The Biden administration is facing criticism for a proposed rule that could allow an overseas environmental group to have a say in the approval of large U.S. defense contracts.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a British entity recently incorporated and linked to Democratic Party funding, is poised to oversee the carbon reduction plans of major federal contractors, pending the proposal’s government approval, Free Beacon reports.
The idea of vesting such power in a foreign group is causing concern.
Travis Fisher, a senior researcher at the Heritage Foundation, voiced his apprehension: “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.”
The proposed regulation stands to impact 671 sizable contractors across multiple departments, funneling an estimated $1.2 million in obligatory annual fees to SBTi.
Though SBTi has been publicly active since 2015, it formally existed only from its recent London incorporation.
The group’s non-U.S. status and obscure financial backdrop have fueled doubts about its suitability to handle the approval process.
The organization’s ties to the New Venture Fund, a Democratic dark money group under investigation for its political activities during the 2020 elections, has also sparked debate.
Parker Thayer from the Capital Research Center said, “The New Venture Fund is a dark money titan from the left that specializes in creating the appearance of broad public support” via unregistered front groups.
SBTi’s opaque operations have also drawn criticism from within.
Former board member Bill Baue claimed the organization lacked procedural safeguards to address financial and ethical conflicts, adding that it would be “operating in a quasi-regulatory stance” under the proposed rule.
Baue warned, “And yet it doesn’t have the kind of checks and balances or transparency for such an organization.”
“Certainly there’s reason to be concerned,” he added.
Other critics include the American Bankers Association, which stated that the rule “hands practical regulatory powers to non-governmental organizations” without proper suitability checks, and BP, which challenged the rule’s legality.
Congressman Frank Lucas (R-OK), Chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, expressed worry over potential security implications and is considering holding hearings.
Despite concerns, SBTi is pushing ahead.
However, Baue argues that SBTi’s validation service, which charges companies for approving their emissions reduction plans, might be self-serving.
“If you’re the standard-setter and you’re also making money from the validations there’s at least a temptation to water down your standards in order to continue to have a flow of validation revenue,” he cautioned.
