A recent US House Committee report accused CA100+ of being a climate cartel and a cabal that wants to drive us back to the dark ages…so where's the fightback?
Excellent work on this one Hugh. Thanks for digesting the committee report and thinking through the implications. The backlash for CA 100+ should not be viewed as a surprise. The work by a very seasoned group of lobbyists (Exxon + the fracking crowd) and think tanks started in 2019. Some of their interests are now diverging, but AMs and AOs will be a defensive crouch regardless. We all know the games that can be played with financial materiality, but that's where the work must be done.
Nice summary Hugh. A couple of things clearly stand out:
1. US securities law requires companies to disclose “material” information, not what it calls “speculative estimates of “the impacts on [its] oil and gas reserves and resources” under a theoretical, net-zero scenario “in which reduction in demand results from carbon restrictions . . . adopted by governments.
2. “If there are to be “departures from the notion of a free-enterprise system as it was originally conceived in this country,” it must be “the product of congressional action and the will of the people” rather than that of “private forces.”
Facit: only Congress can drive carbon restrictions, not private forces, aka markets. And Congress acts on behalf of the "people" not shareholders. This undermines the core stipulation of sustainable investment and "engagement", which is that markets can guide corporate behavior from dirty to clean. In the view of the Committee, investors can only respond to failures of risk management. The assumption being that climate risks are not cumulative and crippling and can readily be overcome with fiscal or monetary policy.
So, if shareholders need to pay attention to "material issues" and not "speculative" fuel switching scenarios means we are in a "risk-on" world now, where climate mitigation is stalled and our society, including lots of corporate assets, infrastructure and built environment writ large is increasingly exposed to extreme weather.
Climate100+ engagement needs to rapidly switch to guiding investment in solutions (EVs and demand for fossil fuel), risk modelers and "clean-up" and rebuilding companies to remain relevant. Cliamte100+ strategy of targeting energy supply without also targeting demand was always going to be a failure.
Hi Dinah, you focus on the right conundrum: these points require legal clarity. But I think your last par is probably on the money, the engagement strategy needs overhauling for more economic pragmatism. Cheers, Hugh
Hugh - are you familiar with any research showing that markets can tackle a "commons" or public good without regulation? If there is no real precedent for a market mechanism for restoring/saving a public good (transparency, stable climate, clean water, clean air, reduced exposure to lethal toxics etc) then capital markets as a driver of change is "doomed".
Hi Dinah, I think the short answer is: erm, yes, a bit, not hugely, but can help, errr.
Longer answer is that I think this is a problem of policy>business>markets that needs a solution from the same chain working mutually, where possible, for long-term end results. I've never believed markets would or should do this alone...same for regulators/policymakers really, but for different reasons, of course. H
Excellent work on this one Hugh. Thanks for digesting the committee report and thinking through the implications. The backlash for CA 100+ should not be viewed as a surprise. The work by a very seasoned group of lobbyists (Exxon + the fracking crowd) and think tanks started in 2019. Some of their interests are now diverging, but AMs and AOs will be a defensive crouch regardless. We all know the games that can be played with financial materiality, but that's where the work must be done.
100% agree Melissa. Hope all well. H
Nice summary Hugh. A couple of things clearly stand out:
1. US securities law requires companies to disclose “material” information, not what it calls “speculative estimates of “the impacts on [its] oil and gas reserves and resources” under a theoretical, net-zero scenario “in which reduction in demand results from carbon restrictions . . . adopted by governments.
2. “If there are to be “departures from the notion of a free-enterprise system as it was originally conceived in this country,” it must be “the product of congressional action and the will of the people” rather than that of “private forces.”
Facit: only Congress can drive carbon restrictions, not private forces, aka markets. And Congress acts on behalf of the "people" not shareholders. This undermines the core stipulation of sustainable investment and "engagement", which is that markets can guide corporate behavior from dirty to clean. In the view of the Committee, investors can only respond to failures of risk management. The assumption being that climate risks are not cumulative and crippling and can readily be overcome with fiscal or monetary policy.
So, if shareholders need to pay attention to "material issues" and not "speculative" fuel switching scenarios means we are in a "risk-on" world now, where climate mitigation is stalled and our society, including lots of corporate assets, infrastructure and built environment writ large is increasingly exposed to extreme weather.
Climate100+ engagement needs to rapidly switch to guiding investment in solutions (EVs and demand for fossil fuel), risk modelers and "clean-up" and rebuilding companies to remain relevant. Cliamte100+ strategy of targeting energy supply without also targeting demand was always going to be a failure.
Hi Dinah, you focus on the right conundrum: these points require legal clarity. But I think your last par is probably on the money, the engagement strategy needs overhauling for more economic pragmatism. Cheers, Hugh
Hugh - are you familiar with any research showing that markets can tackle a "commons" or public good without regulation? If there is no real precedent for a market mechanism for restoring/saving a public good (transparency, stable climate, clean water, clean air, reduced exposure to lethal toxics etc) then capital markets as a driver of change is "doomed".
Hi Dinah, I think the short answer is: erm, yes, a bit, not hugely, but can help, errr.
Longer answer is that I think this is a problem of policy>business>markets that needs a solution from the same chain working mutually, where possible, for long-term end results. I've never believed markets would or should do this alone...same for regulators/policymakers really, but for different reasons, of course. H