Security and Exchange Commission pressed on Climate Risk Disclosure

Tue, 2007-09-18 12:42Emily Murgatroyd
Emily Murgatroyd's picture

Security and Exchange Commission pressed on Climate Risk Disclosure

A high-power petition has been sent to the US Security and Exchange Commission today urging the regulatory body to ask publicly traded companies to disclose foreseeable financial risks due to the impacts of climate change.

Environmental Defense, one of the organizers of the petition states that:

“Climate change can have a significant impact on a company's bottom line - just ask any insurance company. But as the Washington Post points out, it's not only insurance companies that are affected. Climate change can cause physical damage to facilities, increase costs of regulatory compliance, and (on the plus side) create new markets for climate-friendly products - to give just a few examples. “

Comments

Funny how environmental risks are now worthy of being assigned a value when the Big Money folk start to feel themselves vulnerable. Why haven’t we been quantifying the cost of environmental repercussions in product pricing for the last fifty years? Obviously it is because externalizing the repercussions of pollution was in the best interest of the Big Money folk as it helped keep costs down and profit margins up for the companies they invested in or insured, spreading (and postponing) any expenses of environmental remediation over a population much larger than a single company or investment group.
Whoever says it ain’t about the money, is in it for the money.

zephyr said:

“Why haven’t we been quantifying the cost of environmental repercussions in product pricing for the last fifty years?”

Because “we”, the consumer, would not pay for it. Slowly, and where it is affordable and produces meaningful improvements in the environment, we have begun assuming those costs.

Don’t blame “Big Money”, or at least apply equal blame to us.

If publicly traded companies are forced to disclose “foreseeable financial risks due to the impacts of climate change”, then they should also have to disclose other hypothetical risks.

Like attack from giant robots.

Then again, if you demand such “risk-free” investment, maybe you should get a piggy-bank. Don’t forget to disclose whether you have access to a hammer.

Rob, you can’t be serious! Is someone paying you to actually say this stuff on our site? 

Well, Kevin, we can’t all be as lucky as you to land a sweet gig where someone pays us to Photoshop pictures of politicians, and otherwise produce laughable propaganda.

If you know where I can sign-up for that gravy train, please share. My skills include being able to use Google and expertise in MS-Paint. I can forward my complete CV on request.

Please send it to desmogblog[at]gmail.com - I look forward to receiving it. 

Very quick, Kevin. But don’t hold your breath …

Here’s a skit from SNL several years ago on robots. Very funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVnkd7ot_pw

[x]
A U.S. District Court judge ruled on June 27 that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service both wrongly approved expansion of the West Elk coal mine in Somerset, Colo., because they failed to take into account the economic impacts greenhouse gas emissions from the mining would have.
 
The federal agencies said it was impossible to quantify such impacts, but the court pointed out a tool is...
read more