SEC to demand global-warming risk disclosure from public corporations

posted at 2:10 pm on January 28, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

This Democrat-dominated government certainly has its eyes firmly set on a goal to heavily increase regulation, especially on Wall Street after the financial collapse of 2008.  But how many companies face threats of failure due to anthropogenic global warming?  We’ll soon find out, now that  the SEC has demanded that publicly-traded corporations reveal those risks to stockholders:

A politically divided Securities and Exchange Commission voted on Wednesday to make clear when companies must provide information to investors about the business risks associated with climate change.

The commission, in a 3 to 2 vote, decided to require that companies disclose in their public filings the impact of climate change on their businesses — from new regulations or legislation they may face domestically or abroad to potential changes in economic trends or physical risks to a company.

Chairman Mary L. Schapiro and the two Democrats on the commission supported the new requirements, while the two Republicans vehemently opposed them.

“I can only conclude that the purpose of this release is to place the imprimatur of the commission on the agenda of the social and environmental policy lobby, an agenda that falls outside of our expertise and beyond our fundamental mission of investor protection,” Republican commissioner Kathleen L. Casey said.

Clearly, Casey correctly diagnoses the Democrats’ intentions on this point.  They want to highlight the potential damage that some corporations do through carbon emissions, while highlighting the benefits from others who play along on AGW.  Putting this in the jurisdiction of the SEC is a two-fer for the Obama administration — they can claim regulatory gains on both AGW and Wall Street.

But this may hold the potential for enormous backfire.  With the cap-and-trade legislation still on the docket, all of these corporations will have to forecast for higher energy prices, more restrictive manufacturing and service standards, and the costs of retrofitting.  The Obama administration and Democrats in Congress have consistently and drastically underestimated the impact of their bills on the private sector.  Now, by forcing companies to analyze the impact of their environmental agendas on their bottom lines, the American public can get a much clearer and much less optimistic take on cap-and-trade and carbon-tax regulations.  Because those reports will be part of the public record, analysts can compile a daunting picture of the burdens the Democratic agenda will create on private business and economic growth.

This effort still should have been killed as a ridiculous overreach on regulation.  Now that the SEC has forced the matter, their Democratic allies will shortly have reason to regret it.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

just more reason to move business overseas.

jbh45 on January 28, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Democrats…The enemies of business and sanity.

daesleeper on January 28, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Will publicly traded companies have to certify that no puppehs or kittehs were harmed by their profiteering?

Scope creep?

fluffy on January 28, 2010 at 2:14 PM

But this may hold the potential for enormous backfire. With the cap-and-trade legislation still on the docket, all of these corporations will have to forecast for higher energy prices, more restrictive manufacturing and service standards, and the costs of retrofitting. The Obama administration and Democrats in Congress have consistently and drastically underestimated the impact of their bills on the private sector. Now, by forcing companies to analyze the impact of their environmental agendas on their bottom lines, the American public can get a much clearer and much less optimistic take on cap-and-trade and carbon-tax regulations. Because those reports will be part of the public record, analysts can compile a daunting picture of the burdens the Democratic agenda will create on private business and economic growth.

Including the costs of dealing with EU climate legislation/regulation, or that of other countries.

Those costs cannot go down with the passage of some kind of Cap and Trade bill here. Companies should instead clearly provide figures of how much loss occurs due to climate change regulation. After all, those are costs associated with “climate change.”

Revenant on January 28, 2010 at 2:15 PM

I feel like America had a giant f*cking circus tent built around it last January. This is ridiculous.

BadgerHawk on January 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM

impact of climate change on their businesses

Does this include the risk to investors if AGW is proven a fraud ?

J_Crater on January 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM

I think you’re reading this wrong.

From the excert you posted, it looks like they are being required to disclose the impact of “climate change” itself on their business, not the impact “climate change” legislation.

Either way, commisioner Casey is correct.

CDeb on January 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM

One way or another Obama is going to try and regulate US business out of existence using the AGW boogeyman. The rug has been pulled out from under any sort of binding treaty being signed with everything that has been exposed about the fraud, so he is going to try this route.

Johnnyreb on January 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Easy, very easy.

Disclosure: “Nothing we do, especially the business in which we engage, will ever have any effect on climate change. To believe that we can change the climate on this earth is at once idiotic and arrogant. Find something else to worry about.”

AubieJon on January 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Isn’t it funny? That Global Warming doesn’t really threaten ANY company but …

The laws Democrats pass to combat it .. DO?

Well – funny in a funeral parlor sort of way I guess.

HondaV65 on January 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM

This country is being run by fools, charlatans and flaming idiots.

rplat on January 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM

How many toes will the left shoot off before they realize that they can no longer stand?

madmonkphotog on January 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM

I smell another SCOTUS challenge coming up.

amerpundit on January 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM

great idea. In the footnotes to financial statements,

The EPA may sue us and shut us down, therefore we are unwilling to suggest this company will survive unless we move to China.

seven on January 28, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Regulating businesses out of existence, but can’t catch Bernie Madoff.

Terrific!

Knucklehead on January 28, 2010 at 2:19 PM

This is the kind of crap that’s really going to bite them, both in the perception of how it comes across and forcing companies to put out information that may end up blowing up in the administration’s face.

The White House doesn’t have the votes to get Cap-And-Trade through, so they’re playing political games with the SEC to get around it. This is exactly the kind of crap that people are pissed off about.

And, as mentioned above, if companies are forced to make a statement about the changes in costs due to cap-and-trade, they’ll be legally obligated to say “In the current environment, we make a profit of $10 billion. If the government puts all these regulations into effect, we’ll be in the hole by $5 billion.”

teke184 on January 28, 2010 at 2:19 PM

This is VERY interesting.

Now, there are quite a few “college grads” with environmental degrees. This thing is going to be a influx of jobs into engineering corps, with these new grads… who have really no experience understanding what the engineering corps do (like survey comps, geological, construction, etc.) and I will stand now… that there is going to be infighting. So much so that the “Enviro Writers” are going to be calling and tattletelling on their own bosses.

Watch… it is already happening now. It will get much much worse!

upinak on January 28, 2010 at 2:20 PM

I feel like America had a giant f*cking circus tent built around it last January. This is ridiculous.

BadgerHawk on January 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Welcome to the show!

Chaz706 on January 28, 2010 at 2:20 PM

CDeb on January 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM

That’s how I initially read it too, but the block quote specifically mentions new regulations or legislation.

BadgerHawk on January 28, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Meanwhile Al Gore makes millions, on the now obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, what is a fraud made of whole cloth.

So it doesn’t matter to our :Hugo Chavez” that it’s all a lie? Sounds like a good portion of our Congress, those who laughed in the face of our joker who promised to put science in it’s rightful place, at last night’s admittedly funny speech. Did you get the feeling the reverb unit was asleep?

Extra points question, will the IPCC still be around when ZERO gets his Cap and Tax bill?

tarpon on January 28, 2010 at 2:21 PM

seven on January 28, 2010 at 2:19 PM

worse. It is like having to HIRE the EPA to write reports for your corp/comp and then submitting the data to the EPA.

upinak on January 28, 2010 at 2:21 PM

The commission’s new rules limit the types of assets that the funds can purchase and also require that they maintain larger rainy-day reserves.

Wow, they are pretty much trying to regulate these guys out of existance.

Johnnyreb on January 28, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Easy, very easy.

Disclosure: “Nothing we do, especially the business in which we engage, will ever have any effect on climate change. To believe that we can change the climate on this earth is at once idiotic and arrogant. Find something else to worry about.”

AubieJon on January 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Addendum: “Whatever climate change may happen, as slowly as it occurs, if we don’t have the brains to adjust and take advantage of it, you should put your money somewhere else. Thanks.”

AubieJon on January 28, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Following this ruling and after watching Barry give the lamest SOTU speech ever last night while the donkey-crats clapped in approval, we need an updated prediction ………

GOP House seats gained: 55
GOP Senate seats gained: 12

They simply are not getting it, but the will, oh how they will.

fogw on January 28, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Is it requiring them to report on the cost of legislation inspired be global warming fears, or requiring them to forecast what costs they would incur if the hyperventilating predictions of doom from the climate change groups were to come true?

Count to 10 on January 28, 2010 at 2:23 PM

This is wonderful. I love being a communist.

Your friend,

crr6

darwin on January 28, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Public companies have for a long time been required to discuss those things in periodic reports and a few other filings that they reasonably expect will have a materially adverse impact on them. That includes significant adverse business and operating trends and regulation, including costs of compliance and risks. This is no different. It’s only an interpretative guidance, rather than any new law or rule. Only a very few companies will need to do say anything.

Jimbo3 on January 28, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Market heading back down as we speak.

singlemalt_18 on January 28, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Nothing is safe anymore.

tommer74 on January 28, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Whew…we need to focus on priority 20.

WashJeff on January 28, 2010 at 2:27 PM

block quote specifically mentions new regulations or legislation. BadgerHawk on January 28, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Aren’t these the things needed to take it to the Legal/Court challenge level? Bring it!

indypat on January 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Market heading back down as we speak.

singlemalt_18 on January 28, 2010 at 2:26 PM

What are the chances it goes below the 10000 point floor before closing at 4PM? They look pretty high from where I’m sitting.

teke184 on January 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Jobs Bill. Pivot to the economy, and jobs. That really doesn’t specify helping people find jobs, or improving the economy, does it. Just words, just speeches. He never implies that he WANTS people finding jobs, or improving the economy. Just that he’s focusing on it. More jobs will be lost, and I’m pretty damn sure this is just more a part of his plans to take us below Haiti’s standards of living.

capejasmine on January 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Clearly, Casey correctly diagnoses the Democrats’ intentions on this point. They want to highlight the potential damage that some corporations do through carbon emissions, while highlighting the benefits from others who play along on AGW.

Eh, no that’s not what they want to do… they want these corporations to be put in the habit of auditing and reporting these things… cap and trade may come later but you might as well get businesses groomed for it first… Condi Rice now works for (big republican donor backed) IPO which deals in doing these sorts of audits IIRC…

ninjapirate on January 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM

This is insane. “Climate change”? In what direction, hotter or colder, wetter or drier? Last year the guy in Colorado (who’s an AGW heretic) predicted lots of hurricanes for this past season. Instead we had one of the quietest years ever. We cannot really predict the weather more than a week out, predicting climate change is even more alchemy, and predicting how that will affect a business is rank speculation. This will only create more bureaucratic work for business, rather than productive work.

rbj on January 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM

I feel like America had a giant f*cking circus tent built around it last January. This is ridiculous.

BadgerHawk on January 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Explains the big pile of sh*t in my backyard.

WashJeff on January 28, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Easy, very easy.

Disclosure: “Nothing we do, especially the business in which we engage, will ever have any effect on climate change. To believe that we can change the climate on this earth is at once idiotic and arrogant. Find something else to worry about.”

AubieJon on January 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM
Addendum: “Whatever climate change may happen, as slowly as it occurs, if we don’t have the brains to adjust and take advantage of it, you should put your money somewhere else. Thanks.”

AubieJon on January 28, 2010 at 2:21 PM

–Well, not exactly. You’ll need to make a disclosure, for instance, if you are reasonably certain that people will stop demanding the products that you sell, or that you’ll need to incur significant costs to change your products, because consumers have or will change their purchasing habits because they believe in climate change.

Jimbo3 on January 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM

AGW ate my 401K!!

Daggett on January 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Market heading back down as we speak.

singlemalt_18 on January 28, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Yeah, I think it’s fairly safe to say that investors had their hopes dashed by this SOTU.

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=INDEXDJX:DJI

Count to 10 on January 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Everytime you turn around, it’s something else. It’s as if there was a shadow government waiting for the “One” to send the “signal”.

vinman on January 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Climategate? What climategate?
Are the Democrats blind? Don’t they see the writing on the wall?

TomB on January 28, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Let’s kill more jobs! Way to go, you dumba$$ Obama!

search4truth on January 28, 2010 at 2:32 PM

I recommend that companies list their stock on foreign exchanges to be free from these rules.

WashJeff on January 28, 2010 at 2:33 PM

…companies must provide information to investors about the business risks associated with climate change legislation and agreements.

forest on January 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM

This will be sure to promote job growth.

Unbelievable.

When are American business and independents going to wake up and being denouncing this POS?

BuckeyeSam on January 28, 2010 at 2:35 PM

I can understand there are ideological individuals who wish to support the progressive agenda. What I don’t understand is why a company of any size would support the democrats. Perhaps this will “help” them re-think the support they’ve provided and redirect support to individuals who will help them succeed in the global economy.
 
Aside from Hollywood and foreigners, the democrats will have an increasingly difficult time collecting contributions from American individuals and companies. The 2010 elections are going to be far worse for these clowns than anyone has yet predicted.

ClanDerson on January 28, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Hey – can’t a lot of produce companies say something like this?

“Global Warming extends the growing season and CO2 is good for our vegetables and fruits. So there is a risk that AGW stands to increase our production 30% over the next 25 years…”

But wait — doesn’t all this violate separation of church and state or something?

Daggett on January 28, 2010 at 2:35 PM

–Well, not exactly. You’ll need to make a disclosure, for instance, if you are reasonably certain that people will stop demanding the products that you sell, or that you’ll need to incur significant costs to change your products, because consumers have or will change their purchasing habits because they believe in climate change.

Jimbo3 on January 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM

The question corporations should ask then is “do we really need to worry about non-existent GW, or should we be more worried about our customers being a bunch of gumps who believe in it? They might pose the most danger.”

AubieJon on January 28, 2010 at 2:36 PM

You know your country is in trouble when the Securities and Exchange Commission joins a religious cult.

Maybe these companies should also disclose their level of risk should Xanu, (or whatever the Scientologists call their evil space alien), finally locate Earth.

FloatingRock on January 28, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Actualy, its a very simple statement…

Because CO2 does NOT cause Global Warming, but helps plants grown, we will have NO impact on Global Warming…

Signed,
Real Scientists

Romeo13 on January 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM

anthropogenic global warming?

So that’s what AGW stands for! and all this time I thought it was Al Gore Warming!

Ann on January 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Daggett on January 28, 2010 at 2:35 PM

LOL, ya beat me to it…

Romeo13 on January 28, 2010 at 2:38 PM

AGW is not a serious issue. I know this cause the Democrats have tabled the bill. POltics shoudl not matter with something as serious as AGW.

WashJeff on January 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM

This is outrageous. At the very time when this “global warming” is being exposed as a scam (note: 111 page PDF at link), the Obama administration places additional obstacles before companies wanting to do business by now requiring them to commission studies of climate impact of their business?

What, is some cousin of Obama’s in the climate impact study business?

This is completely insane.

crosspatch on January 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Might be a good time to get in the private equity biz.

Between this crap and Sarbannes-Oxley, the rationale for public co’s to go private has never been greater.

Cuffy Meigs on January 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Let’s hurt those companies that are on the bubble of making a decision to go public some more! Let’s deny them another route for getting money to expand their businesses.

Let’s hurt investors by devaluing their current investments with bogus AGW analysis of the companies they have invested in.

Let’s open another route for big companies to get waivers from reporting their AGW results and shut out smaller competitors. Let the bribe making/taking begin.

Grinding teeth.

journeyintothewhirlwind on January 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Think of the jobs this will create…This is a jobs bill.

Accountants
Environmental research
Lawyers
Public Relations
Executive positions to manage changing regulations, changing markets, changing manufacturing.
Technicians
Engineers

Skandia Recluse on January 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Now, by forcing companies to analyze the impact of their environmental agendas on their bottom lines, the American public can get a much clearer and much less optimistic take on cap-and-trade and carbon-tax regulations.

I wonder how much the analyzing will cost?
Any govt grants for it?
And I hate to pessimistic over such a thing, but really, I doubt that the results will be truly transparent.

Badger40 on January 28, 2010 at 2:40 PM

…companies must provide information to investors about the business risks associated with climate change legislation and agreements.

forest on January 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM

To me that means every single company that uses energy will have to make a report. If the EPA goes ahead and does the regulation thing on CO2, every single company in the US will have to make an immediate disclosure on how that will affect them.

Johnnyreb on January 28, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Skandia Recluse on January 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Ah you beat me to it!

Badger40 on January 28, 2010 at 2:40 PM

One page filing, on letterhead:

Given IPCC findings, there is a 154% chance that global climate change will compel the corporation to dissolve within twenty years.

Have the CEO sign and file that as needed.

Chris_Balsz on January 28, 2010 at 2:41 PM

“Might be a good time to get in the private equity biz.”

Actually, no. What is happening is that companies are choosing to list on the London exchange instead of US exchanges where they don’t have to put up with all this idiotic nonsense and can use simple GAAP which was used here for a bazillion years before the SOx crap was dreamed up.

crosspatch on January 28, 2010 at 2:41 PM

I am, BTW, looking for this insanity to hit me here at home on the ranch.
How long will it be before they require us little cow-calf producers to write up an environmental report on our individual operations.
I am waiting for it.

Badger40 on January 28, 2010 at 2:42 PM

I feel like America had a giant f*cking circus tent built around it last January. This is ridiculous.

BadgerHawk on January 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM

I agree. But this kind of reminds me of those sit-ins in the late 1960s when those idiotic college students would take over the president’s office for a couple of days. The problems is that it’s going to last four years, and we can’t count on their getting hungry, deciding they need a shower, or getting bored. Too bad we can’t just call in the cops to restore order and allow the adults to resume running the show.

Hey, independents! See: elections have consequences.

The only consolation is that these idiots are overreaching so far, most Americans will not soon forget the disastrous Obama administration.

BuckeyeSam on January 28, 2010 at 2:43 PM

OH BOY, is this going to backfire on the donks.

I can’t wait to see the damage to the bottom line from cap & tax and hell-care. This gives every comapny a mandated reason to take a flame thrower to the leftist agenda.

Well played smarterest president evah, well played.

jukin on January 28, 2010 at 2:43 PM


Well, not exactly. You’ll need to make a disclosure, for instance, if you are reasonably certain that people will stop demanding the products that you sell, or that you’ll need to incur significant costs to change your products, because consumers have or will change their purchasing habits because they believe in climate change.

Jimbo3 on January 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM
The question corporations should ask then is “do we really need to worry about non-existent GW, or should we be more worried about our customers being a bunch of gumps who believe in it? They might pose the most danger.”

AubieJon on January 28, 2010 at 2:36 PM

–Yep. My guess is that 99% of companies have more risk related to public perception, including potential laws and other restrictions, than actual climate change. But that can be a real risk: there’s been a large “green” movement for years in much of Europe and that seems to be now affecting the US.

Jimbo3 on January 28, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Hey, SEC, I have this disclosure to make: All US citizens have enormous financial risks if global-warming-related cap & trade legislation passes.

theCork on January 28, 2010 at 2:44 PM

I am, BTW, looking for this insanity to hit me here at home on the ranch.
How long will it be before they require us little cow-calf producers to write up an environmental report on our individual operations.
I am waiting for it.

Badger40 on January 28, 2010 at 2:42 PM

–It depends. Do the cow farts kill bald eagles?

Jimbo3 on January 28, 2010 at 2:45 PM

At the number six rated engineering school in the USA, there are more environmental engineers than mechanical, electrical, and chemical ones.

Anyone think that environmental engineers make value?

jukin on January 28, 2010 at 2:46 PM

So when a company discloses a “net benefit” in their filings, are they responsible for the failure of “net benefit?” and how?

Fines? Penalty’s, Fees? And who collects, where and from what… and does that money go directly towards the so-called “climate impact” regions, areas – without taking a % off the top.

They are asking for company’s to place a political wish list of something that doesnt exist.

Currently – Global Reporting Initiatives are conducted voluntarily by company’s who choose to see fit.

Mandatory reporting will cause a) higher costs in reporting, b) “shaky” – at best, cost of research to conclude such “impact” c) another gov entity to conclude these findings – which will reek of political ideologues…

Now we know why the baffoon made the global warming comment during his SOTU address.

Odie1941 on January 28, 2010 at 2:47 PM

–It depends. Do the cow farts kill bald eagles?

Jimbo3 on January 28, 2010 at 2:45 PM

when have you ever seen a bald eagle next to a cow? How about Fish Farts… killing eagles?

/

upinak on January 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Might be a good time to get in the private equity biz.

Between this crap and Sarbannes-Oxley, the rationale for public co’s to go private has never been greater.

Cuffy Meigs on January 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM

–Private equity seems to be planning to IPO/sell many of their investments in the next three years. PE has lost a ton of money in the last few years and needs to rebuild its funds pool before it can buy anything. I read that there were no major private equity funds raised in the last three or six months.

Jimbo3 on January 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM

More regulation! More cowbell!

scalleywag on January 28, 2010 at 2:49 PM

What about the potential threat that BHO presents? You cannot be serious.

d1carter on January 28, 2010 at 2:49 PM

It depends. Do the cow farts kill bald eagles?

Jimbo3 on January 28, 2010 at 2:45 PM
when have you ever seen a bald eagle next to a cow? How about Fish Farts… killing eagles?

upinak on January 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM

–Or Bear S**t. But I always thought that if a bear s**t in the woods and no one saw it, it was no harm, no foul.

Jimbo3 on January 28, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Is Obama trying to force all of us to take our money out of the market? We would have to pay taxes on the gains (pppffftt!), but seriously.

His policies are dangerous for the private sector. I might as well remove all my investments and head to, oh, i don’t know, Tahiti? Figi?

PappaMac on January 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM

I feel like America had a giant f*cking circus tent built around it last January. This is ridiculous.

BadgerHawk on January 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM

+1000

gaius on January 28, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Doesn’t this just open a door for more lobbying?

scalleywag on January 28, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Do the cow farts kill bald eagles?

Jimbo3 on January 28, 2010 at 2:45 PM

A heck of lot less than wind mills do.

WashJeff on January 28, 2010 at 2:54 PM

I see two immediate consequences.

Those companies who dismiss this disclosure or characterize the risk as immaterial will be hounded by environmentalists who will file strike-suit shareholder derivative suits.

Those companies who acknowledge some risk of some kind will have made an admission that will be used against them in some way, whether by environmentalists in civil suits or the EPA in federal litigation resulting in enormous fines.

Extortion.

BuckeyeSam on January 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM

More campaign ad fodder.

And it makes the November elections even more critical [if that were possible].

|||||||

A real Congress would haul these fools before the appropriate committee and set their hair on fire.

Rush [and Beck] get it: the Left is by-passing the Constitution and making the Legislature moot.

CPT. Charles on January 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Great. Focus on Jobs, yep, I can see it already, this will really help give confidence to business and investors. NOT

Morons.

JusDreamin on January 28, 2010 at 2:57 PM

If a business has significant climate risk, like a company that requires a product sourced from a rainforest, it should already be disclosed as a business risk. Not only is this stupid, it’s unnecessary.

alflauren on January 28, 2010 at 2:58 PM

I am, BTW, looking for this insanity to hit me here at home on the ranch.
How long will it be before they require us little cow-calf producers to write up an environmental report on our individual operations.
I am waiting for it.

Badger40 on January 28, 2010 at 2:42 PM
–It depends. Do the cow farts kill bald eagles?

Jimbo3 on January 28, 2010 at 2:45 PM

No, it depends on a bunch of dumb a$$ liberals with an agenda, and dollar signs in their eyes, making up the rules as they go, without any clear idea, or indication how radically it’s going to affect jobs, and average people. Nor do they care. It’s about extending a socialist agenda. People going without, or losing everything is no need for concern to them. They can talk about all the letters they get daily, from peoplle hurting….but they don’t enact anything positive to promote growth for anything but their pockets.

capejasmine on January 28, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Dear SEC. Here is my Climate Change filing:

Since Global Warming is a hoax and doesn’t in fact exist, it will have no impact whatsoever on my business and investors need not worry about it. However, your insistence on new regulations or legislation in order to perpertrate this hoax may well cause me to move my business offshore, eliminating hundreds of jobs for Americans. But my investors need not worry about this either, since my labor costs will decline resulting in bigger profits for me and larger dividends for them.

Trafalgar on January 28, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Not even 24 hours after the speech, they did what? Raised the debt limit?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32164.html

scalleywag on January 28, 2010 at 3:03 PM

–Well, not exactly. You’ll need to make a disclosure, for instance, if you are reasonably certain that people will stop demanding the products that you sell, or that you’ll need to incur significant costs to change your products, because consumers have or will change their purchasing habits because they believe in climate change.

that is idiotic. why not just say – hey companies, analyze everything that might take place in the next million years, guess what people might do in reaction to it, and give us a report. Your take on it is for companies to make shit up. Hey, let’s see, there are 30 million idiots in the US who believe wholeheartedly in AGW – despite all of the evidence showing it is a fraud. They may or may not buy our products. Now let’s issue a report saying they aren’t going to buy our products.

Your answer is this is nothing more than asking companies to do market trend research. If that was at all honest and true, this would be an unnecessary regulation (which it is) b/c companies do market trend research already. And, market trend research is hardly an accurate science that predicts with near 100% accuracy.

This is nothing more than using an agency that has no business doing so giving the imprint of credibility to a fraudulent political movement. It is sad and pathetic.

Monkeytoe on January 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Doesn’t the EPA already waste time/effort/money requiring similar information from all businesses?

MassVictim on January 28, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Just put a big ZERO as the risk. All businesses have zero risk of Global Warming effecting them, but have a huge risk of Congress passes silly laws.

WoosterOh on January 28, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Joseph Goebbels once said something loosely to the effect that, for a lie to be beleived it must gargantuan and repeated often and loudly. Considering that Goebbels confessed that he attained most of his ideas about propaganda from early 20th century American Progressives, that we are seeing the same from today’s Progressives should not be surprising.

However, if the trends continue as they have recently re; AGW, a lot of Corp’s, Pol’s and media outlets are going to have much egg on their face. And much ‘splaining to do to the public at large as to their actual motives in promulgating the AGW farce.

The Prgressives are all-in and intend to cement their policies which will garauntee them power indefinitely. I’ve stated it often in these threads, the proof that the Progressives mean to assert authoritarian control, is their continued blind obediance and committment in the face of facts and reason.

The similarity in this between them and fanatical tyrannies of yore is not a coincidence. Evertime you witness obstinacy to reason like this, you should be very, very afraid.

Archimedes on January 28, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Not a penny more to any new bill.

Congress should devote its entire time this year telling the public exactly what happened to the Stimulus I stash. Every penny of it.

IF WH Recovery site can be specific about the 621,xxx number of jobs created/saved, we can demand they completely come clean with the spending.

Sir Napsalot on January 28, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Dear SEC,

As one of the world’s leading polar bear farming and polar bear by-products companies, Global Warming is having an unforseen impact on our operations and profitability which investors should certainly be made aware of. The polar bear population is thriving under Global Warming and has in fact increased dramatically over the last 50 years, with approx. 62% of populations stable or increasing today. Given your dire warnings of continued Global Warming, the future looks very bright for us here at Polar-Bears-R-Us, Inc., and we encourage investors to get in now while stock prices remain reasonable.

Trafalgar on January 28, 2010 at 3:21 PM

This is not a good day to be the CEO of a porta potty company.

Rod on January 28, 2010 at 3:22 PM

just more reason to move business overseas.

Or to take them private. Of course that will negatively affect the market in the long run, which is all part of the plan, I guess.

Morons.

But hey, high-speed rails will save the economy.

reaganaut on January 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM

The insanity of AGW ratchets up another notch.

docdave on January 28, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Your answer is this is nothing more than asking companies to do market trend research. If that was at all honest and true, this would be an unnecessary regulation (which it is) b/c companies do market trend research already. And, market trend research is hardly an accurate science that predicts with near 100% accuracy.

This is nothing more than using an agency that has no business doing so giving the imprint of credibility to a fraudulent political movement. It is sad and pathetic.

Monkeytoe on January 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM

–The one release is not a regulation. It’s an interpretation of existing rules and regulations.

Take a look at this link for a sample of “Risk Factors” in SEC filings: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1409014/000114420410004034/v171224_s1a.htm

Jimbo3 on January 28, 2010 at 3:28 PM

All while increasing exports in the next 5 years…

I am at a loss for the ignorance and stupidity of this administration.

Odie1941 on January 28, 2010 at 3:29 PM

But hey, high-speed rails will save the economy.

reaganaut on January 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM

My idiot Sen. McCaskill was lauding the 1.3 BILLION MO got for high speed rail between Kansas City and Saint Louis. What a fking boondoggle..

daesleeper on January 28, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Between crap like this and SarbOx one wonders if any companies will ever go public anymore.

Gideon7 on January 28, 2010 at 3:31 PM

From the excert you posted, it looks like they are being required to disclose the impact of “climate change” itself on their business, not the impact “climate change” legislation.

CDeb on January 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM

The commission, in a 3 to 2 vote, decided to require that companies disclose in their public filings the impact of climate change on their businesses — from new regulations or legislation they may face domestically or abroad to potential changes in economic trends or physical risks to a company.

Ed is correct. As is Casey.

spmat on January 28, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2