SEC Approves Rule Requiring Some Companies To Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions (apnews.com) 27
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday approved a rule that will require some public companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks, after last-minute revisions that weakened the directive in the face of strong pushback from companies. From a report: The rule was one of the most anticipated in recent years from the nation's top financial regulator, drawing more than 24,000 comments from companies, auditors, legislators and trade groups over a two-year process. It brings the U.S. closer to the European Union and California, which moved ahead earlier with corporate climate disclosure rules.
The SEC rule passed 3-2, with three Democratic commissioners supporting it and two Republicans opposed. Since the SEC proposed a rule two years ago, experts had said it was likely to face litigation almost immediately. SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, one of the Democrats, acknowledged that was a factor the agency considered as it worked toward a final rule. "We've seriously considered what people have said about our legal authorities," Gensler said on Wednesday.
The SEC rule passed 3-2, with three Democratic commissioners supporting it and two Republicans opposed. Since the SEC proposed a rule two years ago, experts had said it was likely to face litigation almost immediately. SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, one of the Democrats, acknowledged that was a factor the agency considered as it worked toward a final rule. "We've seriously considered what people have said about our legal authorities," Gensler said on Wednesday.
Proceed with Caution (Score:4, Interesting)
Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
The SECs job is to protect investors from bad investments. How is reporting CO2 production protecting investors?
I know, in a roundabout way it is, but the SEC can only regulate what congress says they can regulate. Did congress say the SEC can regulate greenhouse emissions?
The other problem is that a simple count of CO2 generation is a somewhat useless statistic. The company that forges the steel brackets to hold solar panels generates huge amounts of CO2.
Re: (Score:3)
They're not regulating anything about CO2, that would be the job of the EPA, this is just requirement to report, which allows investors to have all the information they need.
The company that forges the steel brackets to hold solar panels generates huge amounts of CO2.
If an investor cannot put these numbers into context of the company they are evaluating then maybe they are a bad investor.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to figure out why/how this report would be valuable to the majority of investors out there....with maybe the exception of those few radical "activist" investors?
Re: (Score:2)
For professional investors a large part of it is risk assessment, especially long term. Right now there are climate issues in terms of breaking surface temp records etc and regardless of opinions on climate change in general these things have impact on economics even if just from a public perception level. There is also a lot of regulation around carbon levels and a companies production output could impact how much they stand to be affected by those in the future.
If you are an institutional investor or an
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to figure out why/how this report would be valuable to the majority of investors out there....with maybe the exception of those few radical "activist" investors?
Because of BlackRock, Inc. and such investment companies that rate the value of a company on how much DEI they practice, how much "positive discrimination" they do, how green they are etc., that kind of things. The SEC seems therefore to be agreeing with the BlackRock of the world on how to grade a company for investment purposes so it doesn't really matter what the individual investor thinks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is absolutely undeniable at this point that the climate is changing.
The climate is always changing. In the early 1400s, the Medieval Warming Period ended. The climate headed towards the Little Ice Age, which only ended around 1850 (a number of years before Krakatoa, btw.). The 1960s brought about an unusually cool period, which only ended in the late 70s/early 80s. 11500 years ago the last ice age ended, ending 110,000 years of glacial dominance over much more of the planet. The fact that the planet is changing isn't the issue and it's naive to expect that there is one fixe
Re: (Score:1)
Carbon emissions are by far the largest part of any industrial company's ESG score. A good ESG score will get you improved terms in financing - as much as 1% off on borrower interest rates. With slim margins this can make the difference of your company being competitive or non-competitive.
With a bad ESG rating financial institutions will stop financing your operations altogether.
It is not just a few radical investors. The ESG investor movement is led by Blackrock (under CEO Larry Fink) and Vanguard which
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck blackrock.
They need to be broken up.
Re: (Score:2)
All the information available to investors is "somewhat useless" without the context of other information available to investors. Guess what information is available to investors? What the company they're investing in actually does. Entities have plenty of opportunity to put any information they make available (voluntarily or not) into sufficient context.
I thought people liked free markets? Free markets depend on sufficient transparency, and I don't know who these days would think environmental externalitie
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I can't think it would be all that important.
Hell, I've never considered how green something is before purchasing...whether an investment or a product purchase.
With investments....all I care about is how much $$ it will make me, and for products, how useful or happy it
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I can't think it would be all that important.
So, if not important to you therefore it can't be important to anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
So, if not important to you therefore it can't be important to anyone?
I would hope people would at least be able to affirmatively justify requirements on the merits.
Re: (Score:3)
"I can't imagine"
Yes, I know, that's basically your personal slogan. We've already determined you're incapable of seeing anything from outside of your own perspective, cayenne8.
Although if you don't understand how this might affect how much $$ it will make you, congratulations, you're a lousy investor (which is independent of how much success you've had in investing to date, to be clear)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you can't think climate and money are related, perhaps you need to look at what happened the past few years.
Perhaps look at how much the insurance companies had to pay out for wild fire damages - wildfire season is starting earlier, lasting longer, and damaging more properties. Knowing the risks your compan
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what information is available to investors? What the company they're investing in actually does.
Which is out of scope for the SEC. The SEC doesn't, or shouldn't, care what a company does. It doesn't even have to understand what a company does. It just makes sure a standardized set of data is available so investors can gauge how the company is performing financially. If something regarding the environment is going to affect profits, companies are already required to disclose that.
I thought people liked free markets?
There is a delicate balance between allowing markets to provide adequate goods and services to people, and the government fo
Re: (Score:1)
> I thought people liked free markets?
A growing problem in US markets is that companies are going public later and later in their lifecycle. This means that small investors are locked out of investing in many successful, quickly-growing companies. The raison d'etre of the SEC is to protect investors; if the agency's activity is more costly to investors than beneficial, it will eventually be abolished. For now the SEC is merely implicated - it is becoming increasingly necessary to be a megacorp before you
Re: (Score:2)
The SECs job is to protect investors from bad investments. How is reporting CO2 production protecting investors?
Same way as reporting anything else protects investors. Investors deserve to know what they are investing in. If I promise you the world from my fancy new product you should be able to know up front if I make it out of aborted foetuses, after all if that information gets out then it may affect our stock price and thus your investment.
Indulgences (Score:2, Funny)
Thou canst be forgiven child. Thou shalt say 45 hail Kerry's, then stop by the shop on thine way out and buy 25 carbon credits.
Re: (Score:2)
Employee Commute (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Overstepping mandate (Score:2)
Whosoever dealt it... (Score:2)
Own up. Blaming it on the dog is henceforth prohibited.
Technocratic rule is undemocratic (Score:2)
I don't support lawmaking via technocratic fiat. If people believe this reporting is necessary it should be enacted legislatively. The SEC is most likely going to lose in the courts under the major questions doctrine and they know it.
Re: (Score:2)
" lawmaking via technocratic fiat"
It is a rule, not a law.
"and they know it"
Ashley said the removal of Scope 3 requirements and other modifications put the final version “squarely within the SEC’s existing statutory authority to require clear and comparable disclosure of information necessary for the protection of investors.”