Morano on SEC ‘climate risk’ disclosures: ‘It’s a way for climate activists to literally get their claws into every aspect of a business’ without a vote of Congress

From Climate Depot


Read the Full Article 

Marc Morano of Climate Depot tells AFN the SEC vote represents a backdoor attempt by climate activists to use a “layer of bureaucracy” to enact their radical agenda that failed to get approved in Congress. “They’re not having Congress pass a big bill with public hearings and town hall meetings, and talk radio and constituents calling,” he says. “They’re doing this through the regulatory agencies of the administrative state.” … 

Morano predicts the SEC will do more than just collect the information: Companies that fail to live up to environmentalists’ demands, he says, will be harassed for failing to do their part. “It’s a way for climate activists to literally get their claws into every aspect of a business now because these disclosures are going to be used against them,” he tells AFN. “Everything they can and do report will be used against them by climate activists and the Biden administration bureaucrats.”

By: Admin – Climate Depot March 22, 2022 2:32 PM

https://afn.net/science-tech/2022/03/22/big-business-witnessing-backdoor-scheme-to-dig-shame-and-harass/

Big Business witnessing backdoor scheme to dig, shame, and harass

By Chris Woodward, Billy Davis

The economy-wrecking “Green New Deal” has not been abandoned by determined Democrats, who witnessed their radical plan die in Congress, and now comes their newest strategy: Private corporations must comply with climate-related mandates in order to participate in stock markets.

On Monday, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission voted 3-1 to approve new rules about “climate risks” that require publicly traded companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions and describe how climate change is affecting their business operations.

According to The Associated Press, businesses that are public companies would also be required to develop transition plans for managing climate risk; explain how they intend to meet climate goals; and document the impact of severe weather events on their finances.

Marc Morano of Climate Depot tells AFN the SEC vote represents a backdoor attempt by climate activists to use a “layer of bureaucracy” to enact their radical agenda that failed to get approved in Congress.

“They’re not having Congress pass a big bill with public hearings and town hall meetings, and talk radio and constituents calling,” he says. “They’re doing this through the regulatory agencies of the administrative state.”

In fact, the AP story states the SEC vote represents a “drive across the [federal] government to address climate change.” That goal comes after President Joe Biden vowed last year to cut greenhouse gases and move the U.S. to “clean energy” by 2030, the story said.

Hester Peirce, the only Republican among the four SEC commissioners, voted against the proposal.

“We cannot make such fundamental changes without harming” companies, investors and the SEC,” she said. “The results won’t be reliable, let alone comparable.”

‘Big Business’ viewed as enemy of planet

Dating back to the 1960s, the environmental movement has viewed private corporations as greedy, pollution-spewing enemies of the planet. That view of Big Business has only worsened in recent decades when activists embraced the apocalyptic-like view the planet is warming from gasoline and diesel, and now mankind is doomed if we fail to abandon fossil fuels and embrace “renewable energy” for electricity and automobiles.

According to the AP story, private businesses would be required to document greenhouse gas emissions that are produced – even indirectly – by their operation. The rule also demands documentation related to company transportation, such as the vehicles used to haul their products, and even employee business travel must be accounted for.

The same AP story says climate activists have “clamored” for mandatory disclosures from companies because they estimate excluding a company’s indirect greenhouse gas emissions leaves out 75% of those emission statistics.

Morano predicts the SEC will do more than just collect the information: Companies that fail to live up to environmentalists’ demands, he says, will be harassed for failing to do their part.

“It’s a way for climate activists to literally get their claws into every aspect of a business now because these disclosures are going to be used against them,” he tells AFN. “Everything they can and do report will be used against them by climate activists and the Biden administration bureaucrats.”

###

Here is the formal press release.

SEC Proposes Rules to Enhance and Standardize Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2022-46

Washington D.C., March 21, 2022 —

The Securities and Exchange Commission today proposed rule changes that would require registrants to include certain climate-related disclosures in their registration statements and periodic reports, including information about climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on their business, results of operations, or financial condition, and certain climate-related financial statement metrics in a note to their audited financial statements. The required information about climate-related risks also would include disclosure of a registrant’s greenhouse gas emissions, which have become a commonly used metric to assess a registrant’s exposure to such risks.

“I am pleased to support today’s proposal because, if adopted, it would provide investors with consistent, comparable, and decision-useful information for making their investment decisions, and it would provide consistent and clear reporting obligations for issuers,” said SEC Chair Gary Gensler. “Our core bargain from the 1930s is that investors get to decide which risks to take, as long as public companies provide full and fair disclosure and are truthful in those disclosures. Today, investors representing literally tens of trillions of dollars support climate-related disclosures because they recognize that climate risks can pose significant financial risks to companies, and investors need reliable information about climate risks to make informed investment decisions. Today’s proposal would help issuers more efficiently and effectively disclose these risks and meet investor demand, as many issuers already seek to do. Companies and investors alike would benefit from the clear rules of the road proposed in this release. I believe the SEC has a role to play when there’s this level of demand for consistent and comparable information that may affect financial performance. Today’s proposal thus is driven by the needs of investors and issuers.”

The proposed rule changes would require a registrant to disclose information about (1) the registrant’s governance of climate-related risks and relevant risk management processes; (2) how any climate-related risks identified by the registrant have had or are likely to have a material impact on its business and consolidated financial statements, which may manifest over the short-, medium-, or long-term; (3) how any identified climate-related risks have affected or are likely to affect the registrant’s strategy, business model, and outlook; and (4) the impact of climate-related events (severe weather events and other natural conditions) and transition activities on the line items of a registrant’s consolidated financial statements, as well as on the financial estimates and assumptions used in the financial statements.

For registrants that already conduct scenario analysis, have developed transition plans, or publicly set climate-related targets or goals, the proposed amendments would require certain disclosures to enable investors to understand those aspects of the registrants’ climate risk management.

The proposed rules also would require a registrant to disclose information about its direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Scope 1) and indirect emissions from purchased electricity or other forms of energy (Scope 2). In addition, a registrant would be required to disclose GHG emissions from upstream and downstream activities in its value chain (Scope 3), if material or if the registrant has set a GHG emissions target or goal that includes Scope 3 emissions. These proposals for GHG emissions disclosures would provide investors with decision-useful information to assess a registrant’s exposure to, and management of, climate-related risks, and in particular transition risks. The proposed rules would provide a safe harbor for liability from Scope 3 emissions disclosure and an exemption from the Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirement for smaller reporting companies. The proposed disclosures are similar to those that many companies already provide based on broadly accepted disclosure frameworks, such as the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.

Under the proposed rule changes, accelerated filers and large accelerated filers would be required to include an attestation report from an independent attestation service provider covering Scopes 1 and 2 emissions disclosures, with a phase-in over time, to promote the reliability of GHG emissions disclosures for investors.

The proposed rules would include a phase-in period for all registrants, with the compliance date dependent on the registrant’s filer status, and an additional phase-in period for Scope 3 emissions disclosure.

The proposing release will be published on SEC.gov and in the Federal Register. The comment period will remain open for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, or 60 days after the date of issuance and publication on sec.gov, whichever period is longer.

###

5 11 votes
Article Rating
51 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DaveinCalgary
March 22, 2022 2:24 pm

On the bright side, the SEC seems loathe to enforce many of the existing rules it already has on its books so I won’t lose much sleep that they will suddenly find more resources to enforce this foolishness.

Last edited 1 month ago by DaveinCalgary
Scissor
Reply to  DaveinCalgary
March 22, 2022 3:13 pm

Yes, and every knife has two edges.

Danny Davis
Reply to  Scissor
March 23, 2022 12:32 pm

Indeed – waiting for the reports from “Incredible, edible, Green Soylent Energy, LLC” on their “wind Farm?” Solar FARM???!!!??? projects with disclosures for the massive concrete base, steel, copper, aluminum, glass, diesel, resin, eTc on the build-out of the projects. Be sure and include employee related direct co$t$!

James Allen
Reply to  DaveinCalgary
March 22, 2022 3:33 pm

The problem with that conclusion is this – when the rules are so complex and capricious that everyone is in violation, then you merely need to be selected for harassment. There is surely a violation in there somewhere, so they can just attack their “enemies” with no cost to themselves. And they’ll just be enforcing the “rules”. It’s death by diktat, all the way down that path.

DaveinCalgary
Reply to  James Allen
March 22, 2022 3:51 pm

Agree one hundred percent. I was only looking on the bright side that if you can’t prevent burdensome rules, you can at least be glad they are being enforced by the understaffed SEC who have no resources to disentangle whatever numbers the corporate world makes up for their climate disclosures. Considering how much insider trading gets a pass where millions of dollars is on the line, I wouldn’t worry too much that some WAG numbers thrown together to look virtuous getting any scrutiny. Agree though it’s one more way to harass for no benefit to anyone.

Max P
Reply to  DaveinCalgary
March 23, 2022 10:40 am

It won’t be the SEC doing the enforcement. It will be the wild-eyed nut cases in the green movement doing the enforcement by proxy. The SEC won’t have to investigate. Any ‘case’ will be brought to the SEC already ‘fully investigated’ by a green NGO.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Max P
March 29, 2022 12:11 pm

Better yet, George Soros will fund attorneys and etc to be embedded within the SEC, just as he’s trying to do in Blue State District Attorney offices. What could possibly go wrong?

jeffery p
Reply to  DaveinCalgary
March 23, 2022 5:24 am

They will enforce this one if they can get it enacted.

griff
March 22, 2022 2:30 pm

The economy-wrecking “Green New Deal”

It isn’t economy wrecking, is it?

ResourceGuy
Reply to  griff
March 22, 2022 2:44 pm

Not just yet but give them time to push it in place. It goes into income redistribution in the process.

Drake
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 23, 2022 9:20 am

Sorry ResourceGuy, but the portions of the GND that have been in place for years, the solar and wind subsidies and mandates requiring the power companies to buy solar and wind output first, HAVE been wrecking the economy for years.

The results are just not noticeable to the extent where blame can be clearly shown to be the GND policies.

The amount of resources diverted to GND unreliable generation is immense and extremely deleterious to “society/mankind” as a whole.

Jeffery P
Reply to  griff
March 22, 2022 2:44 pm

Did you understand the post? How is the SEC proposal not a boot on the neck of every company? Small companies can’t afford this. Regulations like this strangle competition.

Scissor
Reply to  Jeffery P
March 22, 2022 3:24 pm

I wonder how small private companies can be made to comply as they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the SEC.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Scissor
March 23, 2022 4:35 am

Read the post. Small private companies that do business with public companies will be sucked in as well.

Remember how the EPA used their power to regulate navigable waterways to sue over ponds in private land that are dozens of miles from navigable waterways?

Tom Halla
Reply to  griff
March 22, 2022 2:45 pm

The Green New Deal was a fascist socialism designed by retarded schoolchildren.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Halla
Rud Istvan
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 22, 2022 2:55 pm

AOC is no longer a school child. Proven by her job previous to Congress as a bartender.

HotScot
Reply to  griff
March 22, 2022 2:47 pm

Yes.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  griff
March 22, 2022 2:57 pm

Hey Griff, it’s good to know the UK tariffs on the Senate minority leader (KY–whiskey and tobacco) are being lifted. I guess Biden’s reprisals against McConnell will end soon. Now the UK can export un-economic steel to the U.S. with their sky-high energy costs or use wood pellets from North America to power the mills.

———————–

U.S., U.K. Strike Trade Deal to End Tariffs on British Steel and American WhiskeyThe U.K. will also lift levies on motorcycles and tobacco

Don Perry
Reply to  griff
March 22, 2022 3:21 pm

It’s well on its way, bonehead!

Reply to  griff
March 22, 2022 4:24 pm

To protect the economy, a bigger bold broad barrier to block Biden will be built back.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  griff
March 22, 2022 4:42 pm

It isn’t economy wrecking, is it?

No, it isn’t.

Because it got blocked!

Mr.
Reply to  griff
March 22, 2022 5:10 pm

Griff, it’s economics 101 that robust economic activity is grounded in CONFIDENCE.

Recessions are sparked by CONCERN, DOUBT & CAUTION.

Leftist policies and management ALWAYS put a dampener on free market confidence and prosperity for all who want to participate.

Tony Sullivan
Reply to  griff
March 22, 2022 5:25 pm

Perhaps you’re just struggling with the distinction between “wrecking” and “wrecked”.

LdB
Reply to  griff
March 22, 2022 5:57 pm

Did you miss the memo it got blocked.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  LdB
March 29, 2022 12:13 pm

…in Congress it got blocked. So now the Green Slime are trying to backdoor it. Read the article above.

lee
Reply to  griff
March 22, 2022 7:06 pm

Give us your numbers to show that.

Disputin
Reply to  griff
March 23, 2022 3:40 am

Yes, it is.

Mark BLR
Reply to  griff
March 23, 2022 7:23 am

The economy-wrecking “Green New Deal”

There are various propositions for a GND.

Exhibit 1 : The EU, 11/12/2019, “COM(2019) 640 final, The European Green Deal”.

Page 2 :

The EU has the collective ability to transform its economy and society to put it on a more sustainable path. It can build on its strengths as a global leader on climate and environmental measures, consumer protection, and workers’ rights. Delivering additional reductions in emissions is a challenge. It will require massive public investment and increased efforts to direct private capital towards climate and environmental action, while avoiding lock-in into unsustainable practices.

Page 15 :

2.2. Mainstreaming sustainability in all EU policies

2.2.1. Pursuing green finance and investment and ensuring a just transition

To achieve the ambition set by the European Green Deal, there are significant investment needs. The Commission has estimated that achieving the current 2030 climate and energy targets will require €260 billion of additional annual investment, about 1.5% of 2018 GDP. This flow of investment will need to be sustained over time. The magnitude of the investment challenge requires mobilising both the public and private sector.

– – – – –

Exhibit 2 : The UK’s “Green New Deal Bill”, authored by (MPs) Caroline Lucas and Clive Lewis, first published in full in September 2019.

From page 4 of their “Explainer” document, released in October 2019 :

Having addressed the changes needed in our economic system, the Green New Deal Bill sets out an action plan to transform almost every aspect of life in the UK, ending our reliance on dirty energy, restoring nature and reversing inequality. To do this, the Green New Deal Group propose investing up to five per cent of Britain’s annual GDP – or around £100 billion annually for the next ten years. The spending would be tapered over several years because of the shortage of “shovel-ready” projects, with £50 billion spent in year one, £75 billion in year two, rising to £100 billion a year invested for the remaining eight years.

– – – – –

Exhibit 3 : The now (in- ???) famous FAQ for the American GND (which starts with “Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ submitted the following resolution …”) back in February 2019.

On page 4 of the PDF version I downloaded :

Why do we need a sweeping Green New Deal investment program? Why can’t we just rely on regulations and taxes and the private sector to invest alone such as a carbon tax or a ban on fossil fuels?

The level of investment required is massive. Even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all the resources at their disposal into this investment, the aggregate value of the investments they could make would not be sufficient.

– Once again, we’re not saying that there isn’t a role for private sector investments; we’re just saying that the level of investment required will need every actor to pitch in and that the government is best placed to be the prime driver.

– – – – –

It isn’t just that “a Green New Deal bill” would be “economy wrecking” (which is the case), it is that all GND variants turn out to be different versions of both “a money grab” and “a power grab”.

Rud Istvan
March 22, 2022 2:40 pm

I am rusty on US securities law. Studied in law school for a full year (2L two semester course like 2L con law) but never practiced it. But I cannot fathom how this gets into the required potential investor ‘risks’ section of a standard SEC issuance prospectus, nor how it gets into the stuff required by law in annual financial reports. So looks very challengeable in court. SEC has a charter from enabling Congress Act that it cannot by law exceed. Unlike Mass v EPA where the problem was the congressional definition of a pollutant as ‘that which pollutes’, by necessity the SEC Act is much more black and white. For those wanting to research my general memory, it is the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as subsequently amended).

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 22, 2022 6:07 pm

“So looks very challengeable in court.”

Yes, it does.

The affected companies ought to be suing the SEC for harrassment since there is no evidence that these rules covering CO2 are necessary.

The SEC and the Biden administration are delusional when it comes to CO2. American companies should not be punished based on this CO2 crisis delusion of theirs.

The Executive Branch needs to prove there is a problem with CO2 before issuing rules about CO2.

The alarmists are putting the cart befoe the horse. Before you regulate CO2, you should have to be able to prove that CO2 needs regulation. This has never been done in or outside of government. There is no evidence CO2 is harmful or needs to be regulated.

Make the SEC prove their case before putting onerous rules on all sorts of American companies. The SEC is operating on assumptions only. Assumptions are not good enough. Not even close, and the companies ought to sue because of it.

Jeffery P
March 22, 2022 2:41 pm

I can’t wait for every company to have a mandated climate commissar appointed to the board by the government.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jeffery P
March 22, 2022 6:24 pm

“a mandated climate commissar”

That’s what it will amount to, if the alarmists have their way.

John Bell
March 22, 2022 3:06 pm

They want to be able to sue and settle? Then they can shake down all the deep pockets and themselves profit from the so-called polluting activity. How greedy and cynical and hypocritical…

Don Perry
March 22, 2022 3:20 pm

Elections and fraudulent elections have consequences.

Jock
March 22, 2022 4:03 pm

I’m afraid the management are ahead of activists when it comes to going green. The push from CEOs to join in net zero is a case in point. There is also the accountants who are foisting on standards and disclosure obligations that listed companies have to abide by. You know. Sustainability reports etc.

OweninGA
Reply to  Jock
March 23, 2022 7:51 pm

For large companies, they will egg on the SEC so as to use the complexity of the regulations as a barrier to entry for future competitors. Nothing drives up profits like monopoly powers!

March 22, 2022 4:23 pm

This is a proposed rule that will be published for public comment, so comment.

otsar
March 22, 2022 4:25 pm

Theodore Roosevelt: American Ideals, a book worth reading. Not much has changed in US politics sine then. There is a term called striking; which is when politicians go hat in hand, or stick in hand asking for donations to their campaign from large easy marks. This appears to be another version of the stick in hand. It also makes for a fat cow for attorneys.

Bob
March 22, 2022 4:46 pm

I think the time has come to fire the top ten administrators in every federal government department. They can reapply for their job but they must show that they haven’t over stepped their boundaries and interfered with the business and or people of the US. Regulators are there to see to it that we follow the law and in turn they must follow the law, not make law out of whole cloth when it suits them. All those people need to be taken down a notch or two.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bob
March 22, 2022 6:27 pm

The entire U.S. government bureaucracy needs reforming.

It’s time to get back to free markets and free ideas and truth in science.

observa
March 22, 2022 5:46 pm

It’s a way for climate activists to literally get their claws into every aspect of a business
It’s bigger than that as they desperately try to fix the most glaring and growing problem with their unreliables-
Why virtual power plants are the future of electricity retailing | RenewEconomy
They’re going to want to ‘harvest’ your private investment in battery storage to shore up their failing grid by design.

If you’re into rooftop solar and you invest in a Powerwall or two for your own benefit why would you want it sucked dry to bail out their macro grid idiocy? Same with your expensive EV and V2G. Why would you buy an EV with its expensive battery any larger than you need for your daily use just so your electricity retailer can wear it out? That’s the brain trust’s idea of your virtual power network you paid your hard earned for. Not that it will take very long for individual power consumers to work it out and slash their theory of surplus value.

March 22, 2022 6:01 pm

In the first paragraph maybe spell out Securities Exchange Commission, and also AFN – most people don’t relate/translate automatically acronyms. The climate activists are going after private corporations, Banks, NGOs and whatever they can get their dirty hands on.
Great article except for any acronyms !

Last edited 1 month ago by JON P PETERSON
Bruce Cobb
March 23, 2022 12:54 am

The phrase “climate risk” is Orwellian. They made it up out of whole cloth. There is no such thing.

Danny Davis
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 23, 2022 12:23 pm

made it up out of whole cloth papier-mâché
FIFY… ;>)

Ted
March 23, 2022 3:51 am

Companies should report zero climate emissions and zero impacts until any effects are proven.

Tom
March 23, 2022 6:01 am

It seems to me that a simple statement can be written, such as: “We have assessed the Climate Risk of this endeavor and have determined there is none”. This statement could be backed up by several scientific studies defining “Climate Risk and showing the conclusion that the whole premise of Catastrophic Climate change is not supported by real data.

There is, of course a risk of a lawsuit over this, but the right company, at the right time might defeat the whole premise of this fake science.

RevJay4
March 23, 2022 7:15 am

Way past time to start suing the agencies which are working to destroy this nation. Pretty much all of them. Of course, where does one find lawyers to file such lawsuits? Seems like all of the bottom feeders are on the fed payroll, or, at least, aligned with the commies running this country now. Just sayin’.

Glen
March 23, 2022 9:52 am

“Climate” and “Risk”. Terms so vague they can mean anything.

MGC
March 23, 2022 2:24 pm

The author of this piece, Marc Morano (Moron-oh) has zero credibility. His Climate Depot website is an egregious super spreader of utterly absurd pseudoscientific clap trap and blatant, outright, anti-science LIES about the reality of significant and potentially extremely costly human influence on the earth’s climate.

TonyG
Reply to  MGC
March 23, 2022 5:31 pm

MGC needs to look up “ad-hominem” as this is a near-perfect example of exactly that.

Mark BLR
Reply to  MGC
March 24, 2022 4:09 am

… an egregious super spreader of utterly absurd pseudoscientific clap trap and blatant, outright, anti-science LIES about the reality of significant and potentially extremely costly human influence on the earth’s climate

The term you are looking for is “(psychological) projection”.

%d bloggers like this: