Amazon is “done being in the middle of the herd” when it comes to climate-focused company policies, CEO Jeff Bezos said Thursday.

The company is pledging to power its global infrastructure with 100% renewable energy by 2030 and to be carbon-neutral by 2040. To help get there, it plans to buy 100,000 electric delivery vans from Michigan-based company Rivian, in which Amazon previously invested.

Amazon says its Climate Pledge will meet the Paris climate agreement 10 years ahead of schedule. The company is also inviting other companies to sign onto the pledge.

“It’s a difficult challenge for us because we have deep large physical infrastructure. We’re not only moving information around … we deliver more than 10 billion items a year,” Bezos told reporters Thursday. “And so we can make the argument — and we plan to do so passionately — that if we can do this, anyone can do this.”

Amazon’s announcement marks the most sweeping climate-related action from the company, one day before more than 1,500 corporate workers planned a walkout to draw attention to their criticisms of the company’s climate policies. Amazon has lagged behind other companies — including tech giants like Facebook and Google — in reaching the goal of 100% renewable energy and sharing data about its emissions.

The Amazon workers’ planned walkout Friday is part of a series of rallies called the Global Climate Strike ahead of Monday’s U.N. Climate Action Summit. Workers complained that the company known for its obsession with data and measurable goals would not share data on its own carbon footprint, calling on Amazon to get to zero emissions by 2030.

“Today, we celebrate. Tomorrow, we’ll be in the streets to continue the fight for a livable future,” the group Amazon Employees for Climate Justice said in a statement Thursday. The walkout also is expected to draw some workers from Google, Facebook and Microsoft.

Thousands of Amazon employees earlier this year signed a shareholder resolution to set a climate change plan, which did not pass. More than 8,000 workers had also signed an open letter to Bezos, calling for Amazon to set measurable goals, to end contracts with oil and gas companies and to stop donating to lawmakers who deny climate change.

“I think it’s totally understandable people are passionate about this issue,” Bezos said, adding that Amazon would review its campaign donations. The company will also invest $100 million to restore and protect forests, grasslands and wetlands.

However, Bezos said he disagreed with the employees’ call to end contracts with energy companies and stop providing them with cloud computing tools. “To ask oil and energy companies to do this transition with bad tools is not a good idea and we won’t do that,” he said.

Elizabeth Sturcken, a managing director at the Environmental Defense Fund, called Amazon’s Climate Pledge an encouraging step in the right direction.

“They were in danger of being left behind as a laggard,” she said. “There’s a lot of hard work ahead for Amazon. But these ambitious, aspirational goals need to be turned into meaningful milestones, and they need to act transparently.”

Bezos said Amazon will measure and regularly report online information about its carbon footprint and work toward reducing it.

Editor’s note: Amazon is one of NPR’s recent financial supporters.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a sweeping new labor law Wednesday extending wage and benefit protections to about a million workers and aimed primarily at drivers contracted by ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft.

Newsom had argued that when workers are misclassified as independent contractors rather than as employees, they lose basic benefits such as minimum wage, paid sick days, and health insurance.

“The hollowing out of our middle-class has been 40 years in the making, and the need to create lasting economic security for our workforce demands action,” Newsom said in his signing statement.

“Today, we are disrupting the status quo and taking a bold step forward to rebuild our middle class and reshape the future of workers as we know it,” Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez of San Diego, the author of AB5, said in a statement. “As one of the strongest economies in the world, California is now setting the global standard for worker protections for other states and countries to follow.”

Both labor groups and the ride-hailing companies, such as Uber, anticipate national implications from the signing of AB5.

The bill covers workers in a variety of industries, including health care, trucking and media. Some industries, such as real estate, commercial fishing and cosmetology services carved out exemptions from the law.

But the app-based tech companies, primarily Uber, Lyft and Doordash, were not granted exemptions and Uber says it does not plan to reclassify their drivers as employees after the bill goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2020.

The three companies that rely on contracting drivers say they will spend $90 million on a 2020 ballot measure to regulate the gig economy workers.

“We’ve engaged in good faith with the Legislature, the Newsom Administration and labor leaders for nearly a year on this issue, and we believe California is missing a real opportunity to lead the nation by improving the quality, security and dignity of independent work,” Tony West, Uber’s chief legal officer, said in a statement issued before the bill’s signing.

Newsom said in his signing statement that he is prepared for more negotiations with labor and business. “A next step is creating pathways for more workers to form a union, collectively bargain to earn more, and have a stronger voice at work – all while preserving flexibility and innovation,” he said.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

A federal appeals court Friday reinstated a lawsuit against Fox News and two other defendants over its coverage of the death of Seth Rich, a 27-year-old Democratic Party aide who was murdered in July 2016.

The suit was filed by Rich’s parents over a Fox News story from May 2017. The story reported that Rich had been linked to the leak of thousands of Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks and suggested his death might be related to the release of those emails. The police department in Washington, D.C., believes Rich’s shooting death was the result of a botched robbery. Fox retracted its story a week later, saying “the article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all of our reporting.”

The suit by Seth Rich’s parents, Joel and Mary Rich, was dismissed last year by Judge George B. Daniels, of the Southern District of New York. Now, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York has overturned that ruling on the suit surrounding Fox News’ reporting about Rich’s death.

The Riches have sued Fox News and Malia Zimmerman, the reporter on the story, and Ed Butowsky, a Texas investment manager and former unpaid Fox News commentator, for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Lenny Gail, an attorney for the Riches, said Friday’s decision “clears the way for a thorough investigation into the facts. We will now obtain documents from Fox News and other parties and take testimony under oath from those involved.”

Fox News, in a statement, said that “while we extend the Rich family our deepest condolences for their loss, we believe that discovery will demonstrate that FOX News did not engage in conduct that will support the Riches’ claims. We will be evaluating our next legal steps.”

In a statement, Joel and Mary Rich said, “We would not wish what we have experienced upon any other parent – anywhere. We appreciate the appellate court’s ruling and look forward to continuing to pursue justice.”

Editor’s note: Ed Butowsky has filed a defamation suit against NPR and NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik for their reporting on Fox News’ story about Seth Rich. NPR has said it stands by its reporting and will defend the case vigorously.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has reached an agreement in principle to settle a lawsuit that alleged that MIT, one of the nation’s most prestigious universities, hurt workers in its retirement plan by engaging in an improper relationship with the financial firm Fidelity Investments.

Just days ahead of the start of the trial, MIT and the plaintiffs said in a court filing that they had reached the deal and are asking the court for 45 days in order for the details to be finalized and prepared for consideration by the court.

The lawsuit alleged that MIT went against the advice of its own consultants and allowed Fidelity to pack the university’s retirement plan with high-fee investment funds that ended up costing employees tens of millions of dollars. In return, the lawsuit said, MIT leveraged millions of dollars in donations from Fidelity.

MIT and Fidelity have said the allegations have no merit.

The lawsuit said Fidelity executives took MIT officials on lavish outings, including an NBA Finals game. Court documents show that in 2015, when the university considered other options, an MIT dean emailed the head of an MIT committee overseeing the plan: “If we’re not switching to Vanguard or TIAA Cref, I am going to expect something big and good coming to MIT,” according to the court records.

Jerry Schlichter, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said that soon afterwards, “Fidelity donated $5 million to MIT.”

In a court filing, MIT said the dean who wrote that email “never had any fiduciary responsibility for the plan.”

In a letter to faculty and staff Thursday, MIT Provost Martin Schmidt wrote: “Although MIT believes firmly that it has managed the 401(k) Plan in careful compliance with the law and in the best interests of its participants, the continued cost and distraction of litigation are likely to be significant. In order to avoid that continued drain of MIT resources, we have reached an agreement to settle the dispute.”

Schlichter has made a career of suing big company and university retirement plans, claiming they charge excessive fees and hurt workers. He sues to try to force the companies and universities to offer better plans. That has earned him the nickname “the 401(k) Lone Ranger.”

Given that history, assuming the settlement deal holds together and is approved by the court, it could include agreements from the university to change the way it manages its retirement plan.

In his letter, MIT’s Schmidt says, “We are proud of the retirement benefits offered to our employees and the processes in place to oversee those benefits. MIT is unique among our peers in offering employees both a supplemental 401(k) plan, with an MIT contribution match up to the first 5% of an employee’s pay, and a traditional defined-benefit pension plan, paid in full by the Institute.”

Fidelity, which is a financial supporter of NPR, is not named in the case. The company has said that the assertions in the lawsuit “are completely fictional and wholly irresponsible.”

Experts say lawsuits like this one have made big companies and universities much more aware of their legal duty to protect their workers’ interests in retirement accounts. They say that has helped reduce fees that workers pay in retirement plans at the largest companies. But they say many smaller organizations still have very high fees and bad investment options.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

“We blew it.”

That was Forbes editor Randall Lane’s assessment on Twitter after his publication released a list of America’s 100 most innovative leaders that included only a single woman.

Amazon boss Jeff Bezos and Tesla’s Elon Musk tied for the top spot. The only woman on the list, Barbara Rentler, CEO of Ross Stores, clocked in at 75.

The reaction to the glaring lack of women was swift and sharp.

Replies to Resma Saujani’s tweet include politician Stacey Abrams, makeup brand Glossier founder Emily Weiss, Kimberly Bryant of Black Girls Code, Refugee Coffee Company CEO Kitti Murray, Spanx inventor Sara Blakely, Rihanna and Serena Williams.

And in case Forbes needed more names, dozens of female CEOs — 46 at last count, including designer Stella McCartney; Mariam Naficy, founder and CEO of Minted; and Sarah Leary, co-founder of NextDoor — signed an open letter to Forbes. Written by journalist Diana Kapp, author of the book Girls Who Run The World, the letter calls on the magazine to “overhaul the criteria that determines who makes the cut.”

Anne Wojcicki, CEO and co-founder of genetic testing company 23andMe, signed Kapp’s letter in hopes that it would encourage better representation.

“People are just acutely aware now of the importance of diversity,” Wojcicki tells All Things Considered. “And when something is so blatantly missing — a whole population — it’s really surfaced and it comes to the attention of everyone now.”

And she says such titles aren’t just about bragging rights.

“People do think about these lists,” she says. “They go online and think about board members or advisers and who it is that can help solve a problem. I think there are real ripple effects when this kind of press dominates. It’s not just one article. It’s how in general women are perceived.”

Wojcicki says she’s glad Forbes has admitted fault and is forming a task force to make sure this mistake isn’t repeated. But at its root, she sees this as a problem with oversight.

“It’s kind of shocking that this actually got through,” she says. “I would love to see their editorial policy of diversity represented at the top when they’re starting to think about ‘what are the lists we’re going to put out?'”

When asked who she would put on that list of innovative leaders, she immediately mentioned her sister, Susan Wojcicki, a co-founder of Google and current CEO of YouTube.

“There’s just a tremendous number of women out there who are phenomenal leaders.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is under the microscope again, amid fresh allegations of meddling with a government scientific agency.

The latest storm to engulf the secretary began Sept. 1, when weather forecasters in Birmingham, Ala., issued a tweet saying Hurricane Dorian posed no threat to their state.

“We were reacting to the calls that were coming into our office, and people were actually frightened,” said Kevin Laws, science officer for the National Weather Service in Birmingham. “They were wanting to cancel surgeries, and they were wanting to go pick up elderly parents at the coastline because they were genuinely scared. And we felt like we needed to make a statement on where this storm was going to go and to reassure our people.”

Laws and his colleagues learned only later what sparked those anxious phone calls: a tweet from President Trump, mistakenly including Alabama on a list of states that could be hard hit by the storm.

For days, Trump stubbornly insisted he was right about the hurricane’s path, giving fodder to late-night comics when he showed off a map that had been clumsily doctored with a Sharpie. But the story took a more serious turn last Friday when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — the federal agency that includes the National Weather Service — issued an unsigned statement defending the president’s tweet and chastising the Birmingham forecasters who contradicted it.

According to The New York Times, NOAA’s statement followed political pressure from the commerce secretary, who oversees the weather agency and threatened to fire NOAA officials if they failed to back up the president.

“This is the straw that broke the camel’s back,” said Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., who called for Ross to resign. “Threatening to fire senior NOAA appointees if they didn’t prop up Trump’s false weather claims? It’s just one bridge too far.”

A Commerce Department spokesman denied the Times report, saying Ross didn’t threaten to fire anyone over the dueling hurricane statements.

“Secretary Ross has never stopped advocating for the American people,” the spokesman said in a statement.

But the episode has brought renewed attention to Ross’ history of interfering with government scientists.

“It’s part of a pattern of deemphasizing science and facts and the truth in order to play some often naive or silly political agenda,” said Beyer, who serves on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The committee’s chairwoman, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, endorsed an investigation of the NOAA statement by the Commerce Department’s inspector general.

Ross, who also oversees the Census Bureau, previously bucked scientific experts there when he tried to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census, despite warnings that it would jeopardize an accurate head count.

“It certainly introduces uncertainties about the scientific integrity of our national statistics when you see political interference with the mission of these agencies,” said John Thompson, who directed the bureau from 2013 to 2017.

The Supreme Court ultimately blocked the citizenship question. In his ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that the question would have been allowed if Ross had not misrepresented his motives. Ross claimed he was acting on a request from the Justice Department, but Roberts concluded that this was a mere pretext.

The Trump administration has also been quietly purging information about climate change from government websites and replacing independent scientific advisers with industry insiders. Complaints about the scientific integrity of government agencies can often seem esoteric. But a battle over the National Weather Service helps bring it home.

“Everyone knows their local TV meteorologist and understands that they get information directly from the government,” said Michael Halpern of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The air pollution scientists who work for EPA are a little bit more behind the scenes, but their work is just as critical to protecting the public.”

Ross hasn’t tried to skew only government measurements. He has also tried to skew measures of his own wealth. For years, Forbes magazine included Ross on its list of the richest Americans, estimating his fortune at $2.9 billion in 2016. But once he joined the administration, financial disclosures revealed Ross was really worth only a fraction of that.

“We estimate that he is worth about $600 million,” said Forbes senior editor Dan Alexander. “And what’s sad — somebody who has been so successful and is so wealthy, still for him it wasn’t enough. He wanted to be seen as richer. [He] wanted people to think he was a billionaire, and he just never was.”

In a 2017 story about Ross’ exaggerated claims of wealth, Alexander quoted longtime co-workers about the secretary’s habit of bending the truth.

“At this point, people just don’t trust him,” Alexander said Tuesday, as the NOAA controversy was making headlines. “So it wasn’t that much of a surprise to see that Wilbur was apparently helping cover up for misinformation about that.”

By the time Dorian’s winds reached hurricane strength, Ross’ credibility was in danger, even if the people of Alabama were not.

Mary Scott Hodgin of member station WBHM contributed to this report.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)