Current Events > Newsom will "of course" sign corporate climate disclosure bill

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/17/newsom-corporate-climate-disclosure-bill-00116439

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Sunday he plans to sign a major bill that would change the way American companies report their climate risk.

Speaking at a climate panel in New York City, the governor said of course he would sign CA SB253 (23R), which would require companies earning at least $1 billion per year and doing business in the state to disclose their scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions.

The legislation for the first time will show the largest corporate polluters and where the bulk of those emissions are in companies supply chains. It would cover more than 5,000 companies operating in California but could also shake up how climate risk is viewed nationally. The federal government has been slow to release proposed regulations that would require increased disclosure of climate risk.

Newsom also said he would sign a related bill, CA SB261 (23R) by Sen. Henry Stern (D-Sherman Oaks), that would force large corporations to disclose their climate-related financial risks. He added that the bills may require some kind of clean up.

Newsom was in New York as part of Climate Week, an event timed to a gathering of the United Nations. The comments will also resonate across Wall Street.

California will once again lead the nation with this ambitious step to tackle the climate crisis and ensure corporate transparency, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), the author of SB 253, said in a statement.

Details: SB 253 is expected to apply to some 5,400 companies. The bill, introduced earlier this year as part of a climate accountability package, goes beyond proposed federal climate disclosure rules at the Securities and Exchange Commission. While the SECs proposed rule only applies to publicly traded companies and wouldnt require all of them to disclose scope 3, or supply chain emissions, the California bill also applies to privately held companies and would require full scope 3 disclosure.

Soon:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/5/6/AAEhCpAAE2gw.jpg

...or, it becomes as meaningless as the Prop65 label everyone completely ignores.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/6/5/AAEhCpAAE2g5.png

This one and the ban toxic chemicals in food bill are good

EU already banned those same chemicals and California gonna lead the way for the US as per usual

Questionmarktarius posted...

Soon:

The greatest economy in the United States will collapse... two more weeks

Questionmarktarius posted...

or, it becomes as meaningless as the Prop65 label everyone completely ignores.

The companies don't ignore it. A lot of companies changed things to take out their carcinogens.

Doe posted...

The greatest economy in the United States will collapse... two more weeks

Republicans in the house introduced an extension through Oct 31st, so we'll see.

I don't know if there's enough Fascist Caucus members to outvote the rest of the GOP who sees no good in shutting the government down.

I believe the only real risk is McCarthy's speakership if he provides an extension, so it could very well go nowhere.

Tyranthraxus posted...

The companies don't ignore it. A lot of companies changed things to take out their carcinogens.

And a lot of consumers look at them, avoiding certain chemicals. Some people don't GAF about what's in a product, but some people do. For my part, I look at them when I shop.

brestugo posted...

And a lot of consumers look at them, avoiding certain chemicals. Some people don't GAF about what's in a product, but some people do. For my part, I look at them when I shop.

Like if you've got two brands next to each other with nearly identical competing products and one had the Prop65 label and one doesn't, why wouldn't you pick the one without the label?

Tyranthraxus posted...

Like if you've got two brands next to each other with nearly identical competing products and one had the Prop65 label and one doesn't, why wouldn't you pick the one without the label?

Yup

Tyranthraxus posted...

Like if you've got two brands next to each other with nearly identical competing products and one had the Prop65 label and one doesn't, why wouldn't you pick the one without the label?

Exactly.

Tyranthraxus posted...

The companies don't ignore it. A lot of companies changed things to take out their carcinogens.

He is a hardcore Trumper, reasoning with him is pointless.