Menu
Menu
At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Global trade and US limitations clash in the discussion of semiconductor equipment. To fill the void left by American businesses, companies such as Tokyo Electron from Japan and ASML from the Netherlands have boosted their equipment supplies to China. No formal statement has been made, despite the efforts of US officials to persuade Japan and the Netherlands to enact similar regulations. Proponents argue that international cooperation strengthens the regulations, while detractors claim the delay allowed China to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Despite these strict restrictions, different semiconductor companies used their stocks of goods and increased prices. This includes Applied Materials, KLA, and Lam Research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global trade and US limitations clash in the discussion of semiconductor equipment. To fill the void left by American businesses, companies such as Tokyo Electron from Japan and ASML from the Netherlands have boosted their equipment supplies to China. No formal statement has been made, despite the efforts of US officials to persuade Japan and the Netherlands to enact similar regulations. Proponents argue that international cooperation strengthens the regulations, while detractors claim the delay allowed China to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Many experts say that industry lobbying may influence the regulations and try to break the rules. Many critics say that these new rules not only target Chinese companies but also harm US businesses.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite these strict restrictions, different semiconductor companies used their stocks of goods and increased prices. This includes Applied Materials, KLA, and Lam Research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global trade and US limitations clash in the discussion of semiconductor equipment. To fill the void left by American businesses, companies such as Tokyo Electron from Japan and ASML from the Netherlands have boosted their equipment supplies to China. No formal statement has been made, despite the efforts of US officials to persuade Japan and the Netherlands to enact similar regulations. Proponents argue that international cooperation strengthens the regulations, while detractors claim the delay allowed China to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
This new trade restriction to prevent Chinese technology from growing has a large impact on semiconductor industries. Approximately 140 Chinese companies have to face \u200csevere challenges due to this new trade rule. They are not allowed to continue the process of chip production. Due to these rules, various memory chip shipments to China have been banned. The rule also imposes worldwide restrictions on equipment used to manufacture chips, effective December 31. Furthermore, US companies strictly investigate that everyone must follow the rules. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many experts say that industry lobbying may influence the regulations and try to break the rules. Many critics say that these new rules not only target Chinese companies but also harm US businesses.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite these strict restrictions, different semiconductor companies used their stocks of goods and increased prices. This includes Applied Materials, KLA, and Lam Research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global trade and US limitations clash in the discussion of semiconductor equipment. To fill the void left by American businesses, companies such as Tokyo Electron from Japan and ASML from the Netherlands have boosted their equipment supplies to China. No formal statement has been made, despite the efforts of US officials to persuade Japan and the Netherlands to enact similar regulations. Proponents argue that international cooperation strengthens the regulations, while detractors claim the delay allowed China to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
To balance \u200cgrowing concerns about threats from China<\/a>, these new rules were imposed. They have only aimed to prevent China from making advanced chips that harm America\u2019s security. The US never wants China to gain an edge in military and artificial technology. According to the Biden administration, this is the only way to secure a US security position.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n This new trade restriction to prevent Chinese technology from growing has a large impact on semiconductor industries. Approximately 140 Chinese companies have to face \u200csevere challenges due to this new trade rule. They are not allowed to continue the process of chip production. Due to these rules, various memory chip shipments to China have been banned. The rule also imposes worldwide restrictions on equipment used to manufacture chips, effective December 31. Furthermore, US companies strictly investigate that everyone must follow the rules. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many experts say that industry lobbying may influence the regulations and try to break the rules. Many critics say that these new rules not only target Chinese companies but also harm US businesses.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite these strict restrictions, different semiconductor companies used their stocks of goods and increased prices. This includes Applied Materials, KLA, and Lam Research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global trade and US limitations clash in the discussion of semiconductor equipment. To fill the void left by American businesses, companies such as Tokyo Electron from Japan and ASML from the Netherlands have boosted their equipment supplies to China. No formal statement has been made, despite the efforts of US officials to persuade Japan and the Netherlands to enact similar regulations. Proponents argue that international cooperation strengthens the regulations, while detractors claim the delay allowed China to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, these steps are being taken to save national security. After having deep discussions with industry leaders, allies, and experts, the government decided to put this ban on China. Some national security groups have lobbied for tougher rules. At the same time, some have said that these restrictions will not prove successful for \u200cUnited States companies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To balance \u200cgrowing concerns about threats from China<\/a>, these new rules were imposed. They have only aimed to prevent China from making advanced chips that harm America\u2019s security. The US never wants China to gain an edge in military and artificial technology. According to the Biden administration, this is the only way to secure a US security position.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n This new trade restriction to prevent Chinese technology from growing has a large impact on semiconductor industries. Approximately 140 Chinese companies have to face \u200csevere challenges due to this new trade rule. They are not allowed to continue the process of chip production. Due to these rules, various memory chip shipments to China have been banned. The rule also imposes worldwide restrictions on equipment used to manufacture chips, effective December 31. Furthermore, US companies strictly investigate that everyone must follow the rules. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many experts say that industry lobbying may influence the regulations and try to break the rules. Many critics say that these new rules not only target Chinese companies but also harm US businesses.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite these strict restrictions, different semiconductor companies used their stocks of goods and increased prices. This includes Applied Materials, KLA, and Lam Research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global trade and US limitations clash in the discussion of semiconductor equipment. To fill the void left by American businesses, companies such as Tokyo Electron from Japan and ASML from the Netherlands have boosted their equipment supplies to China. No formal statement has been made, despite the efforts of US officials to persuade Japan and the Netherlands to enact similar regulations. Proponents argue that international cooperation strengthens the regulations, while detractors claim the delay allowed China to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The Biden administration<\/a> has started to impose new restrictions on China\u2019s exports. They announced new rules to prevent advanced technology from going to China. According to these rules, it is important to prevent the sale of specific chips and machinery. It is expected that China could use this advanced technology for military and AI purposes. In this restricted trade list, more than 100 Chinese companies were added. For the past 3 years, this is the 3rd progressive stop to stop the technological progress of China.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, these steps are being taken to save national security. After having deep discussions with industry leaders, allies, and experts, the government decided to put this ban on China. Some national security groups have lobbied for tougher rules. At the same time, some have said that these restrictions will not prove successful for \u200cUnited States companies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To balance \u200cgrowing concerns about threats from China<\/a>, these new rules were imposed. They have only aimed to prevent China from making advanced chips that harm America\u2019s security. The US never wants China to gain an edge in military and artificial technology. According to the Biden administration, this is the only way to secure a US security position.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n This new trade restriction to prevent Chinese technology from growing has a large impact on semiconductor industries. Approximately 140 Chinese companies have to face \u200csevere challenges due to this new trade rule. They are not allowed to continue the process of chip production. Due to these rules, various memory chip shipments to China have been banned. The rule also imposes worldwide restrictions on equipment used to manufacture chips, effective December 31. Furthermore, US companies strictly investigate that everyone must follow the rules. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many experts say that industry lobbying may influence the regulations and try to break the rules. Many critics say that these new rules not only target Chinese companies but also harm US businesses.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite these strict restrictions, different semiconductor companies used their stocks of goods and increased prices. This includes Applied Materials, KLA, and Lam Research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global trade and US limitations clash in the discussion of semiconductor equipment. To fill the void left by American businesses, companies such as Tokyo Electron from Japan and ASML from the Netherlands have boosted their equipment supplies to China. No formal statement has been made, despite the efforts of US officials to persuade Japan and the Netherlands to enact similar regulations. Proponents argue that international cooperation strengthens the regulations, while detractors claim the delay allowed China to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
In addition to restoring the immigration system, the Biden administration sought to innovate it. On the one hand, the government has been quite active; by December 2024, it had taken 605 executive orders about immigration, more than Trump did in his first term (472 acts). Among these actions are the restoration of lawful immigration procedures and the resettlement of refugees to numbers not observed since the 1990s. Under Biden's leadership, about 3.5 million people have obtained citizenship, making it the highest number of naturalizations for any president. Biden's detractors contend that rather than bringing about meaningful change, his ideas are a continuation of Trump-era policies. For instance, proponents of immigrant rights have voiced dissatisfaction, claiming that the administration frequently u<\/a>sed tactics similar to those of its predecessor, even as Biden pushed for reforms. Biden's pledges to enact more compassionate immigration laws are called into question by the tightening of asylum requirements and the rise in deportations.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The hidden costs of Biden\u2019s immigration policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-hidden-costs-of-bidens-immigration-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7312","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7309,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-14 20:10:09","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-14 20:10:09","post_content":"\n The Biden administration<\/a> has started to impose new restrictions on China\u2019s exports. They announced new rules to prevent advanced technology from going to China. According to these rules, it is important to prevent the sale of specific chips and machinery. It is expected that China could use this advanced technology for military and AI purposes. In this restricted trade list, more than 100 Chinese companies were added. For the past 3 years, this is the 3rd progressive stop to stop the technological progress of China.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, these steps are being taken to save national security. After having deep discussions with industry leaders, allies, and experts, the government decided to put this ban on China. Some national security groups have lobbied for tougher rules. At the same time, some have said that these restrictions will not prove successful for \u200cUnited States companies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To balance \u200cgrowing concerns about threats from China<\/a>, these new rules were imposed. They have only aimed to prevent China from making advanced chips that harm America\u2019s security. The US never wants China to gain an edge in military and artificial technology. According to the Biden administration, this is the only way to secure a US security position.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n This new trade restriction to prevent Chinese technology from growing has a large impact on semiconductor industries. Approximately 140 Chinese companies have to face \u200csevere challenges due to this new trade rule. They are not allowed to continue the process of chip production. Due to these rules, various memory chip shipments to China have been banned. The rule also imposes worldwide restrictions on equipment used to manufacture chips, effective December 31. Furthermore, US companies strictly investigate that everyone must follow the rules. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many experts say that industry lobbying may influence the regulations and try to break the rules. Many critics say that these new rules not only target Chinese companies but also harm US businesses.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite these strict restrictions, different semiconductor companies used their stocks of goods and increased prices. This includes Applied Materials, KLA, and Lam Research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global trade and US limitations clash in the discussion of semiconductor equipment. To fill the void left by American businesses, companies such as Tokyo Electron from Japan and ASML from the Netherlands have boosted their equipment supplies to China. No formal statement has been made, despite the efforts of US officials to persuade Japan and the Netherlands to enact similar regulations. Proponents argue that international cooperation strengthens the regulations, while detractors claim the delay allowed China to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
In addition to restoring the immigration system, the Biden administration sought to innovate it. On the one hand, the government has been quite active; by December 2024, it had taken 605 executive orders about immigration, more than Trump did in his first term (472 acts). Among these actions are the restoration of lawful immigration procedures and the resettlement of refugees to numbers not observed since the 1990s. Under Biden's leadership, about 3.5 million people have obtained citizenship, making it the highest number of naturalizations for any president. Biden's detractors contend that rather than bringing about meaningful change, his ideas are a continuation of Trump-era policies. For instance, proponents of immigrant rights have voiced dissatisfaction, claiming that the administration frequently u<\/a>sed tactics similar to those of its predecessor, even as Biden pushed for reforms. Biden's pledges to enact more compassionate immigration laws are called into question by the tightening of asylum requirements and the rise in deportations.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The hidden costs of Biden\u2019s immigration policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-hidden-costs-of-bidens-immigration-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7312","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7309,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-14 20:10:09","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-14 20:10:09","post_content":"\n The Biden administration<\/a> has started to impose new restrictions on China\u2019s exports. They announced new rules to prevent advanced technology from going to China. According to these rules, it is important to prevent the sale of specific chips and machinery. It is expected that China could use this advanced technology for military and AI purposes. In this restricted trade list, more than 100 Chinese companies were added. For the past 3 years, this is the 3rd progressive stop to stop the technological progress of China.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, these steps are being taken to save national security. After having deep discussions with industry leaders, allies, and experts, the government decided to put this ban on China. Some national security groups have lobbied for tougher rules. At the same time, some have said that these restrictions will not prove successful for \u200cUnited States companies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To balance \u200cgrowing concerns about threats from China<\/a>, these new rules were imposed. They have only aimed to prevent China from making advanced chips that harm America\u2019s security. The US never wants China to gain an edge in military and artificial technology. According to the Biden administration, this is the only way to secure a US security position.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n This new trade restriction to prevent Chinese technology from growing has a large impact on semiconductor industries. Approximately 140 Chinese companies have to face \u200csevere challenges due to this new trade rule. They are not allowed to continue the process of chip production. Due to these rules, various memory chip shipments to China have been banned. The rule also imposes worldwide restrictions on equipment used to manufacture chips, effective December 31. Furthermore, US companies strictly investigate that everyone must follow the rules. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many experts say that industry lobbying may influence the regulations and try to break the rules. Many critics say that these new rules not only target Chinese companies but also harm US businesses.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite these strict restrictions, different semiconductor companies used their stocks of goods and increased prices. This includes Applied Materials, KLA, and Lam Research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global trade and US limitations clash in the discussion of semiconductor equipment. To fill the void left by American businesses, companies such as Tokyo Electron from Japan and ASML from the Netherlands have boosted their equipment supplies to China. No formal statement has been made, despite the efforts of US officials to persuade Japan and the Netherlands to enact similar regulations. Proponents argue that international cooperation strengthens the regulations, while detractors claim the delay allowed China to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Donalds continued: \"So if you're going to say that it cost us $300 billion over a decade to repatriate illegal aliens to their home country versus the American taxpayer having to pay more than a trillion dollars over the same decade to keep those illegal aliens in the United States, that is a saving to the American people.\" It's safe to assume that journalists don't consider this to be a spending or saving issue. It's a really good question. They saw themselves as resisting the smell of \"white nationalists\" who protest illegal immigrants' presence and promoting the \"diversity\" and \"inclusion\" that they bring across the border. Both sides of the political spectrum have criticized the Biden administration's complicated and contentious immigration policy. When he took office, President Joe Biden aimed to undo many of the stringent immigration laws that had been implemented under President Donald Trump. Notwithstanding his goals, obstacles remained, demonstrating how challenging it is to implement comprehensive immigration reform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to restoring the immigration system, the Biden administration sought to innovate it. On the one hand, the government has been quite active; by December 2024, it had taken 605 executive orders about immigration, more than Trump did in his first term (472 acts). Among these actions are the restoration of lawful immigration procedures and the resettlement of refugees to numbers not observed since the 1990s. Under Biden's leadership, about 3.5 million people have obtained citizenship, making it the highest number of naturalizations for any president. Biden's detractors contend that rather than bringing about meaningful change, his ideas are a continuation of Trump-era policies. For instance, proponents of immigrant rights have voiced dissatisfaction, claiming that the administration frequently u<\/a>sed tactics similar to those of its predecessor, even as Biden pushed for reforms. Biden's pledges to enact more compassionate immigration laws are called into question by the tightening of asylum requirements and the rise in deportations.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The hidden costs of Biden\u2019s immigration policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-hidden-costs-of-bidens-immigration-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7312","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7309,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-14 20:10:09","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-14 20:10:09","post_content":"\n The Biden administration<\/a> has started to impose new restrictions on China\u2019s exports. They announced new rules to prevent advanced technology from going to China. According to these rules, it is important to prevent the sale of specific chips and machinery. It is expected that China could use this advanced technology for military and AI purposes. In this restricted trade list, more than 100 Chinese companies were added. For the past 3 years, this is the 3rd progressive stop to stop the technological progress of China.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, these steps are being taken to save national security. After having deep discussions with industry leaders, allies, and experts, the government decided to put this ban on China. Some national security groups have lobbied for tougher rules. At the same time, some have said that these restrictions will not prove successful for \u200cUnited States companies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To balance \u200cgrowing concerns about threats from China<\/a>, these new rules were imposed. They have only aimed to prevent China from making advanced chips that harm America\u2019s security. The US never wants China to gain an edge in military and artificial technology. According to the Biden administration, this is the only way to secure a US security position.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n This new trade restriction to prevent Chinese technology from growing has a large impact on semiconductor industries. Approximately 140 Chinese companies have to face \u200csevere challenges due to this new trade rule. They are not allowed to continue the process of chip production. Due to these rules, various memory chip shipments to China have been banned. The rule also imposes worldwide restrictions on equipment used to manufacture chips, effective December 31. Furthermore, US companies strictly investigate that everyone must follow the rules. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many experts say that industry lobbying may influence the regulations and try to break the rules. Many critics say that these new rules not only target Chinese companies but also harm US businesses.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite these strict restrictions, different semiconductor companies used their stocks of goods and increased prices. This includes Applied Materials, KLA, and Lam Research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global trade and US limitations clash in the discussion of semiconductor equipment. To fill the void left by American businesses, companies such as Tokyo Electron from Japan and ASML from the Netherlands have boosted their equipment supplies to China. No formal statement has been made, despite the efforts of US officials to persuade Japan and the Netherlands to enact similar regulations. Proponents argue that international cooperation strengthens the regulations, while detractors claim the delay allowed China to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to a study by the non-profit research tank InfluenceMap, major trade groups are the key players impeding progressive climate policies. On important matters like the Inflation Reduction Act and the required climate-related disclosures, these groups are becoming more and more out of step with their members. As the US prepares for Trump 2.0, this is more crucial than ever. Trump's second term would likely see fewer checks and balances, with aggressive environmental deregulation \u200clargely expected. Although history indicates that their industry groups will not be battling with them, Corporate America will play a significant role in protecting laws like the IRA, which they claim have been fundamentally beneficial for business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the We Mean Business Coalition, one of the most significant sustainability-related steps a firm can take is to publicly support progressive climate policies. Climate envoy John Kerry specifically mentioned the 400 American companies that openly supported President Joe Biden's 50% emissions reduction goal by 2030 as being essential to its accomplishment in 2021. However, according to WMBC, despite the sustainability aspirations of certain US firms during the past ten years, there is a noticeable disconnect between advocacy and ambition, and a large portion of that may be attributed to their involvement in trade groups that consistently oppose climate legislation. One excellent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission's initiative to require sustainability reporting. Industry organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable swiftly filed lawsuits against the SEC regulation, even though non-financial information reporting is becoming the standard globally and US corporations are already bound by many of these standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While its members \"are committed to combating climate change and are leading the way in transparent, voluntary climate-related disclosures,\" a Business Roundtable spokesperson told Sustainable Views that the organization believed the rule's scope and breadth were \"counterproductive and beyond the SEC's statutory authority.\" A request for response from the Chamber of Commerce was not answered. The SEC's regulation, which was already weaker than previous suggestions, is far less likely to be implemented now that Trump has been re-elected. Trump has promised to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, on his first day in office. Deborah McNamara, executive director of ClimateVoice, a program that empowers employees to pressure their employers toward progressive climate policies, argues that if large firms hadn't spoken out in favor of it, California's climate disclosures would have turned out similarly. Many of the chamber's members, including Salesforce, Microsoft<\/a>, and Google, publicly supported the law despite the California chapter of the chamber fighting the regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least 37 of the hundreds of companies that these groups are supposed to represent have stated in public business filings that their policy stance differs from that of their trade associations. They are still members, though. The previous chief sustainability officers of three large US IT businesses, all based in California, were interviewed by Sustainable Views. They all stated that they frequently believed that the trade groups of their firms, particularly the chamber, did not fairly reflect the opinions of their companies about climate policy. According to them, a company's inadequate communication of its net zero plan may be the cause of this mismatch. This is a \"cop-out,\" according to Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability, who spoke to Sustainable Views, as trade groups rely on corporate fees to remain in business. He went on to say that businesses may and need to advise groups to cease impeding progressive measures. The former CSO continues, \"A small number of members usually fossil fuel companies are incredibly motivated and forceful, which is why industry groups land on these positions.\" \"The problem may not be an existential threat to business, but for the rest of your members, climate policy is a \"good to have.\" For them, it's existential.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US companies stick with industry groups despite climate policy clashes","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-companies-stick-with-industry-groups-despite-climate-policy-clashes","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7299","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":15},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Donalds continued: \"So if you're going to say that it cost us $300 billion over a decade to repatriate illegal aliens to their home country versus the American taxpayer having to pay more than a trillion dollars over the same decade to keep those illegal aliens in the United States, that is a saving to the American people.\" It's safe to assume that journalists don't consider this to be a spending or saving issue. It's a really good question. They saw themselves as resisting the smell of \"white nationalists\" who protest illegal immigrants' presence and promoting the \"diversity\" and \"inclusion\" that they bring across the border. Both sides of the political spectrum have criticized the Biden administration's complicated and contentious immigration policy. When he took office, President Joe Biden aimed to undo many of the stringent immigration laws that had been implemented under President Donald Trump. Notwithstanding his goals, obstacles remained, demonstrating how challenging it is to implement comprehensive immigration reform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to restoring the immigration system, the Biden administration sought to innovate it. On the one hand, the government has been quite active; by December 2024, it had taken 605 executive orders about immigration, more than Trump did in his first term (472 acts). Among these actions are the restoration of lawful immigration procedures and the resettlement of refugees to numbers not observed since the 1990s. Under Biden's leadership, about 3.5 million people have obtained citizenship, making it the highest number of naturalizations for any president. Biden's detractors contend that rather than bringing about meaningful change, his ideas are a continuation of Trump-era policies. For instance, proponents of immigrant rights have voiced dissatisfaction, claiming that the administration frequently u<\/a>sed tactics similar to those of its predecessor, even as Biden pushed for reforms. Biden's pledges to enact more compassionate immigration laws are called into question by the tightening of asylum requirements and the rise in deportations.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The hidden costs of Biden\u2019s immigration policies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-hidden-costs-of-bidens-immigration-policies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7312","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7309,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-14 20:10:09","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-14 20:10:09","post_content":"\n The Biden administration<\/a> has started to impose new restrictions on China\u2019s exports. They announced new rules to prevent advanced technology from going to China. According to these rules, it is important to prevent the sale of specific chips and machinery. It is expected that China could use this advanced technology for military and AI purposes. In this restricted trade list, more than 100 Chinese companies were added. For the past 3 years, this is the 3rd progressive stop to stop the technological progress of China.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, these steps are being taken to save national security. After having deep discussions with industry leaders, allies, and experts, the government decided to put this ban on China. Some national security groups have lobbied for tougher rules. At the same time, some have said that these restrictions will not prove successful for \u200cUnited States companies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To balance \u200cgrowing concerns about threats from China<\/a>, these new rules were imposed. They have only aimed to prevent China from making advanced chips that harm America\u2019s security. The US never wants China to gain an edge in military and artificial technology. According to the Biden administration, this is the only way to secure a US security position.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n This new trade restriction to prevent Chinese technology from growing has a large impact on semiconductor industries. Approximately 140 Chinese companies have to face \u200csevere challenges due to this new trade rule. They are not allowed to continue the process of chip production. Due to these rules, various memory chip shipments to China have been banned. The rule also imposes worldwide restrictions on equipment used to manufacture chips, effective December 31. Furthermore, US companies strictly investigate that everyone must follow the rules. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many experts say that industry lobbying may influence the regulations and try to break the rules. Many critics say that these new rules not only target Chinese companies but also harm US businesses.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite these strict restrictions, different semiconductor companies used their stocks of goods and increased prices. This includes Applied Materials, KLA, and Lam Research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global trade and US limitations clash in the discussion of semiconductor equipment. To fill the void left by American businesses, companies such as Tokyo Electron from Japan and ASML from the Netherlands have boosted their equipment supplies to China. No formal statement has been made, despite the efforts of US officials to persuade Japan and the Netherlands to enact similar regulations. Proponents argue that international cooperation strengthens the regulations, while detractors claim the delay allowed China to purchase billions of dollars worth of equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By prohibiting foreign corporations from transferring equipment to China that leverages US technology, the new US regulations give the country more authority. However, the Netherlands and Japan are free to set their own regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, these new regulations aim to prevent American businesses from evading prohibitions by utilizing factories abroad. When Japan and the Netherlands implement their own regulations the impact on China's semiconductor industry is yet unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the authority in question is strong, Mr. Allen noted that there are a lot of exceptions. The application of the authority is more nuanced than it first seems because of these exclusions, which permit the shipment of commodities to China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It's still unclear how China will react to US export restrictions. China has recently tightened its export regulations, particularly for delicate goods like rare earth minerals. To penalize businesses that undermine China's interests, it has also developed a list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin Jian, the spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, underlined that China will defend the rights of its businesses and is against the misuse of export controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to experts, China is likely to target American IT businesses, as seen by the inquiry into Micron last year after the United States placed a Chinese chip manufacturer on its blacklist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global businesses, many of which still depend on China because of its sizable industrial base and consumer market, are facing difficulties as a result of the widening gap between American and Chinese tech supply chains. But it's getting more difficult to overlook the competition between the two countries.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Analyzing \u200cUS export restrictions on more than 100 Chinese companies","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"analyzing-us-export-restrictions-on-more-than-100-chinese-companies","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7309","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7302,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-03 18:54:43","post_content":"\n The European Union<\/a> passed a new law about artificial intelligence (AI). After passing this law, people across the world are wondering if it will set the global standard. Same as the GDPR (European Union\u2019s data privacy) law did in the past. This law changed how the United States handled the privacy of its data, especially when the federal laws did not work. Now many are pondering the question if the same thing will happen with these new AI laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, the United States is refusing to follow the EU\u2019s newly designed AI laws. Furthermore, tech companies are pushing to follow the easier and cheaper rules that do not provide the guarantee of data privacy. AI laws were passed in Colorado and Utah, and bills were proposed in Oklahoma and Connecticut. These new rules seem to protect the people more as compared to the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main difference between AI and stats bills is in their scope. Artificial intelligence takes a wide approach to protecting human rights. It used the risk-based system to regulate AI. It bans many uses of AI. Some of them are ranking people based on their family members or education. However, there are few requirements in lower-risk AI systems.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n State bills, like the ones in Colorado and Connecticut, have a smaller focus. They also use a system that looks at the risks of AI, but only for AI that affects important services like education or jobs. These bills do not put any restrictions on certain AI uses. For example, Connecticut's bill would prevent political deepfakes. But it does not stop their creation. Also, the strategies that AI is explained in these United States bills are not similar to how it is explored in the AI Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there are many similarities in AI laws in Connecticut and Colorado and the European AI Act. Especially in the rules for creating high-risk AI systems. However, these state laws are closely aligned to a model AI bill. It was created by a company named Workday. This institute makes software for managing the workforce and finances. Workday\u2019s model, mentioned in a March article by The Record, explores the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers and those who utilize the technology. Their main focus is on the system that makes crucial decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state laws and Workday\u2019s bill document requirements are very similar. Especially in calling for an impact assessment when designing AI systems. This model has great influence on laws, especially in states like California, Illinois, and New York as well. One of the spokespersons from the Workday company said that his institute is actively helping shape AI policies. It protects customers while encouraging innovation, by offering technical advice based on discussions with policymakers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The tech industry has a great influence on AI regulations. In Connecticut, tech companies succeeded in their lobbying efforts. They smarty remove a section of the AI Act from a draft bill. On the other hand, some big tech companies have shown great support for the bill, but it remains stalled. Industry groups argue that the bill would restrict innovation. This led Governor Ned Lamont to threaten a veto. Some other states such as Colorado, are also facing the problems of delays. They also make plans to revise their Artificial Intelligence bills to save innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to the advancement of debate at the federal level<\/a>, big tech companies have a strong influence on AI laws. In this conversation, tech companies and the Senate are heavily involved. States are worried that stricter rules of AI laws might compel tech companies to places with easier laws. However, the level of concern is less when exploring the data protection laws like GDPR. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For each state, lobbying groups support one national AI law instead of various regulations. This is the same view that big tech companies also share publicly. However, many of the companies show strong disagreement with both national and state law. If regulators are not successful in creating any laws, AI institutes will maintain the status quo. It creates the hope of different rules in the United States and the European Union. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While some US companies may find it useful to follow EU rules, this would leave the US less regulated overall, offering less protection against AI abuses. The EU\u2019s AI Act has remained strong despite lobbying efforts. It remains uncertain whether state laws in the US will continue to provide a consistent approach to AI regulation.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Comparing AI laws: The EU's model versus US approaches","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"comparing-ai-laws-the-eus-model-versus-us-approaches","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:24","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7302","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7299,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_date_gmt":"2024-12-01 19:20:49","post_content":"\n Due to a \"lowest common denominator\" attitude among powerful fossil fuel<\/a> members for whom climate policy advancement might be an existential force, industry groups' lobbying <\/a>is extremely regressive, according to sources. In a nutshell, businesses openly support a progressive climate. As demonstrated by several pieces of US legislation in recent years, business support can make or break environmental regulations. Chief sustainability officers say that this misalignment can be \"devastating,\" but that businesses receive too many other benefits from membership in trade associations to take a strong stance. Donald Trump received a lot of support from business<\/a> America when he was elected as the 47th president of the United States earlier this month. However, corporate funding has a significant impact on the success or failure of certain laws in addition to being intricately woven into political campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\nImplications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Unseen costs of immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Unseen costs of immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key industry associations and their stance on climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why companies choose to stay despite divergences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The role of reputation and stakeholder pressure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Implications for climate advocacy and policy progress<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
The price of mass migration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Unseen costs of immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the major difference between AI and a stats bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n