Published on: March 23, 2022
Yesterday we took note of an Axios story about how, as expected, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted 3-1 "to propose regulations that, for the first time, require companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions as well as their exposure to climate change risks."
If one accepts, as I do, that climate change is a fact and that some percentage of it can be impacted by addressing issues such as greenhouse gases, then it makes sense to require public companies to a) disclose their approach to these issues and level of implementation, and b) create a level and transparent playing field on which companies can be compared and contrasted.
Companies always will find some degree of wiggle room, and I'm sure there will be accusations of government overreach and regulatory abuse. But this doesn't strike me as the case - or at least, the intention - here.
One objection to the proposal is that climate change is outside the SEC's traditional lane of expertise and regulation. But it seems to me that one of the ways in which governments - and, for that matter, other institutions and companies - get in to trouble is when they silo their approaches. Staying within lanes can lead to lack of nuance when it comes to policy; I would hope that the SEC would get the appropriate guidance from climate change experts in crafting the specific regulations, but I have no problem, in theory, with this approach.
Prompting MNB reader Tom Hahn to write:
Of course you have no problem with this approach Kevin, it’s consistent with your leftist POV. You hope the SEC gets guidance from “climate change experts”? The same ones that are running the Biden administration? The same ones that have been wrong on most policy decisions over the last couple years? Not a very comforting thought.
In your green fantasy world, do the Chinese, the Indians, and the Russians also mandate these measures for companies operating in those countries? If not, what sense does it make to add bureaucracy and cost to US companies to do nothing but further fuel inflation and joblessness among American workers? As with most policies pushed by the left, this is a solution looking for a problem.
But tell me how you really feel.
From another MNB reader, on another subject:
Enjoyed Michael’s column on Coach K. His distinguished record speaks for itself. As a lifelong Bruin, I hope others will take the time to review John Wooden’s accomplishments AFTER he retired from coaching in 1975. His books, speeches and mentoring were likely more meaningful than his championships. May we all enjoy March Madness, sport’s greatest spectacle!
Reacting to my "Whither Howard Schultz" commentary yesterday, one MNB reader wrote:
I particularly enjoy your onsite comments; grocery stores etc., and this morning outside a Starbucks where traffic flows by… and a person coming to sit on the bench behind you who is holding a distinctly not Starbucks coffee cup.
On the subject of not doing business with companies remaining in Russia, one MNB reader wrote:
Well it’s very easy and uncomplicated - make a concerted effort to not buy those brands. Jeez, it's not that hard!!
And, from MNB reader Justin Anthony:
Just a thought on this topic. How would people feel if these companies decided to take all profits from the Russian market and turn it into Humanitarian support for displaced Ukrainians?
Works for me.
I also like the idea of commandeering ships taken from Russian oligarchs and turning them into aid vessels serving Ukrainians.