By Paul Tice
Reports of the impending death of the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) movement have been greatly exaggerated.
While several sustainability-minded companies and Wall Street firms have recently adopted a lower ESG profile due to the public backlash, this is largely a tactical retreat until the government provides air cover. Financial regulators are now riding to the rescue, passing rules that make the entire climate-focused ESG system compulsory and prescriptive.
In March 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued final climate disclosure rules that require every large U.S. corporation to report in detail all the climate-related physical and transition risks faced by their businesses, along with the size of their carbon footprints.
The new SEC rules will force the management of all reporting companies to act as meteorologists and disclose every conceivable weather impact to their businesses over exceedingly long investment horizons, thereby reinforcing the climate change narrative. They will also discourage investment in the traditional energy sector by highlighting the outsize regulatory, litigation, contingent liability, and reputational risks now facing the industry due to government climate policies.
However, rather than de-risking the financial markets by improving disclosure for investors as promised by the SEC, the agency’s new rules will have the opposite effect. By imposing a climate test on all issuing and investing companies—basically, every financial market participant in the U.S.—the SEC’s goal is to help force the clean energy transition by stigmatizing carbon-emitting industries in general and specifically redirecting capital flows away from fossil fuel producers.
The SEC’s climate disclosure rules are part of the federal government’s coordinated climate plan and the latest piece in a sweeping regulatory attack on the oil and gas industry since President Biden took office. Defunding oil, gas, and coal companies arguably represents one of the most effective ways to shrink domestic hydrocarbon supply and cut national emissions.
Decarbonization, which the SEC’s rules will now abet and accelerate, is the real threat to the American economy and the U.S. financial markets. If the current administration succeeds in its goal of reducing U.S. net greenhouse gas emissions by 50%–52% by 2030 versus a 2005 baseline—on the way to net-zero emissions by 2050—the macroeconomic impact will be decidedly negative.
For starters, it will competitively hamstring the U.S. economy while doing nothing to solve the purported problem of global climate change since most developing countries—particularly China and India—are not playing by the same climate rules. Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, there is no global energy transition currently underway. Since 1990, when the United Nations first started warning the world about the dangers of man-made global warming, annual global greenhouse gas emissions have increased by more than 50%, mainly due to the continued use of fossil fuels (especially coal) by developing countries.
Increased U.S. reliance on intermittent wind and solar power generation while simultaneously electrifying whole new swaths of the economy—starting with transportation—will strain and destabilize the American electricity grid and increase electricity prices across the board.
Constraining the domestic production of fossil fuels will lead to higher oil and gas prices, which will feed through the entire U.S. economy and raise the cost of almost everything, especially food. A regulatory-forced downsizing of the domestic oil and gas industry will also lead to significant job losses and shrink U.S. GDP, while the failure to maintain American energy independence will heighten national security risk for the country.
Germany’s recent economic woes show what lies in store for the U.S. if the Biden administration continues down its current climate policy path. Since embarking on its Climate Action Plan 2050 in 2016, Germany, the largest economy in Europe, has gone from the growth engine of the E.U. bloc to the “sick man of Europe” as climate-driven energy policy mismanagement has led to a downward spiral of deindustrialization and degrowth over the past decade.
There is no evidence that economic growth can be decoupled from emissions or fossil fuels. Aggressive emissions reduction during the current decade will result in a diminished U.S. economy by 2030, one marked by anemic growth, higher inflation, increased unemployment levels, and a hollowed-out domestic industrial base. It is difficult to see how such a macroeconomic backdrop would be constructive for Wall Street or Main Street.
Decarbonized financial markets will be, by definition, more volatile, riskier, and less diversified, with fewer investment choices for investors. Since energy-consuming industrial, utility, and technology companies represent the lion’s share of most benchmark U.S. stock and bond indexes, this will amplify the market’s exposure to fluctuating energy prices. Average U.S. corporate credit quality—especially for energy and other heavy industry—is also likely to trend lower by the end of the decade, with bankruptcy and debt default rates moving higher. By 2030, the U.S. may resemble an emerging country’s financial market more than a developed one.
The SEC has now stayed the implementation of its climate disclosure rules pending the resolution of the various lawsuits that are challenging the rulemaking on the grounds that it exceeds the agency’s statutory authority. Issuing climate disclosure rules as a backdoor means of changing the U.S. energy mix and restructuring the overall economy would seem to go well beyond the SEC’s role as the top cop for the U.S. financial markets.
Most egregiously, with these climate disclosure rules, the SEC will no longer be an objective market referee, at least when it comes to the ESG factor of climate change. The SEC will now become an active partisan player in the Biden administration’s drive to decarbonize the U.S. economy, in direct contravention of its regulatory mandate to remain impartial and simply ensure full disclosure and fair dealing across well-functioning financial markets. By mandating the integration of climate factors into both corporate policy and investment risk management, the agency will be supplanting the governance role of corporate executives, bank credit officers, and investment portfolio managers.
By attempting to achieve specific market outcomes based on an emissions litmus test, the SEC will also be picking corporate winners and losers and influencing asset pricing and financial market access by tilting the playing field away from traditional energy and other high-carbon-emitting sectors, which is an inversion—if not a perversion—of the SEC’s regulatory function.
Paul Tice is a senior fellow with the National Center for Energy Analytics and author of the new report “The SEC’s Climate Rules Will Wreak Havoc on U.S. Financial Markets.”
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
These rules pay for themselves. https://www.usdebtclock.org/
I am a CPA though I dont work in the area of issuing financial statements for publicly traded companies, however I am reasonably familiar with the financial disclosure requirements under GAAP. I work primarily in federal and state taxation.
There numerous problems with the carbon disclosure requirement
A) assuming that carbon is an actual future risk, there is virtually no method to quantify the risk
B) Assuming that carbon is an actual future risk, there is virtually no method to measure the company’s carbon output
C) The risk is not from actual carbon output, the risk is from future regulation curtailing the business operations. the SEC rule is requiring disclose of what is not an actual risk, but not requiring disclosure of the actual risk.
Well, heck- you’ll probably have to hire a top engineering firm to solve those issues – probably only costing you a few million bucks. Dontcha wanna help save the planet? 🙂
Nah, there will be special parasitic firms set up to make a motza from doing these reports.
They will be financially linked to the people making the rules.
I see- the old revolving door thing!
That’s how the whole AGW/wind/solar thing works.
A LOT of money to be made in this set of scams.
It is a feature of socialism to dismantle all the successes of capitalism through gradualism. The boiling frog syndrome.
“… the SEC will no longer be an objective market referee,” No longer? Are you trying to be funny?
Government hasn’t pretended to be objective since 2008.
‘carbon-emitting industries’ -huh?
Maybe they mean the “Climate Change Industrial Complex”?
They burn through lots of money.
I don’t actually know of any industry that emits “carbon”. !
Factories making coke for iron smelting produce (i.e., emit) pure carbon.
Yes, but they don’t “emit” it !
I don’t know about coke plants, but activated carbon plants don’t want to emit carbon.
They take the source material (coconut husk, wood, coal, etc.) and raise it a high temperature in the absence of oxygen to drive off the impurities but keep the carbon.
(The goal of the process is to reduce the source material to just a very porous, thus increasing the surface area, of the bit of carbon that will adsorb the target impurities when in use.)
Oh, come on. We all know that a coal mine “emits” carbon.
/s
Where in law was the SEC given the authority to make such rules?
Was it before Chevron was overturned?
Perhaps a legal challenge of the SEC’s reporting requirements would be cheaper than the compliance burden and costs?
fwiw – the discussion in the public accounting arena, ie the accounting firms that issue the opinions on the financial statements is that the SEC lacks the authority to make that requirement.
Every professional accountant involved in issuing opinions on financial statements agrees that full disclosure of financial risks are required to be disclosed. However, the actual financial risk from climate warming is extremely dubious and therefore there is not actual requirement for disclosure. However, the SEC is extremely powerful and therefore there is reluctance for the accounting firms to buck the rule. ie that is an awful nice accounting firm you have.
Why don’t accounting associations scream bloody murder and fight back. If you all do it as a group – they can’t crack down on just a few of you. Though they may try – since they have lots of liars— er, uh… lawyers.
Why dont the accounting profession fight back ?
first there is really only one big accounting association that matters in this case, the AICPA.
Its really a two opposing / opposite goals
A) fighting the SEC can have negative consequences – ie that is a nice accounting firm you have (did have)
B) The additional disclosure rule requires additional work which means more fees. For that reason, there is significant less incentive to fight for what is right.
Will Trump throw it out on his first day in the White House- you know, that one day he’ll be a dictator! 🙂
When he was speaking to the Christians he said they won’t have to vote anymore if he is elected.
You gotta stuff worrying and fussing over anything any politician says during their campaigning. Adults understand that- children don’t. Most politicians say they’re gonna solve every problem while cutting taxes. I hope you don’t believe that too. 🙂
The SEC’s rules are an extension of the Federal Reserve 2022 climate risk assessment for banks which has been summarized by Bank Policy Institute.
The European Commission is more powerful than the European Parliament. The same is happening in the US where rules and regulations are replacing laws and Congress.
If these SEC regulations come into force, I expect numerous companies to use the Artificial Intelligence (sic) systems to write the reports. There will be hundreds of thousands of pages {digital} of similar gobbledygook submitted that will be ingested by SEC AIs – all of which will require extra useless hires up and down the chain.
None of this is worthwhile. It is just another drain on the national wealth.
“Artificial intelligence” requires huge inputs of energy (mostly from fossil fuels), so that this would result in increased CO2 emissions to power the AI to generate useless reports about how banking affects the weather.
The average human brain only consumes about 40 watts of power from food. This is equivalent to about 3.5 MJ per day, or about the amount of energy released by burning 80 grams of gasoline. Mankind could greatly reduce future CO2 emissions by abandoning “artificial intelligence” and relying on human ingenuity and common sense, which is much more efficient.
In the hospital that I use they have dumb robots answering the phones so I can’t get in touch with humans when i have a big problem.
If they can find any.
A plan to crash the grid?
Oh, please. None of this going to go anywhere. Don’t clutch your pearls over this, dearie.
You’re probably right- but it’s just the idea that they’re THINKING about it.
“story tip” I guess Net 0 psychopaths have got to psycho. Now they are going after domestic steel production as they have in the UK. More magic thinking about making steel.
It’s already possible to produce steel in a more climate-friendly way, but neither U.S. Steel nor Nippon Steel seems ready to adapt.https://grist.org/cities/us-steel-nippon-merger-climate/
Hey, my state of Wokeachusetts wants me to practice “climate smart forestry”. Good thing I’m retired or I’d go totally bonkers. Other foresters here have gone prostrate, too terrified of the all powerful state forestry burro-ocracies who can destroy your career in a second.
From the above article:
“In March 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued final climate disclosure rules that require every large U.S. corporation to report in detail all the climate-related physical and transition risks faced by their businesses, along with the size of their carbon footprints.”
Of course, reporting “in detail” will require “every large U.S. corporation” to report on the portion of their “carbon footprint” that is due to their employees, while on the job, breathing out more CO2 than they breathe in. Over the course of a year, that is a significant number of tons of CO2 emissions.
However, if they replaced human employees with robots and AI, that would substantially reduce their carbon footprints . . . WAIT! . . . hmmmmm . . .
Assessing employee flatulence has to be a bitch.
From the above article:
“In March 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued final climate disclosure rules that require every large U.S. corporation to report in detail all the climate-related physical and transition risks faced by their businesses, along with the size of their carbon footprints.”
(my bold emphasis added)
Let’s see, according to both NOAA and NASA, “climate” is defined as weather over a specified geographical area averaged over a period of 30 years or longer.
Obviously, therefore, the SEC is woefully ignorant of science by requiring “large U.S. corporations” to predict what the CLIMATE will be, for the area(s) where they have operations, for the next 30 years!
And how will the SEC respond to any large corporation that files this kind of statement:
“We do not predict that our corporation will exist, under its current legal name, for 30 years into the future and thus we cannot report any climate-related physical or transitional risks we are facing.”
The ignorance and authoritarian-stupidity of the SEC . . . it burns!
Clowns like Mickey Mann will set up consulting firms and charge you $1,000/hr. to prepare your climate prophecy.
Doesn’t he already do that?
almost as good as being a plumber- here in Wokeachusetts, they’re incredibly expensive- but the Dems don’t mention that when they talk about a housing shortage- no, no mention of powerful labor unions driving up costs
That is is fascism is bad enough. But it’s the notion that we now have an economy being directed by people who couldn’t manage a lemonade stand that scares me the most.
The stock market is hitting all time highs as companies are doing great in this economy.
Dow hits all-time high in broader market rallyhttps://www.reuters.com/markets/us/dow-hits-all-time-high-broader-market-rally-2024-07-12/
Of course it has. Most of the dollars printed by the neo-Keynesian Fed and projectile-vomited by the Biden Administration has ended up on Wall Street instead of Main Street. Bidenomics has been awesome for the very affluent. Not so much for everyone else.
OK, let’s say that under the new SEC rule discussed in the above article, the SEC receives, oh, several million pages-equivalent of electronic filings of detailed, predicted climate risks from, say, the 20,000 largest corporations in the US.
What will they then do with that data . . . other than file it???
And this is to happen each and every year! ROTFL!
Also, assuming the rule is fairly applied, reports of future climate-related risk reports will necessarily be coming in from corporations having wind, solar and/or hydropower as part of their production of energy OR as sources of energy they use. ROTFL^2!
They will have to hire 8M more IRS employees just to read and file the reports. Unemployment solved! /s
(SEC) issued final climate disclosure rules that require every large U.S. corporation to report in detail all the climate-related
How serious are the moves** to put an end to Admin making law?
The SC has handed them their arses of late and it looks as though there are “House” proposals to act on those SC opinions. Do they have support?
** Search “USSC cheveron” and “Mike Lee”.
Wondering here what would happen if wind turbine and PV panel operators, manufacturers, and installers had to actually report real carbon emissions used in their processes. How nice it would be if charging station operators had to report carbon emissions used in electrical generation for EVs.
I wonder if reporting about known, and widely accepted, exaggerations and sensationalism can be viewed by the CPAs that have to do the reporting and auditing of ESG data can be considered crossing an ethical boundary, which would put their licensure’s in jeopardy?
I am a CPA, though I dont work in the area of publicly traded companies and financial reporting.
See my comment above.
Both the SEC and the AICPA are very powerful and have the power to destroy careers.
Big Oil is doing way better under Biden than under Trump
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-oil-is-doing-way-better-under-biden-than-under-trump-142434637.html
I doubt that the weather over the next 30 years will follow the “climate change” narrative. The Earth is still in a 2+ million year ice that won’t end until all natural ice melts.
We are heading into a grand solar minimum in the next few years.