Last March, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission released its climate risk disclosure rules, called “enhancement and standardization of climate-related disclosures for investors.” [emphasis, links added]
It requires companies to report expensive and substantial data on their carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions.
Under this provision, the SEC seeks to “realize the key benefits of GHG emission disclosures for investors”, including disclosures of risks associated with President Biden’s “commitment to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions within the economic scope”…to reach net zero emissions by 2050. ”
It will flood investors on information pages.
As for the cost, SEC's own digital discovery The proposed rules will increase annual compliance costs from $3.8 billion to $10.2 billion, up $6.4 billion – The cost of all accumulated SEC disclosure rules exceeds the SEC's launch to date in the 1930s.
Even if the final rule is less expensive, the number represents an order of magnitude. In addition to the subsequent fossil fuel dismantling, it may indicate what the ultimate cost of future environmental disclosures will be.
The SEC, like many, assumes climate change Intergovernmental Group (IPCC) claims “there is evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main driver of climate change”, including the SEC assertions, “higher temperatures, sea level rise and drought and drought”, as well as “Hurricanes, Tondados and Tondado” and “Hurricanes” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wild” and “Wil ”
However, lesser-known accurate science completely violates the premise of the SEC and IPCC. Co-author William Happer, Princeton’s Honorary Physics Professor, explains how Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases do not cause increased climate-related risks.
The SEC and IPCC claims are scientifically wrong.
Therefore, the SEC rules will Force companies to disclose scientific misleading and misleading information about the role of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in investor climate-related risks. Therefore, the Trump administration must revoke the SEC rules or rule that the court's ruling is invalid, whichever is earlier.
Co-author Happer and MIT's Honorary Physics Professor Richard Lindzen explains the accurate science in detail in a 28-page comment.
Comments explain why Carbon dioxide does not increase climate-related risks. (Other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide are too small to have any significant impact on the environment).
Carbon dioxide was less than 1% of the atmosphere (8,000ppm) in the Cambrian explosion 540 million years ago. Even then, it was a trace amount of gas, but it was the highest carbon dioxide ever since. Now, it is close to the extinction level of plants and life. Any lower part and agriculture will collapse. pic.twitter.com/mhnnxpq85l
— Peter Clack (@peterdclack) October 14, 2024
The SEC ignored it and did not respond to comments. Three of the many scientific reasons outlined in the comments are:
The firstand higher levels of carbon dioxide are a weak greenhouse gas, so reducing it to net zero will have a negligible effect on temperature
Carbon dioxide has two related properties, as creators of greenhouse gas and food.
As a greenhouse gas, The ability of carbon dioxide to increase the earth's temperature rapidly decreases with the increase of atmospheric concentration.
Science is complex, but scientific conclusions are simple. At today's 400 parts per million (ppm) and higher levels, a significant increase in carbon dioxide will cause the planet to warm negligible.
The accepted theory of atmospheric heat transfer allows calculations of what happens when the concentration of carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, for example, from about 400 ppm today to 800 ppm.
As for temperature, since carbon dioxide is now, and in higher levels of greenhouse gases, the result is only a slight effect on temperature.
Lindzen and happier states:
“From now on…we can send as much carbon dioxide as we want, with almost no warming.” This also means “We have little impact on the burning of fossil fuels on global warming. There is no climate emergency. There is no threat at all.”
As for food, more food is produced when carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere. Increased carbon dioxide from 400 ppm to 800 ppm will increase the amount of food available to people around the world by about 40%, with negligible effects on temperature.
Furthermore, it has never been mentioned that reducing carbon dioxide to zero will reduce the amount of food available worldwide.
second, EPA's MagicC model confirms that now and higher levels of carbon dioxide are a weak greenhouse gas, so reducing it to net zero will have a negligible effect on temperature
The Environmental Protection Agency often uses models to predict the temperature effect of a model called temperature induced climate change (MagicC).
Our comments explain the MagicC model confirm our conclusion:
“Reduce the current 40 Gigaton CO2 annual emissions to the world, while the U.S. carbon dioxide emissions at 6 Gitton will be reduced “net zero”, which will only cause … a slight change in the temperature of the earth’s surface.”
When CO2 is a record high of about 7,000 ppm, the temperature is at a record low.
third, 600 million years of CO2 data also confirm that now and higher levels of CO2 are a weak greenhouse gas, so reducing it to zero will have a negligible effect on temperature
Our review presents data on temperature and carbon dioxide levels over 600 million years, which show inverse relationships most of the time.
“Hundreds of millions of years, the temperature is Low When the carbon dioxide level is Highthe temperature is High When carbon dioxide levels are low. ”
“When CO2 is a record 7,000 ppm, the temperature is at a record low.”
Therefore, 600 million years of data also confirm that carbon dioxide is now a weak greenhouse gas that cannot and will not drive climate change.
Finally, our review details why the rules adopted will help have catastrophic consequences for Americans around the world and future generations, as it will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the use of fossil fuels.
so, Science contradicts the premise of SEC and IPCC that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases introduce climate-related risks.
Such assumptions are scientifically wrong. As a result, companies are asked to report their greenhouse data to investors interested in climate change, which will require them to report false and misleading information.
Therefore, the new SEC leaders should immediately revoke their climate-related risk disclosure rules, otherwise the court should rule that it is invalid, whichever is earlier.
Finally, of course, there are climate-related risks. For nature, the SEC explained, “for the past 50 years it has required disclosure of certain environmental issues, including “disclosure of climate-related risks and their impact on the business or financial status of the registrant.”
Therefore, the SEC has taken care of them. There is nothing else to do.
Read more in RealClearenergy
