A coalition of institutional investors and state government officials today petitioned the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to require companies to disclose to shareholders the risks global warming poses to their business. "The transition to a carbon constrained economy is underway, and public access to material information concerning the risks and opportunities that companies face, and their means of addressing those risks and opportunities, is vital to investors," stated a letter signed by the nation’s biggest public pension funds, the California treasurer, the New York attorney general and other state government officials, environmental groups and investors that manage more than $1.5 trillion in assets. "A firm that is or soon will be subject to greenhouse gas regulation under state or federal policies should disclose, in light of its current and projected greenhouse gas emissions, the effects of regulation upon their capital expenditures, earnings and competitive position."
In an accompanying petition, the coalition said public companies should reveal their total greenhouse gas emissions, provide a strategic analysis of the risks and opportunities presented by climate change, assess the physical risks of climate change to their operations, and analysis the regulatory risk posed by government efforts to fight global warming.
"Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions imposes direct costs on major sources of greenhouse gas emissions and indirect costs on the companies that use their products and services," the petition states. "At the same time, these new regulatory developments will offer major opportunities for firms that can reduce emissions, thereby garnering marketable emissions credits or cost advantages over their competition, and for firms offering technologies and services needed to reduce emissions."
The coalition argues that corporate disclosure of climate change risks is spotty at best. It noted, for instance, that neither oil giant ExxonMobil (XOM) nor insurer Allstate (ALL) mentioned global warming, greenhouse gases or carbon dioxide in their 2006 annual reports.
Green Wombat 
This is just a stunt by the global warming industry… why not have business disclose shareholder risk of a meteorite impacting the planet? How about the risk of nuclear war? Hahahaha… its called “Force Majeure” and its outside of financial reporting. Anyone in business should know this. I’m sure they do, but its all about the stunt.
Here’s one more. Why don’t green companies disclose their risk if Global Warming turns out to be reversible or a non issue? What is Whole Foods risk if we organic foods are found to be just the same as conventional food? Why don’t they report those “risks”…?
What irks me is that environmentalists have been begging for years that the costs of the environmental risks of a product be internalized into the cost of that product. When it was in the favor of major investors and insurance companies to ignore environmental costs or at least postpone and spread-out such expenses over the world population, investors covered their ears and stuck their heads in the sand so as not to hear the whining of environmentalists. But now, when the environmental changes their products, methods, and exchange systems helped to create threaten investment returns or insurance profits, suddenly we’re supposed to quantify the costs of environmental risks. Makes me wanna holler.
Should Business Disclose Climate Change Risk?
Businesses seem to be flocking to appear green, lessen their carbon footprint, and talk about global warming. But scant mention of it was made in most of the reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) this year. Should investors be c
Readers are invited to check their ecological footprint at http://www.myfootprint.org