Will corporate emissions remain a dirty secret?
California’s leadership on climate disclosures is now more important than ever before.
Happy weekend!
On Wednesday the Securities and Exchange Commission announced watered-down climate disclosure rules—to the delight of absolutely no one.
We’ve picked out several must-reads unpacking these rules, and what they mean for California. (The Golden State recently published its own set of—far more rigorous—climate disclosure regulations.)
The bottom line: California’s leadership on climate disclosures is now more important than ever before.
Inside Big Oil’s Plot to Keep Their Emissions Confidential (The New Republic)
Kate Aronoff writes:
The Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday voted 3–2 to finalize a rule on what companies disclose about their greenhouse gas emissions and how climate change stands to impact their business. On its face, that wouldn’t seem to be much cause for alarm. Companies are already required to disclose information on their management structures, overall financial health, and the kinds of risks facing their business. Large segments of the oil and gas industry, though, as well as their beneficiaries in the Republican Party, are treating the possibility of having to disclose climate-related information as if it were an existential threat. And as a result, the SEC’s rule is much weaker than it could have been.
Read the rest
“Why the SEC’s New Climate Rules Matter” (Heatmap News)
Emily Pontecorvo writes:
Most of the climate-related disclosures the rule covers are now mandatory only if they’re considered “material.” Under the original rule, all public companies would have been required to calculate and report the greenhouse gas emissions they are directly responsible for, known as scope 1 emissions, and the emissions from the electricity they use, known as scope 2 — no exceptions. But under the final rule, companies only have to report this information if they deem it material — i.e. if there is “a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the ‘total mix’ of information made available,” according to a 1976 Supreme Court decision.
Read the rest
THE VIEW FROM CALIFORNIA
“The SEC waffles—and all eyes turn to California”
Here, on THE CONDOR, Climate Action California’s
writes:[T]he vote was a political act that will have far-reaching consequences for the climate crisis all of us face. If the companies that are contributing to global heating are not required to disclose their emissions, investors will lack information that justifies climate-safe investments and de-legitimizes the fossil fuel economy. And “investors” are all of us—as everyone participates in capital markets, with our purchasing choices or through our banked savings or pension funds.
In this article we zero in on what it all means for climate advocates in California, given the suspense around the implementation of SB 253, Senator Scott Wiener’s bill requiring reporting of scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions, and SB 261, Senator Henry Stern’s bill requiring disclosure of climate-related financial risk. Both bills were signed by Governor Newsom last fall, and neither was mentioned in the draft budget he proposed in January1.
Read the rest of Katherine’s piece
“Editorial: California can’t let big polluters win by undermining climate change disclosure laws” (LA Times)
A cracker of an editorial from the LA Times cogently illustrates what’s at stake—and why it’s so crucial that California’s new laws get funded and are properly implemented:
California has a key role at this moment as a bulwark against a nationwide pressure campaign by fossil fuel companies, financial firms and other business interests to resist transparency about their role in causing climate change. That includes the Republican-led movement to restrict the use of environmental, social and governance criteria in investment decisions and various misinformation operations by the fossil fuel industry to confuse the public about the causes of and solutions to climate change. The Golden State should set an unwavering example for other states, including New York and Illinois, that are considering similar laws.
This effort is all the more important now that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has removed ambitious emissions reporting requirements from corporate climate risk disclosure rules it approved Wednesday for publicly traded companies.
Read the rest of the editorial
“Four questions for Scott Wiener” (Politico)
It’s hugely concerning that Governor Newsom failed to allocate funding in his proposed budget for California’s two climate disclosure bills. In February 2024, Climate Action California and its allies sent a letter to the State Assembly and State Senate’s Budget Committees urging funding to SB 253 and SB 261 to be allocated without delay.
We do take heart that, for Senator Scott Wiener1, chair of the Senate Budget Committee, ensuring the laws have teeth appears to be a priority. He told Politico last week:
When we pass a law in California and the governor signs it, that’s the law in the state of California. It sends a very negative message about California in terms of the rule of law when people might wonder, “Hey, is that law really a law?” If we pass a law, it needs to be funded, period, end of story. And so obviously, for me, personally, it’s a very high priority to make sure that SB 253 and SB 261 are fully implemented.
Read the rest of the interview
Parting shot: The part you can play
Now more than ever we need to mobilize to fund California’s climate disclosure laws.
It will take a whole state to ensure that SB 253 and the related SB 261:
Are fully funded in the budget the Legislature must pass by June 15
Survive amendment attempts
Are implemented correctly without loopholes
Join the fight to save California’s climate disclosure bills:
The senator was the author of one of the bills: SB 253.
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Believe = religion
Think = opinion
Know = science
What I know follows.
What do you know that’s different?
Published (SubStack, X, MSN, PAPundits, et. al.)
Peer reviewed (the world)
And undisputed (so far)
ISR at ToA = 1,368 W/m^2.
From the Sun’s perspective Earth is a flat, discular, pin head.
To average that discular energy over a spherical surface divide by 4.
(disc = π r^2, sphere = 4 π r^2)
1,368/4=342.
(Not even close to how the Earth heats & cools + this is Fourier’s model which even Pierrehumbert says is no good.)
Deduct 30% albedo.
(Clouds, ice, snow created by GHE/water vapor.)
342*(1.0-0.3)=240.
Deduct 80 due to atmospheric absorption.
(If this were so ToA would be warmer than surface.)
Net/net of 160 arrives at surface.
Per LoT 1 160 is ALL!! that can leave.
17 sensible + 80 latent + 63 (by remaining diff) LWIR = 160
Balance is closed, done, over, fini, “Ttthhhat’s ALL folks!!”
So where does this 396 second source of surface upwelling heat flow come from?
396 is the S-B BB calculation for any surface at 16 C, 289 K, that serves as the denominator of the emissivity ratio: 63/396=0.16.
It is a theoretical calculation.
It is not real.
It is a duplicate “extra.”
It violates LoT 1.
396 up – 2nd 63 LWIR (How convenient.) = 333 “back” from cold to hot w/o work violating LoT 2.
Not that it matters.
Erase the 396/333/63 GHE “extra” energy loop from the graphic and the balance holds true.
IR instruments do not measure power flux, they are calibrated to report a referenced temperature and infer power flux assuming the target is a BB. (Read the manual.)
16 C + BB = 396 & incorrect.
16 C + 0.16 = 63 & correct.
There is no GHE.
There is no GHG warming.
There is no CAGW,
The consensus is wrong – Aahhgain!!!
Disagree?
Bring science which is not appeals to authority, off topic esoteric Wiki handwavium and ad hominem gas lighting and insults.