tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post1610123625514429651..comments2024-03-28T05:14:02.071-05:00Comments on The Grumpy Economist: SEC climate updateJohn H. Cochranehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04842601651429471525noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-15875133022057924592022-03-28T13:16:54.613-05:002022-03-28T13:16:54.613-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Old Eagle Eyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05270080708077871311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-4669784056329139512022-03-27T18:29:10.396-05:002022-03-27T18:29:10.396-05:00Yes, the lifestyle choices were mostly what I was ...Yes, the lifestyle choices were mostly what I was thinking of when raising the possibility of hiring people in high emissions localities vs low emissions. And ignoring respiration/digestion would fall into the same problem area of disadvantaging capital investment over employing labor: more machines = less foodAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-70365703001658422592022-03-25T13:43:13.513-05:002022-03-25T13:43:13.513-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Old Eagle Eyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05270080708077871311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-63270332285165713502022-03-25T13:42:37.341-05:002022-03-25T13:42:37.341-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Old Eagle Eyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05270080708077871311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-7329289975192342052022-03-23T17:30:43.154-05:002022-03-23T17:30:43.154-05:00"A big question about SEC and related regulat..."A big question about SEC and related regulation. May the SEC regulate only on financial issues, i.e. "materiality," or may it regulate with larger social, economic, or political objectives in mind?"<br /><br />We can ask that of any regulatory agency. Talk about marching through the institutions! The neo-marxists and their opportunist fellow-travelers have very nearly won.Frank https://www.blogger.com/profile/00272351675231621678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-72287538151993373132022-03-23T14:08:51.653-05:002022-03-23T14:08:51.653-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Old Eagle Eyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05270080708077871311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-81883286962965191512022-03-23T13:22:09.416-05:002022-03-23T13:22:09.416-05:00The thing that’s bizarre to me is that there are f...The thing that’s bizarre to me is that there are far worse environmental impacts from companies other than CO2. Those disclosures never show up at all in public filings and aren't mandated by the SEC either before or as part of these newly proposed rules. There’s no NOX emission disclosure requirement as an example. The difference is that really harmful emissions are highly regulated under authority of the EPA as authorized by Congress. The EPA doesn’t have the legal authority to regulate CO2 because it was never deemed sufficiently harmful by Congress to regulate. But that’s an unsatisfying position for the Greens which are now desperate to impose backdoor regulation through any other instrument of federal authority no matter how strained. Recent jurisprudence and the unchecked expansion of SEC dominion has been a big problem for a while, but if this continues along the SEC will likely be the most powerful federal agency in government with the ability to regulate near any tangentially commercial activity.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10209903229153145357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-45543878385569075842022-03-23T13:06:01.725-05:002022-03-23T13:06:01.725-05:00They do ask that commute emissions be included in ...They do ask that commute emissions be included in Scope 3. This is inconsistent with other federal policy like the inability to deduct commute times as a business expense. Ultimately commute distances are a lifestyle choice. Strangely they don't ask about employees' other lifestyle choices. Like I'm sure the senior management take much more lavish vacations to Europe and Asia using company provided compensation. They also don't seem to demand tracking of the carbon emissions associated with employees' respiration or digestion which I find equally peculiar. Surely labor intensive industries are worse respiratory polluters and that needs to be disclosed! And are the companies optimally incenting their employees to sufficiently optimize their diets to limit digestive pollution?Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10209903229153145357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-24161806410314201962022-03-23T10:36:56.103-05:002022-03-23T10:36:56.103-05:00it doesit does00225989https://www.blogger.com/profile/07694667718323758069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-85231269837938668392022-03-23T01:33:11.624-05:002022-03-23T01:33:11.624-05:00To feel uncertain? To be horrified!To feel uncertain? To be horrified!Michael Cunninghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933921928383382118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-48131162818502441892022-03-22T21:37:25.498-05:002022-03-22T21:37:25.498-05:00OT, but maybe worth pondering as a similar type of...OT, but maybe worth pondering as a similar type of over-reach. <br /><br />"ARLINGTON, Va. -- The Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday approved Nasdaq's groundbreaking proposal to boost the number of women, racial minorities and LGBTQ people on U.S. corporate boards.<br /><br />The new policy — the first of its kind for a U.S. securities exchange — requires most of the nearly 3,000 companies listed on Nasdaq to have at least one woman on their board of directors, along with one person from a racial minority or who identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or queer. It also requires companies to publicly disclose statistics on the demographic composition of their boards."<br /><br />---30---<br /><br />There are lot of reasons to feel uncertain about this Nasdaq rule. Including...do we want to get into people's private sex lives? Benjamin Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14001038338873263877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-4308806665711137772022-03-22T19:24:56.202-05:002022-03-22T19:24:56.202-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Old Eagle Eyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05270080708077871311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-42075741679144902122022-03-22T18:51:43.475-05:002022-03-22T18:51:43.475-05:00I'm yet to read the 500 page PDF, but am curio...I'm yet to read the 500 page PDF, but am curious, do Scope 3 disclosures include the greenhouse gas emissions from employees? Like, hiring someone with a longer commute may result in higher emissions reported, underuse of work from home policies, or even use of labor in high emissions markets (USA) vs low emissions (take your pick of developing countries).<br />If not, it creates a disadvantage from employing Capital vs Labor - if energy use on servers/forklifts/conveyor belts must be captured, this then creates a disincentive to employing such labor saving technologies if you're not capturing the carbon "savings" from not needing people to perform the procedures anymore. Another nudge against productivity growth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com