SEC issues climate chaos “guidance”

“The climate agenda is driven by data that have been massaged and manipulated.” – Paul Driessen

Bowing to unrelenting pressure from climate activists, the Securities and Exchange Commission just released its latest draft “interpretive guidance” on climate change. Like its 2010 predecessor, the April 13, 2016 document is based on the assertion that manmade climate chaos is real, and massive subsidies for renewable energy will continue in perpetuity.

This article by Paul Driessen explores these claims – and offers his guidance on facts and questions that prudent investors, consumers, workers and voters might want to raise … with the SEC, individual companies, their own elected representatives and presidential candidates.

Why aren’t we measuring the harmful effects of anti-fossil fuel laws, regulations and treaties? How are these policies and actions moral, socially responsible or sustainable?

SEC issues climate chaos “guidance”

What about risks from anti-energy policies imposed in the name of stopping climate change?

By Paul Driessen

President Obama continues to use “dangerous manmade climate change” to justify a massive regulatory onslaught that will “fundamentally transform” America’s energy, economic, business, industrial, social, legal and constitutional systems before he leaves office.

The more science batters alarmist claims, the more people realize that plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide makes life on Earth possible, the more China, India and other developing countries burn oil, gas and coal and increase their CO2 emissions to lift billions out of poverty, malnutrition, disease and brutally short lives – the more the administration issues draconian climate edicts.

Almost every department, agency and bureaucrat that didn’t eagerly volunteer has been dragooned to aid the campaign: from the EPA and Agriculture, Interior, Defense and State Departments, to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. The Securities and Exchange Commission is the latest agency to re-up.

Pressure from climate and environmental activist groups “persuaded” the SEC to release its initial “interpretive guidance” on climate change in January 2010. It purported to help companies decide when they must disclose how their business might be affected by actual physical climate change, by direct impacts from laws, regulations or international agreements, or indirectly by effects on business trends.

In March 2016, the Commission told ExxonMobil and Chevron they had to let shareholders vote on whether the companies must explain how their profitability might be affected by climate change and laws to prevent it. Both resolutions were rejected, but proponents vowed to return as often as it takes to win.

On April 13, 2016, the SEC published a 341-page Concept Release intended to “seek public comment” on ways to modernize, improve and enhance Regulation S-K business and financial disclosure requirements for registered companies’ annual and other reports. It asks whether new specific disclosure requirements should be added to ensure greater transparency and aid investors in determining whether companies are being socially responsible, properly handling diversity and inclusion concerns – and adequately addressing needs and risks associated with climate change, resource scarcity and sustainable development.

Many people certainly view these as legitimate concerns. They certainly are on the minds of certain investors and interest groups – especially CERES, Environmental Defense, and the California State Teachers and Public Employees Retirement Systems, all of which seek to advance their narrow parochial interests on climate change, “appropriate” energy, and particularly taxpayer subsidies for their favorite causes and cronies. The issues are certainly being used to drive Obama Administration agendas.

However, prudent investors (as well as employees, consumers and voters) might want greater disclosure, transparency and honesty regarding the full panoply of risks associated with laws and regulations imposed in the name of stabilizing Earth’s always-unstable climate and weather … mandates, preferences and subsidies enacted to support “eco-friendly” wind, solar and biofuel “alternatives” to oil, natural gas and coal  … and campaign contributions that keep supportive legislators and judges in office.

This climate crisis edifice owes its existence to assertions that fossil fuel emissions have replaced natural forces in climate change, and any future changes will be disastrous. As those claims are further debunked, or enough voters and legislators become disgusted about the $1.5 trillion spent every year on climate crisis programs, the risks won’t come from climate change. They will come from a vengeful public.

No wonder Al Gore, Mike Mann and their comrades refuse to debate, jealously guard their kingdom, and chortle as state AGs prosecute “climate deniers” for racketeering. Prudent investors might want to study these issues in greater depth and raise a few questions that Obama’s SEC prefers not to entertain.

* As scientist John Christy told Congress in February, the climate agenda is driven by data that have been massaged and manipulated, assertions and predictions that are contradicted by Real World data and observations, and “demonstrably deficient” computer models that predict global temperatures way above what have actually been measured, and cannot even reproduce past temperatures. Climatology remains an immature science that cannot even explain major historical climate events, much less predict the future.

Those problems are compounded by phony “hockey stick” temperature graphs, ClimateGate emails, once reputable scientific journals rejecting papers that contest climate catastrophe claims, and headline-grabbing disaster “studies” that are based on rank speculation or written by environmental activists.

Are the alleged physical impacts of climate change real, or merely generated by computers and activists? Are they due to fossil fuels, or to natural forces that have driven climate and weather throughout history?

* Regardless of how much the United States, Europe and other developed countries slash their fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions, developing nations will continue using those fuels at a feverish pace. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations will thus continue to climb beyond the 400 ppm (0.04%) level. Job losses, reduced living standards and countless other sacrifices by Americans, Europeans, Canadians and Australians – especially by poor, working class and minority families – will not affect this trend.

Will we even be able to detect the effect of developed nation sacrifices on Earth’s climate, against normal, natural fluctuations? Why aren’t we measuring the harmful effects of anti-fossil fuel laws, regulations and treaties? How are these policies and actions moral, socially responsible or sustainable?

* Many positive profit projections and other indirect benefits to business trends are based on assertions that manmade climate chaos is real and massive subsidies for renewable energy will continue. Negative effects on profits and corporate reputations are assumed to result from associations with fossil fuels.

But if governments begin to reject climate alarmism or eliminate mandates, subsidies, guaranteed loans, feed-in tariffs and exemptions from endangered species laws, companies built on this house of cards will collapse. A number of EU and Chinese wind and solar companies have already gone belly-up or lost up to 90% of their market value, as demand for their products waned. Meanwhile, companies now vilified for producing or using fossil fuels that sustain our economies, jobs and living standards would benefit.

Coal, oil and natural gas still provide over 80% of all US and global energy. Largely because of abundant natural gas produced via fracking. US CO2 emissions declined in 2014, while the EU’s rose 0.7 percent.

Shouldn’t wind turbine companies have to disclose that generating just 20% of US electricity with wind power would require some 186,000 turbines, 19,000 miles of new transmission lines, 18,000,000 acres of land, and 270,000,000 tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and rare earths, plus millions of dead birds and bats every year? Is that sustainable?

Shouldn’t insurance companies and reinsurers have to “disclose” that their higher rates and profits are based on 20-foot higher sea levels and more violent hurricanes conjured up by bogus computer models? Doesn’t that amount to deceptive advertising, fear-mongering and corporate social irresponsibility?

* If President Obama and the SEC are going to demand full disclosure, honesty, transparency and accountability, those fundamental principles should also apply to government officials. They rarely do.

Justice Department lawyers have knowingly lied to judges in immigration cases. Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes and other officials have been caught in multiple bald-faced lies. The IRS deliberately targeted conservatives, and then destroyed records and lied about its actions. EPA bungled a mine cleanup, polluted waterways in four states and lied about the impacts. NOAA and EPA have engaged in systematic misrepresentations and data manipulation on climate change. No one has been punished.

The impacts on company profits, investors, employees, families and communities have been extensive. Government agencies want more and more power and control over our lives – but refuse to accept any accountability for incompetence, malfeasance, deliberate lies or the serious harm they cause.

This is why Americans are fed up. Perhaps the 2016 elections will finally bring long overdue change.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. © May 2016


9 thoughts on “SEC issues climate chaos “guidance””

  1. “…whether companies are being socially responsible, properly handling diversity and inclusion concerns – and adequately addressing needs and risks associated with climate change, resource scarcity and sustainable development.”

    Shareholders, qua owners of corporate cattle ranches are entitled to know what the risks are from wolves and coyotes,.

    At present, US corporations inform shareholders about new and proposed regulations. But it seems the SEC will require corporations to speculate about events that have not yet occurred.

    However, how can such corporations predict the future when most of the immediate risks are not from climate change, which is a process that takes decades, but from regulations that are imposed by bureaucrats, governors and the president by a stroke of the pen?

    Not to mention, the unpredictability of election results.

  2. Quote: Climatology remains an immature science that cannot even explain major historical climate events, much less predict the future.
    Immature science No! Climatology is a belief system trying to study a heat energy chaos system which derives its weather energy from that energy radiated via IR and UV from our variable star into the world’s oceans, 10 or more years ago from a star which its own energy production is moderated by 4 Jovian Giant’s gravitation effects on the Solar System BarryCentre, that the Sun orbits causing the Sun to moderate its energy output.
    You would have a better out come from Astrology; at least that belief system knows where the Sun and planets are in the Cosmos and at least Astrology is a 50-50 bet, somebody will have a good day, and yet another will have a bad day.
    With Climatology, you all going to fry, then near drown, or starve according to their faulty models, none of which will happen in the order, or timescales predicted, and may not happen until the next Interglacial some 120K years from now.

    • Funny you should mention astrology. There is an entry, and a very serious one, on page 108 of my copy of The Encyclopedia of Technical Market Indicators about astrology, which says, in part “It is well know that W. D. Gann, a highly influential technician and trader who practiced in the first half of the 20th century, intensely applied astrology to market timing, reportedly with remarkable success. Unfortunately Gann’s methods are not fully disclosed in his writings…”

  3. This post by Paul Driessen is excellent. It makes an excellent case that the AGW agenda is bogus and can be exposed by industrious investigation wherever its agents are making claims and demands.

    I would, of course, argue that AGW is simply propaganda for an agenda of deindustrialization and population reduction demanded by a cabal controlling finance and infecting governments and dominating lesser institutions across the Western world. Its truth is irrelevant to them; only the consequences of implementing action on the basis of AGW claims is relevant to them. These consequences are destructive of the general population.

    One might call this cabal the Old Regime after the Ancien Régime of Bourbon France whose misrule brought on the French Revolution.

    This current Old Regime has been brewing in the financial centers of Europe and America infecting governments and lesser institutions for some two centuries. It is making a play for absolute power.

    Further discussion of the scientific issues is far less important than realizing that the whole idea is merely propaganda to justify widespread destruction of planetary prosperity. Appropriate measures must be developed to neutralize this poison.

    Mr. Driessen suggests some steps to be taken by investors to resist being taken in by this deception. This is all to the good but the most important first point is to realize that it is a fraud and will always be a fraud on the public.

    Viriditas delenda est

  4. Massive subsidies for renewable energy, or anything else, won’t continue in perpetuity, because anything that doesn’t generate economic growth, and/or produce obvious benefits will eventually suck the life out of the economy, stifle the economy, cause innovation to stagnate, and ultimately cause the system that produced it to be altered, overthrown or abolished, or else it will cause society to break down in other ways, so that it will ultimately end.

  5. The SEC cannot protect investors from ponzi operators like
    Bernie Maduff, cannot protect investors from being ripped off
    by M.F. Global blatantly stealing their “segregated funds”, and cannot protect the capital markets from derivative based bank frauds like the crash of 2008. The SEC is owned by the
    crooks running wall street, and protects nobody !!
    Why should anybody listen to their deluded proclamations about “climate change”?
    This agency should be abolished, and the 20% legitimate functions they do should be turned over to the Department of Commerce.

    • For a couple of weeks representatives of the Fed. Bank talked down the price of gold from $1300 to $1200/oz. by hinting at imminent interest rate hikes based on high expectations of job stats in the US. The released stats on Friday was directly opposite to what the Fed. led investors to expect. So the high expectations was sucked out of thumbs, and many investors (including me) took heavy losses due to disinformation. This may not be relevant to climate, but shows the lack of integrity of government institutions.

Comments are closed.