California Gov. Newsom announces plan to sign climate bill requiring large companies to disclose gas emissions

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Sunday that he plans to sign into law a pair of climate-focused bills intended to force major corporations to be more transparent about greenhouse gas emissions and the financial risks stemming from global warming.

Newsom’s announcement came during an out-of-state trip to New York’s Climate Week, where world leaders in business, politics and the arts are gathered to seek solutions for climate change.

California lawmakers last week passed legislation requiring large businesses from oil and gas companies to retail giants to disclose their direct greenhouse gas emissions as well as those that come from activities like employee business travel.

CA INTRODUCES CLIMATE BILL THAT WOULD MAKE COMPANIES DISCLOSE THEIR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Such disclosures are a “simple but intensely powerful driver of decarbonization,” said the bill’s author, state Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat.

“This legislation will support those companies doing their part to tackle the climate crisis and create accountability for those that aren’t,” Wiener said in a statement Sunday applauding Newsom’s decision.

Under the law, thousands of public and private businesses that operate in California and make more than $1 billion annually will have to make the emissions disclosures. The goal is to increase transparency and nudge companies to evaluate how they can cut their carbon emissions.

The second bill approved last week by the state Assembly requires companies making more than $500 million annually to disclose what financial risks climate change poses to their businesses and how they plan to address those risks.

CALIFORNIA’S GRID FACES COLLAPSE AS LEADERS PUSH RENEWABLES, ELECTRIC VEHICLES, EXPERTS SAY

State Sen. Henry Stern, a Democrat from Los Angeles who introduced the legislation, said the information would be useful for individuals and lawmakers when making public and private investment decisions. The bill was changed recently to require companies to begin reporting the information in 2026, instead of 2024, and mandate that they report every other year, instead of annually.

Newsom, a Democrat, said he wants California to lead the nation in addressing the climate crisis. “We need to exercise not just our formal authority, but we need to share our moral authority more abundantly,” he said.

Newsom’s office announced Saturday that California has filed a lawsuit against some of the world’s largest oil and gas companies, claiming they deceived the public about the risks of fossil fuels now faulted for climate change-related storms and wildfires that caused billions of dollars in damage.

The civil lawsuit filed in state Superior Court in San Francisco also seeks the creation of a fund — financed by the companies — to pay for recovery efforts following devastating storms and fires.

The post California Gov. Newsom announces plan to sign climate bill requiring large companies to disclose gas emissions appeared first on Buy It At A Bargain – Deals And Reviews.

Gary Gensler Tells a Climate Whopper

The post Gary Gensler Tells a Climate Whopper appeared first on Buy It At A Bargain – Deals And Reviews.

Lantern (YC W24) – Hiring Engineers to Build PostgreSQL Vector Database for AI

Article URL: https://lantern-db.notion.site/lantern-db/Lantern-is-hiring-Core-Database-Engineers-396a612dcfdb4c9eb274670680c8d8b5

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37538654

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

California law will require judges to consider parents' stance on gender identity in custody battle

California approved a bill that instructs judicial courts in the state to consider, as one of its factors when making custody and visitation decisions, whether a parent affirms a child’s gender identify. Critics of the bill argue it will cause parents, who don’t support their kid’s desire to pursue gender-affirming surgery, to lose custody of their children.

The California bill, AB-957, which passed in both houses of the state assembly on September 8, would consider parents’ “affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child.” The bill awaits Governor Gavin Newsom’s, D-Calif., signature.

Many parents are concerned this could mean that if they don’t accept their child’s use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones or surgery, they could face the prospect of losing custody of their children.

“Affirmation includes a range of actions and will be unique for each child, but in every case must promote the child’s overall health and well-being,” the legislation states.

FEMINIST MEDICAL SCHOOL PROFESSOR SAYS TRANS KIDS IDENTIFYING AS ‘MINOTAURS’ ARE PART OF GENDER REVOLUTION’

In line with the intentionally vague language of the bill, the bill’s sponsor, California Assemblymember Lori Wilson, said “affirmation is left undefined to allow the greatest extent of judicial discretion.”

There are no specifications in the bill about the age of a transgender-identifying child, how long they have identified as transgender or any recognition of the difference between the affirmation of a social transition in comparison to medical intervention.

Wilson has made it clear that AB 957 adds a parent’s affirmation of their child’s gender identity as “one factor” that a judge must consider in a custody dispute. She has previously emphasized the bill’s focus on affirming a child’s choice of gender “whatever it is” adding it is “our duty as parents is to affirm our children.”

“As you can imagine, there are plenty of things a parent can say that are protected by the First Amendment, but also can be considered in a custody dispute,” she said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

Wilson blamed “online vitriol” over the bill on a “coordinated and sophisticated misinformation campaign that has been adequately fact-checked by the AP and others.” She said the focus of the bill is about “what is best for the child and there is a breadth of research that supports that affirmation of gender identity in the child’s best interest.”

WISCONSIN COUNTY CONSIDERS SANCTUARY STATUS FOR TRANSGENDER KIDS

In contrast, Protect Kids California spokesperson and recently elected school board member, Jonathan Zachreson, told Fox News Digital that California has established “very concerning” policies that lead children struggling with gender related issues towards a single path of lifelong medicalization.

“AB 957 would be one more of those policies if signed by the governor,” he said. “Fortunately, Protect Kids California introduced an initiative to mitigate some of these harmful policies by prohibiting irreversible medical procedures that could possibly render someone sterile for anyone under 18.”

“We encourage everyone in the country to visit http://ProtectKidsCA.com to learn how they can help get this initiative on the November 2024 ballot,” he added.

Some new outlets, including the Associated Press, as mentioned by Wilson, have called out the “critics” of the bill, stating the legislation doesn’t use the word “surgery.” Although, some attorneys believe the vague language of the legislation is exactly what is harmful about it.

Erin Friday, a California lawyer and mother to a daughter who transitioned and later detransistioned, told Fox News Digital that under this bill she would have lost custody of her daughter had it been in place when she was questioning her gender as she did not affirm her daughter in the transition.

“Any parent who won’t affirm their child now, risks losing custody of their child,” Friday said. “California will be the first state to find parents abusive if they don’t agree to affirm their child’s gender identity, and we don’t even know what that means.”

“957 is not limited to divorce situations, and this is what the author will tell you: it’s just a divorce, and it’s just one prong, and that is untrue,” she added. “Because the bill ties gender affirmation to three very important words and those are health, safety and welfare. Those words are magical words. They have a meaning in law, which the author doesn’t want you to know about.”

The California Family Code 3020 states it is public policy “to ensure that the health, safety, and welfare of children shall be the court’s primary concern in determining the best interests of children when making any orders regarding the physical or legal custody or visitation of children.”

Friday said “any” being the key word means “the judge must look at that in any custody claim, not just divorce.” In addition, “the penal code in California for abuse or neglect uses the words health and welfare,” she added.

“They’re backdooring it,” Friday said. “They’re actually saying that the health, safety and welfare of all children is tied to affirmation and that’s how you get to where parents like me who did not affirm their child, could lose custody of their child.”

“Must they put them on puberty blockers?” she asked. “Must they cut their body parts off? Must they put them on cross-sex hormones, or must they just give them a haircut? What if the parents are religious and their religion says that they cannot affirm the child’s gender identity?”

“What happens when one parent is only willing to affirm by using a different name and the other parent is willing to cut the child’s gonads? Who wins?” she continued. “What happens if neither parent will affirm the gender identity? Who takes the kid?”

She said the vagueness of the legislation leaves parents wondering what “affirmation means,” but said the state is saying that in order to be a “good parent … You must affirm your child, otherwise you are undeserving of your children.”

MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE PASSES ‘TRANS REFUGE’ BILL OPPONENTS SAY WOULD STRIP CUSTODY FROM NON-CONSENTING PARENTS

Wilson introduced it the legislation alongside co-sponsor State Sen. Scott Wiener, who amended the bill to rewrite California’s standard of childcare under the California Family Code. Sen. Weiner has also advanced separate bills requiring foster parents to affirm the gender identities of children coming into their homes, as well as a bill that would make California a haven for LGBTQ children to obtain sex changes without parental consent.

Conservative new outlet, The Daily Signal, warned that by changing the definition of what constitutes the “health, safety, and welfare of [a] child,” the bill would open parents, as well as other organizations like schools, churches and hospitals, who don’t affirm a child’s gender transition, to face charges of child abuse.

Friday described the bill as “frightening,” but said the law is unconstitutional and an abrogation of parental rights that will be challenged in court.

Wilson said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital that she has consulted with judges and lawyers and feels “very confident” that there are no constitutional concerns with the bill.

Wilson, who is the mother of a transgender son, said in a statement following the bill’s passage, which was forwarded to Fox News Digital, that she felt “extreme gratitude” to her colleagues for passing AB 957 “with such overwhelming and strong support.”

AB 957 is co-sponsored by the Women’s Foundation of California, Equality California, TransYouth Liberation, Los Angeles LGBT Center, TransFamily Support Services, Gender Justice Los Angeles, the EmpowerTHEM Collective and the California TGI Policy Alliance.

Equality California Executive Director Tony Hoang blamed other states in the U.S. for “attacking LGBTQ+ youth” which Los Angeles LGBT Center CEO Joe Hollendoner called “anti-trans legislation.”

“While states across the country are attacking LGBTQ+ youth, California continues leading the way to ensure that LGBTQ+ youth are protected, healthy, and can live their authentic life in an environment that accepts and supports them,” Hoang said. “Family acceptance of LGBTQ+ youth is strongly associated with positive childhood development, mental and physical health, and overall wellbeing.”

“Assemblymember Wilson’s AB 957 underscores familial acceptance as essential for transgender youth to live safely and proudly,” Hollendoner said. “As the tidal wave of anti-trans legislation continues to flood our country, it is especially vital for California to take a leading role in supporting the rights and dignities of our trans youth and their families.”

For more Culture, Media, Education, Opinion, and channel coverage, visit foxnews.com/media

New Mexico governor's gun order is 'blatantly unconstitutional,' leaves abuse victims vulnerable: Experts

Democratic New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s public health order suspending open and concealed carry across Albuquerque could endanger domestic abuse victims and serve as an unconstitutional power grab similar to the COVID lockdowns, according to experts.

Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, told Fox News Digital that Americans are now “very alert” to the dangers of an elected official like Lujan Grisham “dreaming up” a health emergency to declare new powers, noting that it is tough to take such measures back or set proper parameters.

“She said this is just a 30-day ban. How is the 30-day ban going to change if it truly is a public health emergency? The COVID bans were supposed to be just a couple of weeks before the curve was flattened, then we had more than two years of governors picking and choosing how many people you could have over for Thanksgiving,” Malcolm said. “I mean, it’s a very dangerous thing to give anybody emergency powers.”

Malcolm admitted that she did not think the “shocking” order would make it very far, considering the extensive public backlash across the political dial. She added that she was heartened to see public officials stand up to Lujan Grisham’s order and admit they would not enforce it.

NEW MEXICO DEMOCRAT GOVERNOR’S SWEEPING GUN ORDER HITS MAJOR TEMPORARY ROADBLOCK

“They take an oath,” Malcom said. “And I think there’s no point taking an oath if you don’t take it seriously. It’s supposed to be a solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. And they are not about to violate that oath.”

The Liberal Gun Club National Spokesperson Lara Smith said she is concerned that the governor has exposed thousands of domestic violence victims who carry a permit for protection to potential violence or risk becoming felons.

“I have a real issue with that,” she said. “Domestic violence, for the most part, open and concealed carry isn’t going to stop the perpetrators because either they don’t care about the law or it’s not happening when they’re opening or concealed carrying in their home.”

Breaking down gun violence into several subcategories, Smith said by far the most firearm deaths come from suicide, which open or concealed carry does not affect.

She said some recent studies show a possible uptick in street violence in states where open carry is allowed. While she said it is not entirely clear why or by how much, she has found no evidence that concealed carry increases any gun violence at all.

NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR SHOULD FACE FEDERAL CHARGES FOR GUN CONTROL POWER GRAB: FORMER PROSECUTOR

“As a matter of fact, most of the evidence shows that it decreases it because people who are concealed carry tend to have more training and tend to be more aware,” she said.

Smith said that suicide prevention and mental health funding have shown to be far more successful in curbing gun violence in communities across the U.S.

Furthermore, she noted that violence interruption programs such as Project Ceasefire and the capital regional violence programs have produced “amazing” results.

The impact of gun violence on schools has also been a major topic of concern for politicians and nonprofit organizations for several decades. Smith said that “See Something Say Something” programs, wherein students are told to alert adults if they are concerned for a classmate or suspect someone may use a firearm, have been “incredibly helpful.”

Regarding mass shootings, Smith said research has shown shooters are often motivated by images of violence and news they see online, something which is almost “contagious.”

“If we can get the news to stop naming and putting photos up of mass shooters, that in and of itself really reduces the impulse for the next person. I would say that it helps with the contagion issue,” she said.

NEW MEXICO GOV. GRISHAM SWIPES AT FELLOW DEMOCRAT WHO CALLED HER GUN CARRY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL‘

Georgia College and State University Assistant Professor of Business Law Nicholas Creel, also said he finds it very difficult to see how Lujan Grisham’s “blanket suspension” will survive judicial challenge. While the suspension is temporary and geographically limited, Creel said any law or executive action that limits the rights conveyed by the Second Amendment has an “incredibly high bar to clear.”

“Any curtailment of a fundamental right like the right to bear arms must be narrowly tailored, using the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest. The governor’s ban comes off as far too sweeping to meet that standard, and so I fully expect it to be struck down,” Creel added.

Smith expressed concern that Lujan Grisham’s order would waste taxpayers’ money and burden the state through lawsuits. If the state is spending time, money and resources trying to defend its ineffective policies, Smith worried it would take away from programs that have been shown to work.

“I don’t see her move as popular on the left. I mean, some anti-gun politicians, at least in California, have come out and said, no, this is terrible. Right? This is just a dumb move. I wish the politicians who were doing things like this would really look at how much these things are going to cost.”

GOP ASKS UNLIKELY BIDEN ADMIN ALLY TO STEP IN TO STOP NM’S ‘UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER GRAB’

“Gov. Grisham’s actions are blatantly unconstitutional,” The Constitution Study Founder Paul Engel told Fox News Digital. “Contrary to her assertions, there is no ’emergency clause’ in the Constitution. As the supreme law of the land (Article VI, Clause 2), it cannot be superseded by the Congress, President, or a state governor. Therefore, her action is void, as recognized by the Supreme Court in Norton v. Shelby County: 118 U.S. 425 (1886).”

Engel said that while many people are focusing on the Second Amendment violation, Lujan Grisham’s actions also violate the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.

“Should she, or anyone in her government, actually attempt to fine someone for violation of her illegal order, they would not only be violating the Fourth Amendment’s unreasonable search & seizure clause but committing a federal crime under 18 USC §242,” he said.

Malcolm cited District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) as recent examples of the Supreme Court clarifying the Second Amendment.

“The Supreme Court has found in these three recent decisions that people have the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes, that self-defense is absolutely crucial, because no matter how many police forces you have or how active they are, they can’t be there all the time,” she said.

She added that places with stringent gun laws tend to have more crime because the legislation is only abided by lawful citizens, not criminals.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS PUSH TO CONDEMN NEW MEXICO GOV FOR ‘BLATANTLY VIOLATING’ SECOND AMENDMENT

Malcolm, who wrote the book “Guns and Violence: The English Experience,” recalled how the 1996 Dunblane massacre in Scotland eventually led to Parliament implementing new laws that ended with a near-total ban on handguns.

“Ten years after they took everybody’s handgun, handgun crime had double. So, taking away weapons from law-abiding citizens is not the way to have a safer society,” she said.

According to Malcolm, Lujan Grisham’s order violates the National Constitution and Bill of Rights and supersedes New Mexico’s Constitution and laws.

“She says, well, no law is absolute, nor is her oath to defend the Constitution,” Malcolm said. “So apparently, any time she feels like the Constitution isn’t really giving her what she wants or that there’s some proclaimed emergency, she says, you know, she can basically take away people’s individual rights.”

Lujan Grisham’s office did not return Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

For more Culture, Media, Education, Opinion and channel coverage, visit foxnews.com/media

New comment by k1ng440 in "Ask HN: Who wants to be hired? (September 2023)"

  Location: Dhaka, Bangladesh
  Remote: Yes
  Willing to relocate: Yes
  Technologies: Go, TypeScript, JavaScript, PHP, Kubernetes, AWS, Postgresql, Terraform, Docker, Ansible, Linux, React, svelte, vue, angular
  Résumé/CV: https://k1ng440.github.io/resume/resume.pdf
  Email: contact@iampavel.dev
  Website: https://iampavel.dev/

New comment by alex_zaznobin in "Ask HN: Who wants to be hired? (September 2023)"

Location: Israel

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies: Python, Tensorflow, PyTorch, Git, Linux, Docker, Spark, SQL, C++

Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexzaznobin/

Email: alex.zaznobin@gmail.com

Data scientist with 2 years of C++ commercial software development, and more than 10 years of experience in analytics in finance and FMCG domains.

Dolphins outlast AFC East-rival Patriots behind Raheem Mostert's stellar night

It was the Miami Dolphins‘ pass game that excelled in Week 1, but running back Raheem Mostert shined to help defeat the New England Patriots, 24-17, on Sunday night. The Dolphins improved to 2-0, while the Patriots fell to 0-2 on the season. For most of the night, Miami was in control of the game, … Continue reading Dolphins outlast AFC East-rival Patriots behind Raheem Mostert's stellar night

Day: September 18, 2023