The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Will We Ever Get an SEC Climate Disclosure Rule?
The Securities & Exchange Commission again delays issuing a controversial anticipated rule.
Last March, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed a rule that would require companies to provide greater disclosure of climate-related risks and of their greenhouse gas emissions, both direct and indirect. The 500-plus-page proposal prompted substantial controversy and several industry groups and state attorneys general announced they planned to file suit if the SEC proceeded with the rule as planned.
It was widely anticipated that the SEC would issue a final rule this spring. Now, however, it looks as if the final rule will be issued in the fall, at the earliest.
Corporate Counsel reports:
former SEC commissioner Robert J. Jackson Jr. stated on a webinar last month that the agency wanted to take more time to craft the rule after extensive public input.
"I've just understood over the last few weeks it looks like the rule is going to be pushed back a little further than many had thought, including myself. It looks more like the fall of this year," S&P Global Market Intelligence quoted Jackson as saying.
That would likely mean public companies would likely not begin making climate disclosures until next year.
But even that could be optimistic.
As the story notes, the SEC appears to be behind schedule with a controversial cyber-security regulation too. Observers suggest the Commission is taking extra time to ensure its regulatory measures will survive judicial review. Depending on the content of the ultimate rules, however, extra time might not do all that much to insulate the rules from legal attack.
For more on the issues surrounding SEC-mandated climate disclosure, see this post from 2022 and the 2021 webinar linked therein.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Also create a zombie apocalypse disclosure rule. Investors need to know what companies will do to mitigate the different kinds of zombie outbreak scenarios.
But really, if pandemic planning disclosures aren't needed, then climate planning disclosures aren't needed. Pandemics aren't theoretical.
According to you guys the last pandemic wasn't real, either. Great track record.
You're confused. We say it was probably an escaped biowarfare agent and though it was pandemic before becoming endemic it was never a sufficient cause for the COVID panic/power gram promoted by you and your ilk. That travesty is YOUR record of dangerous incompetence, wokesters.
It was an escaped biowarfare agent! And also just a bad cold!
You don't understand the difference between "pandemic" and "endemic"?
(If it didn't wipe out all mammalian life on earth, endemic was always it's eventual destination. The hysteria just caused some/many to deny where we were on that trajectory. So yeah, just a bad cold. And yes, some people did incorrectly minimize it in the early days, when it was novel to our immune systems and therefore dangerous, because it might have been a tinkered with. But viruses that don't wipe out species inevitably evolve to become less virulent so that can maximize their propagation.)
'to deny where we were on that trajectory.'
Did any single person anywhere deny that it would eventualy become endemic? Flu is endemic but it still kills people every year and billions are spent developing up-to-date vaccines and hospitals are crowded in flu season. Claiming covid would become endemic without considering what 'endemic' would actually consist of was just another dumb bit of denial.
'So yeah, just a bad cold.'
7 million peple worldwide and who knows how many with long-term health problems.
You do know that pandemic is not synonymous with 'a thing that will wipe out the entire species' don't you?
I mean, that's obviously untrue (some do, some don't, and it's a combination of transmissibility and virulence that matters) and also obviously irrelevant, since the "It's just a bad cold" crowd were not talking about it becoming so eventually, but rather in the 2020-2021 time period.
Obviously its weaponization was incomplete if it almost exclusively killed senescent oldsters who were an economic burden. Who could have predicted that we would turn an economic boost into a self-own?
There's that compassionate conservatism you literally never hear about any more.
There's Nige confusing his partisan demonstratively "emotional" posings with something relevant to evaluating COVID as a bioweapon.
He has very little in the way of brains and is proud of it.
Just a coincidence that the Novel Corona Virus started in the town with a Novel Corona Virus lab.
You say so much outrageously dumb shit it all boils down to a complete failure to engage with reality and a poverty of actual policies to deal with real issues.
Nige's idea of "real issues":
"Trump is a convicted sex offender!"
"The sky is falling!"
"There aren't enough tranny-promoting books in school libraries!"
...
What is your company's specific risk relative to alien invasion? 5G microchip vax mandates? Bioengineered virus pandemics?
What business does the SEC have in this arena? Carbon emissions are entirely irrelevant to an investor's decision to buy a security. Even if a "carbon disclosure" could be more than a wild-ass guess, it would serve no purpose other than to allow the climate mafia to assign scarlet letters.
There seems a fairly good chance it will be thrown out. The linked 2022 post drew attention to the then-pending West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency case which resulted in a 6-3 decision that the EPA had never been granted the power to do what it did.
The mentioned webinar is marred by Google-imposed graffiti to the effect that, among other things, "Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. mainly caused by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels." Which is of course a lie, as climate change existed long before humans came into existence.
'Which is of course a lie, as climate change existed long before humans came into existence.'
Why are climate change deniers the dumbest fucking people imaginable?
As long as you’re around there’s no chance of that.
It takes a pretty dumb fuck to think that there was no climate change before humans were around to cause it.
In very broad terms, Standard GAAP requires disclosures of various risks and uncertainties that will have an impact of the financial statements and which are material. Risks and uncertainties include such items as litigation, significant concentrations of customers or suppliers, collectibility of receivables ( in excess if normal losses) , etc, etc, etc.
The risk of "climate change" is the potential $ impact on the financial statements due to climate change. To the extent that those risks are material, then they should be disclosed. (material being roughly defined as a big enough number in relation to the financial statements as a whole. 5%-10%+ of net income would be material). Another general requirement is the material amount must be within 12 months after the date of the issuance of the financial statements.
With that background on the general rules for disclosures or risks and uncertainties, the actual material risk in the short term from "climate change " is nearly zero. Thus no disclosure would be required.
However, there appears to be significant risk due to regulatory changes due to the fear of climate change. Closing of manufacturing plants, closing of utilities, closing of auto ICE manufacturing , increased risks to electric grid, reduced farming output due restrictions on fertilizer, etc.
Do you ever read the risk disclosure in a company’s filing. They include so many risks and use so much boilerplate that it renders them pretty unreachable for virtually every investor. Generally when I invest in something I understand what the material risks are.
As to climate change specifically, how do you estimate those. The impacts are so speculative what do you mention and what do you ignore?
bevis the lumberjack 40 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Do you ever read the risk disclosure in a company’s filing.
Bevis - I tried to keep my explanation as general as possible. and yes I do read the disclosures and write those disclosures (at least for non public companies, no sec work).
I agree that the climate risks are pure speculation, even at that, the normal time horizon is 1 year from date of issuance. Even if, and that is a huge if, the time frame from any climate change impact is several decades , not months. So yes, the climate change disclosure is a joke.
Tom - good point about the one year thing. You know a lot more about this stuff than I do since you write language for various public filings. The “next year” convention makes this whole climate disclosure stuff even more ridiculous, as you point out. Pretty typical of the entirety of the subject.
Lest you think I was dissing your work, understand that I’m an engineer, not a lawyer, but due to my position I was involved in the negotiation/preparation of a lot if documents, including 10-Ks and Qs, PSAs, surface use agreements, and so on. So I had to read a lot of documents and all of them generated the same reaction. I’d read a few pages, then set it aside for a bit, then read some more. Legal docs and my brain were not a good match.
To the extent the risks are material, they already have to be disclosed under existing rules - which makes this new disclosure rule either duplicative or immaterial.
Rossami - that was my point
Actual risk from climate change is nearly non existent , thus no disclosure would be required either under the existing GAAP standards or under the proposed standards using any measure of materiality.
However, there is a real risk of negative impact due to regulatory changes. Banning internal combustion engine, grid failure due over reliance on renewables, need to move manufacturing overseas due to lack of reliable power source, serious reduction in agricultural output due to banning fertilizer, etc, etc.
So, the worst risk comes from Democrat Greennutters getting elected in larger quantities in 2024, but you don't have to consider handicapping that risk until November this year.
What is a climate-related risk supposed to be and why does anyone need them from corporations when they were never required before ever?
Not only do farts release carbon but they also spread Covid…so that is why every time Trump and Melania had a KFC dinner a super spreader event would happen a few hours later…stinky and deadly!
Past time to dismantle most if not all of the alphabet agencies and start over.
Three words excessive.
“most if not” or “and start over?”
It's ridiculous to require climate disclosures in SEC filings. If the owners of a publicly traded company want such disclosures, they can require the board to provide them (or just invest in another company that chooses to provide them).
If the goal is to increase visibility into climate impact by a particular company or product, Congress could require any product or company involved in interstate commerce (i.e., virtually every business given the currently accepted broad definition of that power) to disclose such information. For example, Congress could require every product in interstate commerce include a "climate impact" measure on the packaging.
How is anyone supposed to know their risks of their climate related exposure?
The likely range (according to the IPPC) of the transient climate response to a doubling of CO2 (TCR) is 1.5 to 4.5C. We are within spitting distance now of 1.5c so an extremely plausible answer is there is no risk, at least according to the IPCC.
According to van Wijngaarden and Happer 2020, CO2 is already saturated in the atmosphere so additional CO2 will have virtually no effect.
"The saturations of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are so extreme that the per-molecule forcing is attenuated by four orders of magnitude with respect to the optically thin values."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098