Unelected bureaucrats. Dark money. This checks all the boxes.
A proposed rule change from the Biden Administration would hand significant power over U.S. Military contracts to a relatively unknown group of British environmentalists.
They’re called the Science Based Targets Initiative.
According to a report from The Washington Free Beacon, “the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) is a fee-based service that helps companies set emissions reduction targets in line with the Paris Climate Agreement and verifies their progress.”
SBTi is funded by five activist groups, including the “We Mean Business Coalition,” a front group for a $900 million left-leaning dark money organization called the New Venture Fund, Free Beacon reports.
“Since its inception, [the We Mean Business Coalition] has been funding SBTi and mobilizing business towards science-based targets. One of our earliest milestones was reaching 150 corporate commitments to SBTi in 2016,” says the We Mean Business website.
“I think Americans will be upset when they realize the Biden administration is trying to put a bunch of unelected bureaucrats and a climate activist group—headquartered in London—in charge of long-term planning for our national defense contractors,” said Travis Fisher, a senior energy research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
The rule change will impact more than 600 contractors across federal agencies and put $1.2 million into the pockets of SBTi to boot.
House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) wants to hold a hearing on the issue, telling the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council in a letter that the proposal could have “detrimental” effects on our military preparedness.
“The Science Committee has grave concerns that these requirements would have detrimental consequences for our national security and mission readiness,” Lucas wrote in March. “Additionally, the decision to outsource the responsibility for validating emission reductions to an international organization—particularly one with a history of problematic actions, potentially in conflict with U.S. interests—is disturbing.”
Lucas continues: “It’s unclear why government agencies are unable to independently validate emission reduction targets for their own contractors and would instead delegate such responsibilities to an international entity outside of our government’s supervision and whose loyalties and mission do not align with those of the United States.”
Exactly. What gives, Mr. President?
