Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Mixed signals anyone? As debate rages over the Aussie government funding a new gas generator, businesses are being coerced to increase their disclosure of alleged climate risks.
ASIC targets fossil fuel companies over climate change
Michael Roddan
Senior companies reporter
Jun 1, 2021 – 4.45pmA $700 million oil and gas exploration group chaired by Future Fund guardian John Poynton and National COVID-19 Commission boss Nev Power was one of five fossil fuel firms warned by the corporate regulator they risked breaking the law because of non-disclosure of climate change risks.
The intervention by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in mid-2020 was among the regulator’s first forays into the market as it ramps up its regulation of climate-related disclosures for shareholders.
…
The warnings were all triggered by complaints received by ASIC that alleged the companies’ operating reviews and directors’ reports failed to disclose risks posed to the businesses by climate change. While auditors do not audit directors’ reports in the annual reports, they are required to ensure any information in a director’s report is consistent with the audited operating and financial review.
…
In his letters, ASIC senior manager Ben Phillips warned Strike Energy, Carnarvon Petroleum, Pancontinental, Whitebark and Leigh Creek that the companies’ 2019 annual reports were “inconsistent and out of step” with other energy companies “without any clearly discernible explanation as to why this might be the case”.
…
Read more: https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/asic-targets-fossil-fuel-companies-over-climate-change-20210531-p57wq4
In my opinion this contradiction is straight out of Atlas Shrugged.
The Australian Government is utterly dependent on revenue from extractive industries, yet some government bodies appear to be doing everything in their power to kill the industries which pay their wages. Just losing coal exports would turn Australia’s comfortable current account surplus into a deficit.
Yet even as one half of the government seeks to prop up dispatchable power with subsides, the courts and regulators are attempting to throw absurd new obstacles in the path of companies delivering prosperity to the Australian people.
Much as I detest the possibility Australia would follow Biden’s path to high cost climate non-achievement, in some ways what the Aussie government is doing right now is even worse.
Imagine you were a fossil fuel investor, or even a renewable investor. What would your answer be, if someone asked whether Australia was offering a stable regulatory environment, to encourage job creating investment in the Australian economy?
“Imagine you were a fossil fuel investor, or even a renewable investor.”
ASIC is not supposed to promote government policy about fossil fuels. It is an independent commission whose job is to make sure that those investors are properly informed by the companies. And investors are people who do need to know about risks.
What about health risks from big pharma corporations.
‘Some people die from taking our products’
What about it?
Is there a requirement from those corporations to make that statement? Those risks are real and not alleged. Is there a requirement from sugar mill corporations to announce that their product produces obesity, diabetes and heart attacks?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
There have been no significant changes in natural disasters, it’s all speculation. The health issues I mentioned are real and documented.
You will cry out now- It’s the Law. I don’t subscribe to that point of view
ASIC requires companies to disclose all relevant risks. I would expect those are required.
Tell us the risk as determined by whom, what is it?
A fictional risk of climate change, what about Santa being held up during Christmas rounds?
I think the things I mentioned are a risk, but does ASIC and the corporations involved think it’s a risk
Nick,
When the alleged risk has a 0% chance of occurring, it’s not a real risk, so what’s the point? It’s infinitely more likely that the Earth will be hit by an extinction level event impact event than be harmed in any way shape or form by CO2 emissions, even if the wildly exaggerated warming claims of the IPCC were true.
Everything you say is predicated on faithfully beliveing the IPCC’s egregious lies, while everything I say is based on repeatable science that conforms to the scientific method and not only falsifies the claims of the IPCC in many ways, it unambiguously establishes a climate sensitivity upper bound that’s well below the IPCC’s presumed lower bound which was established at their inception with the only requirement that it be sufficiently large to justify their own creation. Can you see the conflict of interest?
Can you explain how the next W/m^2 of solar forcing will increase the surface emissions by 4.3 W/m^2 to affect the claimed 0.8C increase, while the average W/m^2 of solar forcing only results in 1.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions? Where are all these extra W/m^2 coming from to offset the increased surface emissions? How does the planet differentiate the next Joule from the average Joule when all are arriving at the same time?
The IPCC completely blew the science with the misapplied feedback analysis that literally requires the atmosphere to create energy out of thin air. it’s basically institutionalized perpetual motion and I don’t know about you, but I hold Conservation Of Energy above all other physical laws, yet the IPCC is unambiguously ignoring it.
I don’t expect you to answer any of the questions I posed, for if you applied the least amount of brain power to these arguments, you would necessarily switch sides, especially if you have any kind of scientific background. Unfortunately, even unambiguous scientific arguments have trouble overcoming ignorance driven by political bias because those arguments are always summarily dismissed without due consideration.
… and if it’s true that climate change effects everything, why are only fossil fuel companies obliged to detail risks from climate change?
The real risks to fossil fuel investors all stem from the degree to which governments pander to green lobbies, and that’s impossible to predict.
Yes, the real risk is fanatics like the Regulator, who think Human-caused Climate Change is real.
Delusional people attempting to impose their delusional will are the real risk.
Often on the label of particularly questionable drugs, the FDA will require what’s called a Black Box warning. Since it’s literally a black box with white print, the name is pretty easy to understand.
Strange that ASIC makes no mention of its assessment of its own organization’s cc impact in its annual report.
Or should I say hypocritical?
An increasing risk companies face nowadays is political risk viz. ‘risk faced by investors that political and bureaucratic decisions, events, or conditions will significantly affect the profitability’.
ASIC regulations are the very disease for which they purport to be the cure.
I guess “You’ve failed to predict all the risks we regulators pose to your investors” just doesn’t sound as good.
I wish I could click the upvote for your comment several more times, Chris Hanley.
.
.
It’s tough enough to keep ahead of competitors, keep current customers, and garner new customers. Then some @#!&% bureaucrat, with no skin in the game, starts adding regulatory ankle weights to businesses all while raising the regulatory hurdles.
Grrrrrrrrr………..🤬😡😡
You’re a funny guy Nick. ASIC’s role is to prevent misinformation and commercial fraud through misinformation to investors. It’s job is not to remove investment risk. That aside and by way of contrast if a renewable company advertised their wind or solar product as better then a coal or gas company because fossils are destroying the planet rather then saying wind and solar cannot produce grid power and would not survive without direct government subsidy, that would be ok?
“ It’s job is not to remove investment risk. “
No, but part of their job is to make sure that companies disclose risk to investors. And that is what they are doing here. If companies think the risk is nil, they can declare that (and take responsibility for its accuracy).
Risk of alien abduction = 0
Risk of climate change…climate extinction = 0
I suspect that alien abduction is higher than climate change- but the Biden amdinistration will at the end of this month tell us what they really know about UFOs. yuh, right…..
The risk to fossil fuel investors arises entirely from the regulators themselves, not from any climate change (real or imagined).
The entire thing is completely bogus. How are companies supposed to anticipate what governments and the regulators they appoint will do next?
…No, but part of their job is to make sure that companies disclose risk to investors…
Ergo the croupier should disclose the risk to my investment on blackjack or the roulette wheel. Is that what you’re saying Nick?
C’mon man!
Cheers
Mike
Given how many people try to get their money back from investment companies based on “but they didn’t tell us the risks” after they lose life savings gambling on the stock market, I would say it’s all part of the brave new world. Nick Stokes is backing the lowest common denominator in society – the greedy idiot who will attempt to sue anyone or anything for a cash pay out; all it requires is some imagined looming catastrophe and the idiot’s plaintive but well rehearsed cry of “but they didn’t tell us the risks”.
There is nothing new or special about climate here. Since forever, corporate regulators have required that risks to companies be disclosed. ASIC does it, SEC in the USA etc. It is to put investors on a level playing field.
There is presently no possible way to assess the risk from natural climate variation. Even in the words of the IPCC:
In other words the only solution is to believe a process that has had no success at all. So, in fact there is no “climate change” risk except that which is artificially caused by bad science and corrupt government.
You’re missing the point, probably deliberately; the risk is created by government regulators and assessed by government regulator, all of them with their snout in the public trough. The price companies are strangled by red tape and forced to leave our shores.
Risks are assessed in terms of likelihood and severity. When likelihood or severity iare very low to inexistent, the risk is low to inexistent.
What are the risks Nick? Doomsday fantasies and scare stories? The most imminent risk is the risk of falling into poverty, of not being able to pay for all the services to which Australians have become accustomed.
Easily fixed.’No climate change risk’
Brief and accurate.
It would be interesting to see ASIC argue otherwise as they would (or should) be required to prove what causes the risk, which has not been the case so far, merely conjecture from faulty models.
Their experts vs the fuel companies experts would, perhaps, expose both sides to the sheeple.
..but risk from stupid measures to stop imaginary global warming are very high.
How do you assess the risk of a non-existent problem? Is it zero or just indeterminate?
Nicholas,
The risk to investors is that governments actually follow through on their pledges of
“net zero”. Most governments have signed up to CO2 reduction targets that cannot be achieved without banning any new coal mines. Which is a huge risk to anyone thinking of investing in a coal mining company.
Yes, but there is also a risk if coal mining stops, like no new solar panels (solar panels need a lot of coal to manufacture).
Which leads to the current ridiculous situation of government subsidies for ventures private companies won’t touch, thanks to the government’s own regulations.
Well, no coal, no revenue, no money for subsidies to wind and solar, no companies, country bankrupted, no ASIC, etc.
Australia didn’t sign up for ‘net zero’. We are the naughty children that didn’t.
Izaak Walton writes:
“The risk to investors is that governments actually follow through on their pledges of
“net zero”.”
What you are claiming is absolutely correct. But what you describe is risk due to government interference. This is *not* the same thing.
ASIC has specifically stated that it’s interest is in risk from Climate Change directly, not from government. Risk of government interference is real, and is handled in a separate risk category.
Some people seem to be trying to conflate the two and thereby confuse the issue. This can be avoided. A proper risk assessment puts all risks in their proper categories as per long established risk accounting definitions.
Don’t look for Izaak to apply any logic. The Izaak still believes in Santa and Russia Colluuuusion.
Including the risks of price and reliability of supply, as a result of an increasing proportion of green energy.
“Note to investors and regulators: there is risk associated with investing in fossil fuels because it’s impossible to know in advance the degree to which governments and the regulators they appoint will pander to Green lunacy.”
That oughtta do it.
Actually, it’s highly predictable given how politics has subverted climate science. Those on the political left will pander endlessly to the green blob, while those on the right prefer to adhere to real science.
“The risk to investors is that governments actually follow through on their pledges of “net zero”.
That’s absolutely right. Are you coming over to the Darkside, Izaak? 🙂
He does seem to be acknowledging the threat from government capriciousness, politicking and mismanagement (not to mention possible malfeasance).
Correct nic. Simply put 0 out of 10 on the risk, for “Climate Change” with “no mitigation required”. ASIC will not be able to prove otherwise, since it’s a belief without evidence.
Excellent suggestion, Peter!
the square root of -1
Well, I am a proponent of coal development here in Australia, being the source of the lowest emission coal available to SE Asia, and my advice is FLEE. The green / woke have captured the institutions, and the (conservative?) government doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to promote sensible energy solutions. More so than almost any other country, barring possibly the US, we are comprehensively removing the foundations of our prosperity. Logic and proportion (thank you Grace Slick) have flown, and our culture will only wake up to the peril that it is in, when our economy is devastated. Ask not for whom the bell tolls……..
The major corporate risk is trading with entities under the sway of the Chinese Communist Party in a non-Rule of Law “jurisdiction”. Under the explicit ideology, theory and practice of communist government, each and every entity – person, organisation or institution [but especially the coercive agencies of police, prosecutor and compulsorily-subservient “judiciary”] must obey the commands of the CCP Dictatorship. Board members of corporations trading with PRC entities are knowingly flouting their solemn fiduciary and professional obligations to protect their enterprise and their investors’ money and interests. But our “regulatory” authorities are – as usual – unconscionably ‘asleep’ at their very highly remunerated ‘steering wheel’.
So who is to blame? The CCP, the board members, the regulatory authorities or woke greenies, as Gordo seems to think? Based on who has the power, money and influence I’d say the greens.
Well, if this is multiple choice…
E. All of the above.
Not exactly. I think this is a major worldwide problem. Nobody will do anything – except a few diplomatic finger wagging exercises. Placating a foreign power has never worked in the past and it’s hardly going to work now. I don’t see how China’s behaviour can be easily changed now – the rest of the world has let this situation continue and get worse and by ignoring what was happening and the Implications for the future we have all helped to create this mess. We are running out of options rapidly – at some point we will have to decide whether to let China take what it wants when it wants or go to war. Given historical precedents, I think that this will drag on and on then result in some form of armed conflict – it’s gone on for too long for there to be another solution.
Overpopulated China must look enviously at underpopulated Australia!
I saw a report the other day where the Chicoms are invading Bhutan. The Chicoms have built an entire city eight miles inside Bhutan’s border.
The Chicoms are a bunch of thieves. That’s how they make their way in the world, by stealing from others. It’s national policy.
..”Overpopulated China must look enviously at underpopulated Australia!”
Nah! they are aready moving into Eastern Siberia… much closer.
Cheers
Mike
Yes, the Chicoms have their eyes on Russian territory.
Not long ago, the Russians moved additional Russian troops to Siberia, in response to percieved threats to their border.
So when you hear reports about Russia and China getting together against the West, take it with a grain of salt. There is more going on here than meets the eye.
Climate Change Risk: Government legislation based on the beliefs of a few zealots who have managed to worm their way into society and push their unfounded belief that we’re all going to hell in a hand cart, could in the near to medium future drive us out of business.
Easy, All a company needs to do is determine the annual amount of CO2 they will be adding to the atmosphere, divide it by the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and multiply it by their earnings. Put the money aside for a rainy day when they need to build a new coal, gas or nuclear power generator.
Of course the greatest “Climate Risk” is that all Australian businesses have to close down or move off-shore because they no longer have access to an affordable & reliable electricity supply, because the Climate Idiots have won.
Risk = Likelihood x Consequences.
Organisations can easily address the above risk equation using fancy qualitative generalisations.
BUT
But addressing risk properly using detailed quantitative data is not possible.
Because it doesn’t exist or will highlight how a warmer Australia is more beneficial.
The most obvious is health. Many Australian organisations highlight the health risks associated with heatwaves. But no organisation is going to use readily available ABS health statistics which will quantitatively show a hotter world is more healthy.
I work for an Ozzie company and recently we were asked to list all of the risks we can think of that might disrupt a field exploration project. Our department came up with about 20 risks but not one person suggested climate change, the phrase never came up in the discussion. I couldn’t believe it. I had to laugh.
I expect we will soon see the overall risks identified by corporate HQ, and I can guarantee that climate change will be at the top of the list. My Ozzie company is embarrassingly woke.
????????
No risk from Institutionalized Racism?
No risk from White Supremacy?
No risk from White Power Structures which Oppress Marginalized Communities?
You guys are behind the curve. Time to get Woke. (And Go Broke.)
biggest risk is the greens and the XR greenpees mobs and getup
You’d really get their attention if you explained that the real business risk was from the Climate Change commission.
Risk plans must also provide risk mitigation actions.
Woke virtual signalling by going zero net emissions is not good enough.
Example scenario
A. State government require all government agencies to have climate plans that address impacts and adaptions.
B. State government controls Forrest
C. State government school in rural bushfire area claims climate change will increase risk of bushfire threat.
D. The school must highlight the increase risk and its action which must be to get the Forrest to be cleared around school.
E. The Forrest will not get cleared.
Government leftists/environmentalists can’t deal with the above scenario so continue to sprout woke actions. They will never actually carry out any mitigation or adaptation actions.
And by extension a lowering of the standard of living for all in export-dependent Australia.
So-called ‘climate change risks’ correlate to income: the lower the living standards the greater the individual ‘climate change risks’ together with the corollary the higher the living standards the lower the ‘climate change risks’.
Reputational risk is real, and marxists know it.
It’s easy to shame a company on social media.
Being woke is an acceptable strategy to reduce reputational risk.
Companies can just say sh*t to get wan*ers of their back. They don’t actually have to do anything.
This is the Obama shakedown which is an improvement over the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton shakedowns.
“Being woke is an acceptable strategy to reduce reputational risk.”
The cowardice of this strategy is disgusting. Time to man-up. (oh, does that sound sexist?)
Example of Risk
Risk – Blackout from government installing too many windmills
Likelihood – High – most summers.
Consequence – production shut down, with loss of sales and employment issues. Poor reputation leading to customers buying from overseas.
Risk reduction action – Buy a diesel generator
“Risk reduction action – Buy a diesel generator”
but that will be verboten once we arrive at net zero nirvana!
What might an enemy or economic rival wish to do? Would it not be a primary goal of such a competitor to encourage arbitrary regulation and capricious requirements while optimizing its own advantages? In a market is it not ancient practice to engage in rumor mongering and whisper campaigns to create uncertainty and undermine an opponent?
What is a climate risk? Who defines that term in standard actuary practice? Is there a standard definition with a standard formulation? How can an auditor decide whether a risk is identified or calculated properly? Aren’t those all decisions for an individual investor to make based on comparing various alternatives?
What makes it necessary for a government commission to pretend to protect investors from their own judgement? Who’s to protect investors from an hysterical commission?
Investment in a more-or-less free market is based on assuming risk for a possibility of reward. Not on betting with the house in a crooked game.
climate risk is nill. Financial impacts of climate policy risk for everyone is high.
I just cannot understand. Against such a backdrop, we are supposed to no longer support the massive usage of fossil fuels. The fuels are the source of many problems, exspecially the carbon emission. Vehicles like MG v80 should take it seriously.
Climate risk? Negligable. Next.
Would it be admissable simply to state “Risk is less than that from China”? Geoff S
Unwise. They would then ask you to quantify the risk from China.
Hi Nick,
But they have no power to ask that companbies quantify the risk from China.. That was my point. If they want to trade in intangibles, let them specify them.
You know I worked in the minerals sector. For all those years, the biggest, most stultifying, efficiency-destroying societal group was the part of the public service that tried to over-rule our simple efforts. In those days we funded a lot of CSIRO work and both parties did well from it. It was the regulating bureaucracy that messed that up. Then they went on to greater distress. Geoff S
Geoff,
They simply ask that companies declare risks that they are aware of. To say what they know. ASIC isn’t going to overrule with their own estimate of risk. The point is that if risks do turn bad, the declaration will be significant in civil actions by people who have suffered loss.
Nick
You lie by omission.
There are clear measurable risks associated with China.
An Australian company can measure the likelihood of a political spat with China (IMO likely).
And measure the consequences.
Because this actually happens when the Australian government criticises China for B and R policies, China then punishes Australian exporters ( iron ore, coal, wine or lobsters)
These risks are real and measurable.
Don’t you read the news.
Risks from climate change are not measurable.
That’s easy for any private company; they look at their supply chins and their exports
Exactly- no doubt overpopulated China looks at underpopulated Australia with great envy.
you got it right sneaking KRudd behind Scomo
the knife is hidden but hes got one;-)
and it’d be mates of his and Labor party behind the “complaints”
ASIC should have better things to do than this!
They could say that the BOM regards temperature data prior to 1909 as unreliable, and as such there’s insufficient data to calculate a “Climate Risk”.
But feel free to check back next year. 😉
From the article: “The warnings were all triggered by complaints received by ASIC that alleged the companies’ operating reviews and directors’ reports failed to disclose risks posed to the businesses by climate change.”
That should be “Human-caused Climate Change”. That’s what they are talking about.
Since there is no evidence that Human-caused Climate Change exists at anything like a detectable level, these companies are faced with an impossible task. How can “nothing tangible” put one at risk?
The Regulator wants these companies to assume things that have not been demonstrated to be true, and then extrapolate from there in their annual reports.
The companies should write back to the Regulator and tell them that as soon as the Regulator establishes that Human-caused Climate Change is real, they will then speculate on what it means for the future of their company.
Absolutely pathetic. ASIC should be out there catching corporate criminals not hounding good companies for no benefit to society.
How about future risks from 1)space aliens 2)pandemics 3)nuclear war 4)terorist attacks and 5)one-eyed, one-horned flyin’ purple people eaters. Just to name a few. If they don’t disclose them, they are breaking the law!
This permeate pretty mush every company, local/state/federal govn’t body, authority and agency here in Australia. It’s rather sad to see a once great country go so liberal and woke.
I live in a block of apartments (Units) and a few months ago the local council introduced food waste bins to stop food waste going to land fill.
One of the reason stated in the information provided was to use the waste to create renewable energy and reduce emissions of CO2, I kid you not.
No mention was made about how much energy was used to make the special indoor and outdoor waste bins, nor the making of the special waste bags.
In the information provided it was suggested to place waste items in the special bags and then freeze them before collection. Doe take a bit of energy to cool stuff down to freezing point, but hey, all ok in the name of “climate change”.
Still, it’s not quite as made as the UK but Aus is well ahead of many countries in the race to the bottom.
By stating that climate change poses even a small risk to a company (which is what the regulator wants them to do even though the regulator has zero expertise in climate and is assuming that someone else is correct), the company is agreeing that it thinks climate change is proven. If the all the directors think that climate change does not pose any risk to the company, then they should say so. The whole ridiculousness of this requirement stems from the assumption that climate change is relevant, proven and significant. Make the regulator prove it in court.
Disclosing the risks of climate change will not be possible until someone—anyone—clearly and accurately defines the phrase “climate change”.
To wit, is “climate change”:
— the world getting hotter in summers, or colder in winters?
— the world suffering from flooding, or from droughts?
— the world suffering from too much CO2, or too little CO2 for optimum crop growth to feed humanity?
— the world suffering from too much cloud cover, or too little cloud cover?
— the world suffering from too much or too little atmospheric water vapor (the predominant greenhouse gas)?
— the world suffering from its oceans shifting very slightly in average pH (range of 8.2-8.1)?
— the world suffering from too many insects (pests), or too few insects (species extinction)?
— the world suffering from too many El Ninos, or too many La Ninas?
— the world suffering from too much wind (claimed increase in storms of all types) or too little wind (for windmill power farms to be reliable)?
— the world suffering from currently being in an interglacial period, as opposed to being in a glacial period?
— all of the above, or none of the above but something else?
I am a self funded retired Australian. I have no faith in our politicians and senior beaurocracy. There are no scientists amongst them, and they listen only to a few activists. Most major industry has been force to close, or is in the process of being closed. Despite booming exports and rocketing prices, coal is probably next, then aluminum. I am very disillusioned at the absolute ignorance of our ruling class.
I am very slowly moving assets off shore to fund my retirement.
The Ruling Class are caught up in the delusion.
It’s scary when the Ruling Class believes in something, like Catastrophic Human-caused Climate Change, that has not been shown to be real.
This shows just how powerful and influential propaganda and disinformation can be in forming public opinion. We are in trouble because scoundrels and delusional people are in charge of the information we receive.
It’s looking more like “Idiocracy” in the West as time goes on. Certainly in the United States. Joe Biden is the posterboy for Idiocracy.
Do the Chinese owned companies who are extracting come under the same ASIC rules?
I yearn for the day when some company has the gonads to “disclose” that its greatest climate-related risk is the one that stems from idiots in government who believe (or pretend) they can control the weather politically.
Imagine you were a carmaker, whose products rely on fuel to drive. What would your answer be, if someone insists on hiking the fuel tax? Car manufacturers have been carrying the can for so long. Previously, when it comes to cars, we think of exhaust, fuel consumption, and polluting the air environment. But nowadays, companies are increasingly aware of their social responsibility and are constantly improving their technology to reduce the environmental pollution caused by driving. Volkswagen Beetle is a typical example.
These complaints allege that the companies’ operating reviews and directors’ reports fail to disclose the risks posed to the business by climate change. While auditors do not audit the directors’ reports in annual reports, they must ensure that any information in the directors’ reports is consistent with the audited operating and financial reviews.