Wall Street is greenwashing the economic system and, in the process, creating a deadly distraction. I should know; I was at the heart of it.

As the former chief investment officer of Sustainable Investing at BlackRock, the largest asset manager in the world with $8.7 trillion in assets, I led the charge to incorporate environmental, social and governance (ESG) into our global investments. In fact, our messaging helped mainstream the concept that pursuing social good was also good for the bottom line. Sadly, that's all it is, a hopeful idea. In truth, sustainable investing boils down to little more than marketing hype, PR spin and disingenuous promises from the investment community.

SEC looking to 'proactively identify ESG-related misconduct'

In many instances across the industry, existing mutual funds are cynically rebranded as “green” — with no discernible change to the fund itself or its underlying strategies — simply for the sake of appearances and marketing purposes. In other cases, ESG products contain irresponsible companies such as petroleum majors and other large polluters like “fast fashion” manufacturing to boost the fund's performance. There are even portfolio managers who actively mine ESG data to bet against environmentally responsible companies in the name of profit, a short-selling strategy. Risk managers are focused on protecting their investment portfolios from potential damages done by a worsening climate rather than helping prevent that damage from occurring in the first place.

As disheartening as this reality is, claiming to be environmentally responsible is profitable. Last year alone, ESG mutual funds and exchange-traded funds nearly doubled. The investment community understandably reacted to this with cheers. But those cheers were only for fund managers and their bottom lines. No matter what they tout as green investing, portfolio managers are legally bound (as well as financially incentivized) to do nothing that compromises profits. To advance real change in the environment simply doesn't yield the same return.

Wall Street on Feb. 8, 2021, in New York City.

In early March, my sentiments were echoed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which announced it was creating a Climate and ESG Task Force to “proactively identify ESG-related misconduct” such as inaccurate or incomplete disclosures by funds and companies — an unprecedented move that suggests there might be abuses that have gone unaddressed.

Ironically, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to learn some painful lessons. The initial response of rosy forecasts, loose half-measures and group denial boosted morale, but it also lulled the public into a false sense of security that prolonged and worsened the crisis.
We need to fix the system before disaster strikes

While how we fight a pandemic and climate change are very different, one aspect is clear. Both threats can only be won through the combined efforts of science and policy. In response to the pandemic, we’ve learned that only top-down government action, such as forcing the closure of high-risk venues and mandating masks indoors, makes a real difference. A “free market” will not correct itself or fix the problem by its own accord.

Imagine the planet is a cancer patient, and climate change is the cancer. Wall Street is prescribing wheatgrass: A well-marketed, profitable idea that has no chance of curing or even slowing down the cancer. In this scenario, wheatgrass is the deadly distraction, misleading the public and delaying lifesaving measures like chemotherapy. But like giving false hope to unproven cures in the midst of a pandemic, the consequences of such irresponsibility are all too obvious. And motivation for why the industry continues to greenwash is all too obvious.

When I left the industry in late 2019, due to family business obligations following the passing of my father-in-law, I was frustrated by the lack of any real change. But I took some comfort in believing that if we weren’t doing as much as we could, at least we weren’t doing any harm. Since my departure, I have had a lot of time to think about this issue, and I’ve reassessed my opinion. I believe we are doing irreversible harm by stalling and greenwashing. And all in the name of profits.

We’re running out of time and need to accept the truth: To fix our system and curb a growing disaster, we need government to fix the rules.

Tariq Fancy is the former chief investment officer for Sustainable Investing at BlackRock.

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: ESGs, sustainable investing are not as green as touted, investor says

Mexico's ex-oil boss quits; Fuel oil burn to increase

THE ONLY FUEL DIRTIER IS BUNKER OIL

López Obrador has said the law is meant protect government-owned fossil fuel plants against what he call unfair competition from private wind, solar and natural gas-fired power plants.

FILE - In this Sept. 29, 2000 file photo, leader of Mexico's oil workers union Carlos Romero Deschamps, right, Labor Secretary Carlos Maria Abascal, center, and Pemex director Raul Munoz Leos, arrive at a press conference in Mexico City. Romero Deschamps will finally be resigning from his symbolic post as a worker at Mexico's state-owned oil company Pemex, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced Tuesday, March 16, 2021. (AP Photo/Ismael Rojas, File)

Carlos Romero Deschamps
Tue, March 16, 2021

MEXICO CITY (AP) — The former leader of Mexico’s oil workers’ union will finally be resigning from his symbolic post as a worker at the state-owned oil company Pemex, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced Tuesday.

The resignation marks an end to the decades-long career of Carlos Romero Deschamps, once considered one of the most powerful and corrupt figures in Mexico.

In October 2019, Romero Deschamps resigned as leader of the union, a post he held since 1993.

López Obrador said Romero Deschamps had not actually been working since he resigned the union post, but rather using up vacation days he accumulated while serving as a union official.

“Even though it may be legal, we considered it was immoral” for Romero Deschamps to continue drawing pay at the beleaguered government oil company, which has been technically bankrupt for some time.

In addition to his union role, Romero Deschamps, 77, long served in Congress for the old ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, and allegedly diverted millions in union and company funds to the party's campaigns in 2000. His family's lavish lifestyle was a frequent cause of scandal.

This week, the beleaguered oil company has reportedly reached a deal with the state-owned electrical power utility to offload stocks of fuel oil that Pemex can't get rid of. The utility will take the heavily polluting fuel oil to burn at power plants, and return natural gas that Pemex cannot produce enough of.

The deal would worsen pollution problems at state-owned generating plants. But López Obrador has enacted a new law that electricity must first be bought from government-owned generating plants, which largely run on fossil fuels like coal, fuel oil and diesel. If any demand remains, power will be purchased from renewable and private natural gas-fired plants.

That has drawn complaints from investors, many of them foreign, who say it violates the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade pact and Mexico’s commitments to cut carbon emissions. They claim it also creates a de facto government monopoly, hurts competition and will make Mexicans buy dirtier, more expensive electricity.

López Obrador has said the law is meant protect government-owned fossil fuel plants against what he call unfair competition from private wind, solar and natural gas-fired power plants.

‘Reading the writing on the wall’: 

why Wall Street is acting on the climate crisis

Dominic Rushe
Tue, March 16, 2021,

THE GUARDIAN

Wildfires burned nearly 10.4m acres across the US last year. The most costly thunderstorm in US history caused $7.5bn in damage across Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota. As the climate crisis swept the globe on a biblical scale it left in its wake a record number of billion-dollar disasters.

And yet out of these ashes has emerged an unlikely savior: Wall Street. After decades of backing polluters and opposing legislation to rein them in, finance says it’s going green.

Related: The race to zero: can America reach net-zero emissions by 2050?

A steadily growing trend in investment went fully mainstream in 2020 as a record number of corporations pledged to go “net zero” and move to cancel out the carbon emissions they produce to halt a catastrophic rise in global temperatures.

The tectonic corporate shift is being led by a strategic detour by some of the world’s biggest investors. It used to be the protesters outside Davos and annual shareholder meetings who talked about greenhouse gases and rising sea levels. Now it’s the bankers. And when money talks, corporations listen. But can Wall Street really save the planet? There are at least positive signs that they are trying.

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate and Columbia University economics professor, doesn’t think Wall Street has a choice. “People used to use the analogy that climate change was like boiling a frog and we wouldn’t notice it until it was too late,” said Stiglitz. “Well, we have been boiled. We are trying to jump out of this.”

Countries including the UK, France, Denmark and New Zealand have pledged to go net zero by 2050 and the EU and Canada are working on their own plans.

The financial calculus is obvious. As the climate crisis continues, the risk of doing nothing is rising and the money is moving.

In 2013 Exxon was the world’s largest company, last year it dropped out of the Dow Jones Index, the blue chip index that is synonymous with the “stock markets” for many investors. Last year it lost $22bn and the company, which for decades denied the climate crisis was real and actively lobbied against change, has been forced to elect climate activist investors to its board.

We are not where we need to be. But sitting where I sit I do see a huge amount of change
Edward Mason

By September last year more than 800 cities, 100 regions and 1,500 companies had pledged to decarbonize their societies and economies, according to the research group Data-Driven EnviroLab and the NewClimate Institute. Between them those companies have combined revenue of over $11.4tn and are responsible for 3.5 gigatonnes in greenhouse gas emissions, an amount greater than India’s annual emissions.

More than 1,000 companies have signed on for the Science Based Targets initiative, an initiative to help corporations set measurable emission standards run by the CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) non-profit organization, the United Nations and others. An analysis of 338 of those companies – including Mastercard, the Italian energy company Enel and UK supermarket chain Tesco – found they have reduced their emissions by 25% since 2015, a difference of 302m tonnes of CO2 equivalent, the same as the annual emissions from 78 coal-fired power plants.

With the planet still warming at an alarming rate an economic crisis looms, said Stiglitz. And the longer we delay the bigger the “transition shock”. “By delaying action we are exacerbating the magnitude of the adjustment that the economy is going to have to go through,” he said.

Some ethical investors have pushed for climate action for decades, but now the major money managers are on board too. Larry Fink, the founder and chief executive of BlackRock, announced that environmental sustainability was now a core goal for his company, one that manages $7tn in investments. Other big money managers including Fidelity and Vanguard are also on board.

But this is not some Damascene conversion. Wall Street isn’t swapping its benchmade wingtips for Birkenstocks. BlackRock still has huge investments in coal and other fossil fuels, but the attitudinal shift should not be underestimated and where it goes others will follow, driven by a huge financial opportunities.

Doing nothing will be bad for business, with 58% of the US suffering economic decline by 2060-2080 if nothing is done. There is also the generational wealth handover from baby boomers to gen X and millennial investors who – as a recent BlackRock report suggested – have a “greater awareness of sustainability”.Chart on wealth transfer over generations.

But, make no mistake, this is about money. Sustainability is “a new source of return across all asset classes” according to Jean Boivin, the head of the BlackRock Investment Institute. BlackRock’s green new deal isn’t so much about excluding bad actors or managing the risk of climate change as it is about “riding a wave that should be a source of return in itself”.

With Joe Biden in power after ousting Donald Trump, the climate denier in chief, trillions of dollars of investment could soon be earmarked for sustainable solutions.

One of Fink’s initiatives is a pledge to publish a “temperature alignment metric” for BlackRock funds – an increasingly popular way for companies and investment funds to measure whether their carbon footprint meets the 2015 Paris agreement treaty to combat climate change by limiting planetary warming to well below 2C.

It is a measure also championed by Generation Investment Management, the investment firm co-founded by the former US vice-president Al Gore and Goldman Sachs’ asset management head, David Blood.

For Edward Mason, director of engagement at Generation Investment Management, the move is part of an encouraging, societal change in how business is reacting to the climate crisis and how investors are helping to drive that change. “The pace is just huge and it is in the right direction,” said Mason. “The challenge is huge as well. I am not being Panglossian about it, we are not where we need to be. But sitting where I sit I do see a huge amount of change.”

Meanwhile, worrying trends continue. Unless action is taken soon, the energy industry’s carbon emissions will soon surpass pre-pandemic levels as economies begin to rebound from Covid-19 restrictions, according to the InternationalEnergy Agency.

Chart showing emissions levels from pre-pandemic to present.

But even environmentalists and longtime activists are – cautiously – optimistic about the direction the investment community is taking. After years of campaigning against corporate damage they see significant signs of progress, albeit with caveats.

“I think there is reason to be optimistic but also to be extremely cautious. It’s both moving in the right direction and greenwashing,” said Josh Axelrod, the senior advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Axelrod focuses on energy and oil and gas issues and notes that BP and Shell have committed to net zero by 2050. “Well what does that really mean? Are they really going to cut emissions or rely on offsets or rely on technology that hasn’t really demonstrated that it can do what it says it’s going to do? The answer, especially for Shell, is unfortunately the latter.”

A large part of Shell’s initiative is a pledge to offset 120m tonnes a year of its emissions by 2030 using “nature-based solutions” – projects that will “protect, transform or restore land”. Axelrod doubts it will be enough. “At the end of the day [for oil and gas production] the only way they are going to deal with their emissions is to stop,” he said.

They are getting pushed by the customer, by the science, by the general public

Father Seamus Finn

Father Seamus Finn of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility has been a longtime campaigner on corporate responsibility and has often had major institutional investors stymie progressive shareholder resolutions he has championed.

“We have tended to be somewhat ambivalent and maybe overly critical about the BlackRocks, the Fidelitys and the Vanguards of this world simply because for too long they were voting against our resolutions at annual meetings,” he said. “But slowly I think they have come around and, let’s be clear, they are doing this because they are reading the writing on the wall. The people who put money in their funds want to know how they voted on resolutions. They are getting pushed by the customer, by the science, by the general public.”

Stiglitz recently joined a new committee of top economic policy thinkers, the Regenerative Crisis Response Committee, which aims to recommend ways to use fiscal and monetary policy and financial regulation to address climate-related financial risks and other risks. The data on climate change looks dark, he concedes, but he is feeling a “qualified optimism”.

“There is a general consensus – not unanimity – that we have to do more,” he said.

Roadblocks remain, not least the “nightmare” of a US political system that has sucked the climate crisis into the divisive culture wars of American politics.

“The main thing that can go wrong is our politics,” said Stiglitz. “Everything is pointing in the right direction, technology, global consensus. The one thing that is not is climate change which is proceeding at a pace and with manifestations that are really depressing,” he said.

But even that is “actually accelerating our willingness to deal with it”.

Buffett's Berkshire opposes shareholders' climate change, diversity proposals


FILE PHOTO: Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett walks through the exhibit hall as shareholders gather to hear from the billionaire investor at Berkshire Hathaway Inc's annual shareholder meeting in Omaha

Jonathan Stempel
Mon, March 15, 2021

(Reuters) - Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc on Monday urged the rejection of shareholder proposals that annual reports be produced about its efforts to address climate change and promote diversity and inclusion.

The proposals were disclosed in Berkshire's annual proxy filing, ahead of the Omaha, Nebraska-based company's scheduled May 1 annual meeting.

Berkshire also said Buffett's compensation in 2020 totaled $380,328, comprising his usual $100,000 salary plus $280,328 for personal and home security.

Though Buffett's salary is low for a chief executive of a major company, his 16.2% stake in Berkshire was worth about $98.2 billion as of Friday.

Vice Chairmen Greg Abel and Ajit Jain, who respectively oversee Berkshire's non-insurance and insurance operations and whose pay Buffett sets, were each awarded $19 million, unchanged from 2019.

Berkshire's dozens of operating businesses include the BNSF railroad, Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Geico car insurer, and the smaller Brooks running shoes and Fruit of the Loom clothing.

Citing its decentralized model, Berkshire said the climate proposal from the California Public Employees' Retirement System, Federated Hermes and Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec was unnecessary, and that many businesses' climate decisions already made "great sense" for the environment.

The company also cited its business model and Buffett's record of "opposing efforts, seen or unseen, to suppress diversity or religious inclusion" in opposing the proposal on diversity from As You Sow, a nonprofit shareholder advocate.

Berkshire said its businesses "represent dissimilar industries" operating around the world, and it was "unreasonable to ask for uniform, quantitative reporting" to compare them.

Buffett controls 32.1% of Berkshire's voting power, and shareholder proposals he opposes normally fail by big margins.

Berkshire's annual meeting will be in Los Angeles, allowing Vice Chairman Charlie Munger, 97, a Californian, to join Buffett in person to answer 3-1/2 hours of shareholder questions.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York)

Exxon urges shareholders to reject seven ESG proposals up for vote at annual meeting


FILE PHOTO: An Exxon sign is seen at a gas station in the Chicago suburb of Norridge

Tue, March 16, 2021

(Reuters) - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp on Tuesday urged shareholders to reject seven proposals up for voting at its annual meeting on May 26, including the proposition to split its chairman and CEO roles.

The shareholders' proposals also include BNP Paribas' demand for a report on Exxon's climate-related lobbying and whether such activities align with the Paris Accord. Another proposal asks for an analysis of how 2050 net zero carbon emission targets affect Exxon's business.

Last year, Exxon's shareholders rejected climate-related proposals and splitting the chairman and chief executive's roles at the company's annual meeting.

Exxon is also facing a proxy fight from activist investor Engine No. 1 that last year took on the top U.S. oil producer for what it said were poor financial returns and a lagging approach to cleaner fuels.

Engine No. 1 on Monday named four directors it wants shareholders to remove at Exxon's upcoming annual general meeting.

The fund singled out three former chief executives of prominent U.S. companies and the former head of Malaysia's state-run oil firm who joined the board last month, for removal.

(Reporting by Arunima Kumar in Bengaluru; Editing by Shinjini Ganguli)

Diverse Coalition Urging Passage Of First Ever Climate Legislation

SEATTLE, March 15, 2021

Business, Environmental, Labor & Social Justice Groups Join Together on SB 5126

SEATTLE, March 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- A diverse group of business leaders, social justice advocates, environmentalists, labor and philanthropists are joining together to call on the Washington State Legislature to pass the Climate Commitment Act, the state's largest investment in creating a clean economy while generating billions of dollars that will be fairly and equitably invested across the state. The bill is being heard today in the Washington State Senate Ways and Means Committee.

(PRNewsfoto/Clean & Prosperous America)

The group includes the Washington Business Alliance, Clean & Prosperous Washington (CaPWA), Washington Build-Back Black Alliance (WBBBA), the Working Group on Seafood and Energy, Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council, SEIU 1199 NW, and multiple environmental groups. Washington business members of the group sent a letter to the Senate Ways and Means Committee this morning urging committee members to put Washington back on a leadership path to addressing global climate change. "Despite some notable progress in addressing climate change and ushering in a clean energy economy, carbon emissions in the state are still growing. To meet the state's climate goals and those of the Paris Climate Accords, more needs to be done."

The letter, went on to say, "This bill aligns the state's climate goals with a regulatory cap on emissions that will ensure that Washington state achieves its 2030 and 2050 carbon reduction targets. The legislation will improve the productivity of Washington's economy by reducing costly energy waste, creating good jobs, improving public health and fostering equitable outcomes while providing a clear signal for business to innovate."

Business supporters signing the letter include Puget Sound Solar, McKinstry, MacDonald Miller Facility Solutions, Vulcan Inc, bp America and business associations like Northwest Energy Efficiency Council (NEEC) and American Institute of Architects (AIA) Washington Council.

MacDonald-Miller Facility Solutions Vice President Perry England said, "We have lost a decade or more trying to get to a consensus on climate policy while carbon emissions have increased in Washington State. It is time to make reducing carbon emissions a priority while growing our economy. A cap and invest program will make both happen."

Washington Build-Back Black Alliance's Paula F. Sardinas said, "There can be no significant climate policy unless we have a commitment to cap and reduce emissions. But reducing the carbon footprint is not enough. We must create meaningful involvement giving affected community residents an appropriate opportunity to participate in any proposed public policy that will affect their environment and/or health." Sardinas went on to say they were proud to offer their "strong support" of this legislation which represents a significant commitment to improving the lives of marginalized people and overburdened communities.

Integrated with a transportation funding package, Senate Bill 5126 will also be the state's largest investment in mobility and climate protection, generating billions of dollars of investments into a transition to a low-carbon economy.


The Working Group on Seafood and Energy, a trade association representing seafood producers, suppliers, tribal and nontribal fishing communities, and other people who depend on healthy oceans, noted that "carbon pollution threatens productive fisheries and marine food webs that support more than 42,000 jobs and $1.7 billion in economic activity in the state, according to NOAA."


"Cap and invest is a model that is working and spreading across our country and world," said thought leader and entrepreneur David Giuliani, founder of Washington Business Alliance, inventor of Sonicare, and an early backer of the legislation. "This legislation is urgently needed and will create jobs and drive growth, by capping carbon pollution and investing in low-carbon, high-efficiency solutions to our transportation, energy, and manufacturing needs."

The full Ways and Means Committee letter can be found below and here. Additional information on the bill, supporters and other updates can also be found at this DropBox Link. Media, please contact Lee Keller for interviews at the contact information above.

More About Clean & Prosperous Washington, a project of the Washington Business Alliance
The Washington Business Alliance launched Clean & Prosperous Washington (CaPWA) in support of the Climate Commitment Act legislation. The bill was recently introduced by Governor Inslee and sponsored by Senator Reuven Carlyle (D-Seattle). We are calling for the broad participation of individuals, organizations, and businesses in shaping this legislation, and collecting signatories for a declaration of support for the policy.

Letter transmitted today to Washington State Senate Ways and Means Committee


Honorable Senator Rolfes, Chair
Honorable Senator Frockt, Vice-Chair
Honorable Senator Robinson, Vice-Chair
Honorable Senator Wilson, Ranking Member
Honorable Senator Brown, Assistant Ranking Member
Honorable Senator Honeyford, Assistant Ranking Member
Honorable Senator Schoesler, Assistant Ranking Member
Honorable Committee Members

March 15, 2021

Washington State has achieved some notable progress in addressing climate change and ushering in a clean energy economy, and yet carbon emissions in the state are still growing. To meet the state's climate goals and those of the Paris Climate Accords, more needs to be done.

The Washington State Legislature and the Ways and Means Committee is well positioned to take immediate climate action with PSSB 5126, the Climate Commitment Act. This bill aligns the state's climate goals with a regulatory cap on emissions that will ensure that Washington state achieves its 2030 and 2050 carbon reduction targets. The legislation will improve the productivity of Washington's economy by reducing costly energy waste, creating good jobs, improving public health and fostering equitable outcomes while providing a clear signal for business to innovate.

Integrated with a transportation funding package, PSSB 5126 will be the state's largest investment in mobility and climate protection, generating billions of dollars of investments into a transition to a low-carbon economy.

Recent changes to PSSB 5126 strengthen the act's commitment to advance EJ review and outcomes.

We urge you to pass PSSB 5126 and put Washington back on a leadership path to addressing global climate change.

MacDonald Miller Facility Solutions
bp America
McKinstry
UMC Inc
Pacific Mobility Group
Earth Up
Eco Consulting LLC
Pacific EV Solutions
Puget Sound Solar
Ecotope
The Jia Group
American Institute of Architects (AIA) Washington Council
Northwest Energy Efficiency Council
Pacific North Westy
Sustainable Living Innovations
Appropriate Technology Group
Sphere Solar Energy
Rick Steves Europe
Vulcan, Inc

View original content to download multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/diverse-coalition-urging-passage-of-first-ever-climate-legislation-301247681.html

SOURCE Clean & Prosperous Washington

Yellen vows to use 'full power' of U.S. government to tackle climate change


FILE PHOTO: U.S. President-elect Joe Biden

 announces members of his economic policy 

team in Wilmington, Delaware

Andrea Shalal
Tue, March 16, 2021, 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government will marshal all of its resources to address climate change as the country recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on Tuesday, as she stressed that the poor suffer the most from climate change.

President Joe Biden has tasked the Treasury Department with using the "vote and voice" of the United States to advance emissions reduction goals, and working to end international financing of carbon-intensive fossil-fuel-based energy sources.

Yellen underscored her focus on tackling climate change and reducing global poverty in a meeting with Christian and Jewish religious leaders and Jubilee USA Network, a non-profit that advocates for debt relief, according to a Treasury statement.

She "stressed that the global poor are the least responsible for climate change, but will suffer most from it," Treasury said. "She noted that the Administration is committed to using the full power of the U.S. federal government to address climate change as part of the Build Back Better plan."

Yellen said the pandemic had accelerated global economic inequality, and low-income countries would need continued international support to address the COVID-19 crisis.

The United States would work with international partners to tackle the crisis, including through support of a Group of 20 debt moratorium and adoption of a common framework to help countries restructure their debts, she said.

Yellen also said she saw a potential new allocation of the International Monetary Fund's emergency reserves, or Special Drawing Rights, as part of a broader package of assistance to low-income countries, but gave no details.

Yellen's support, first announced last month, reversed the opposition of the Trump administration, paving the way for a likely SDR allocation this year. U.S. support is critical because it is the IMF's largest shareholder.

Eric LeCompte, executive director of Jubilee USA Network, said the discussion made clear that climate policies were a growing focus of the G7 and G20 major economies.

"Treasury is looking at climate issues in very deep ways," he said.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Leslie Adler)

Blacklisted Chinese firms eye lawsuits after Xiaomi win against Trump ban

By Karen Freifeld and Alexandra Alper 

3/16/2021

© Reuters/XXSTRINGERXX xxxxx FILE PHOTO: The logo of Xiaomi is seen inside the company's office in Bengaluru

(Reuters) - Chinese companies targeted by a sweeping investment ban imposed by former President Donald Trump are considering suing the U.S. government after a federal judge on Friday suspended a similar blacklisting for Beijing-based smartphone maker Xiaomi.

Lawyers familiar with the matter said some of the banned Chinese companies are in talks with law firms including Steptoe & Johnson and Hogan Lovells, emboldened by U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras' preliminary order halting Xiaomi's inclusion on a U.S. list of alleged Communist Chinese military companies that are subject to an investment ban.

The Trump administration's move to blacklist Xiaomi Corp, which knocked $10 billion off its market share and sent its shares down 9.5 percent in January, would have forced investors to completely divest their stakes in the company.

"Companies are reaching out to lawyers to challenge the listings and the grounds for the listings," said Wendy Wysong, managing partner of the Hong Kong office of Steptoe & Johnson, a worldwide law firm headquartered in Washington. Wysong and a person familiar with Hogan Lovells, another global law firm, declined to name the companies involved in discussions.

Contreras flagged the U.S. government's "deeply flawed" process for including the company in the investment ban, based on just two key criteria: its development of 5G technology and artificial intelligence, which the Defense Department alleges are "essential to modern military operations," and an award given to Xiaomi founder and Chief Executive Lei Jun from an organization said to help the Chinese government eliminate barriers between commercial and military sectors.

The judge noted that 5G and AI technologies were fast becoming standard in consumer electronics, and that over 500 entrepreneurs had received the same award as Lei since 2004, including the leaders of an infant formula company.

"The facts that led to Xiaomi's designation are almost laughable, and I think it absolutely is going to lead to additional companies seeking relief," said Washington lawyer Brian Egan, a former legal adviser in both the White House and State Department who also works at Steptoe.

GOVERNMENT UNDECIDED ON PATH FORWARD

In a joint filing on Tuesday, the government said it had not decided on the "appropriate path forward" in the Xiaomi case in light of the judge's decision.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice, which is defending the case, declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the Department of Defense referred questions to the White House, which has not responded.

Xiaomi and 43 other companies were added https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2434513/dod-releases-list-of-additional-companies-in-accordance-with-section-1237-of-fy in the waning months of the Trump administration to the blacklist, which was mandated by a 1999 law requiring the Defense Department to publish a compilation of companies "owned or controlled" by the Chinese military.

Seeking to cement a tough line on China and box his Democratic successor, Joe Biden, into hardline policies, Trump signed an executive order that was later expanded to bar all U.S. investors from holding securities in the named companies beginning on Nov. 11, 2021.

Other companies listed include video surveillance giant Hikvision, China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC) and China's top chipmaker, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp.

SMIC, Hikvision and CNOOC did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Luokung Technology Corp, a mapping technology company on the list, also sued the U.S. government earlier this month, and is expected to seek preliminary relief similar to that awarded to Xiaomi.

(Reporting by Karen Freifeld and Alexandra Alper; Additional reporting by Mike Stone; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Apple just gave Russia a spot on the iPhone to advertise its favorite apps to its citizens

Mitchell Clark 

3/16/2021

WHEN WE GO TO  HANG THE LAST ARISTOCRAT 

IT WILL BE THE CAPITALIST WHO SELLS US

THE ROPE. 

V. I. LENIN

Starting April 1st, users setting up a new iPhone in Russia will see a screen that allows them to automatically install apps that are officially sanctioned by the Russian government, in compliance with Russian law (via Engadget).

IT IS NOT THAT CAPITALIST THAT DEFENDS BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY, IT IS THE PROLETARIAT

© Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

The law in question was passed back in 2019, and requires smartphones, tablets, laptops, desktops, and smart TVs sold in Russia to come pre-installed with specific apps made by Russian companies by April 1st, according to Russian news site Vedomosti. (The law was originally set to go into effect in July 2020, but was pushed back to April 2021). Vedomosti also says that apps won’t be installed if users don’t want them. Apple confirmed to The Verge that it will comply with the law by giving the users the option to install the apps when activating the phone.

Which apps are specifically going to be offered to users remains unclear, though Vedomosti cites a government services app, and apps from Russian companies including Yandex, Mail.ru, and Kaspersky Lab. The government seems to be aware that it might be problematic to favor specific apps, and is planning to expand its list over time: “The Ministry is not at all interested in seeing popular apps included in the mandatory pre-installation list take dominant positions. If alternatives emerge on the market, prove interesting to users and gain popularity quickly, they will be included in this selection and also offered for pre-installation,” a Russian official told Vedomosti.

Apple has historically kept tight control over the iPhone’s setup process, and that appears to now be changing, if only in one market. While Apple has previously made changes to stay on the side of local laws — it’s changed maps, blocked pride watch faces in Russia, and now stores iCloud data on state-run servers in China — this may be one of the more dramatic changes, as it affects a screen that every user will see when they set up their iPhone.

Apple has slowly been allowing users to change how iOS works out of the box, with the ability to change some default apps in iOS 14, but now it’s given a small amount of control over the setup process to the Russian government, too. As the company faces legal challenges from the EU and US over antitrust, and over giving its competitors a level playing field, we may see Apple having to give over some more control to governments if it wants to sell its phones to their citizens — though it probably won’t be compelled to ask users if they want to install Spotify at setup. 

Probably.