May 26, 2021
As an elected official, when I saw that the SEC is considering regulation regarding the climate change crisis, I felt I ought to send some comments regarding my thoughts on the matter.
There is a climate crisis. I think very few people are doubting the impact the humans have made on the environment, although it tends to be blown out of proportion on both sides of the political spectrum. I am not an advocate for greater regulation and SEC oversight, however. Allow me to explain. I do want to comment, firstly, on the disclosure method. I do think companies should be transparent about their effects on our environment, and this standard ought to be a set as a matter of precedent, not a matter of standardization through regulation. I believe these disclosure standards should be set by individual investors who are shareholders of that company/corporation/etc or by the board of directors - this should be done internally rather than forced upon by the outside. It would make sense for the SEC to clarify the formatting of such disclosures to set a general precedent, but outside of this it should not be involved. These minimum standards could include a list of emissions, how much emission has happened during that period, and the geographical locations of the areas impacted.
It seems obvious that transparency would allow the general public to ascertain if these businesses are seeking to help or hinder the problem. Numbers dont lie, but politicians and the media does. Unbiased data that can be traced with minimal cost to a business would be very helpful not only in providing transparency, but it would also help researchers who are struggling to figure out potential solutions.
In many cases, additional regulation will take away many incentives from smaller businesses who are already reeling from the global pandemic and grant more monopoly power to the mega corporations who are much more easily able to afford the technology and means to switch over to meet new environmental standardization. Even minor changes would have a serious impact on small businesses who could not afford to meet these changes.
The updating of these disclosures as outlined in Question 6 should be done in a way that was not brought up in the question itself that is, organically. A standard setter, again, would benefit institutions who are more easily able to adapt to those standards and cater to those who are well placed geographically to meet such standards. These standards would be subjectively interpreted as the impact of climate change and even carbon emissions varies greatly due to geographical location and the total carbon footprint of that area. Not only that, but some businesses can and will differ from such standards, so then standards would need to be set for every type of business, which is a rabbit hole and only closes our business to more potential business owners who currently cannot meet such standards. Regulations only pile up over time instead of being deregulated.
A single set of global standards would be impossible to enforce, and would only incentivize mega corporations to send more American jobs to third world countries where such regulations would not be enforced, and destroy those natural environments in the process, much like the East India Company ages ago.
Making such disclosures (internal, SEC Standardized, or Global) subject to enforcement or assessing in relation to their value is not only a threat. Internal controls and public sentiment about climate change ought to lead the process instead of forcing businesses to comply with subjective SEC standards which, as explained before, will concentrate wealth further in the monopolistic power of the mega corporations who will send these jobs elsewhere if the cost is too high here (which has already been happening for decades).
The SEC should address this data, if it so chooses, by compiling it, making it easily accessible to the general public, and assuage public sentiment by helping to create methods to disclose this information in an organic, easily digestible formation which allows us to study how these emissions are harming the environment to provide broader transparency to provide actual change instead of setting subjective standards on all types of businesses which will end up impacting our small businesses and forcing jobs elsewhere by creating a disparity by those who can afford to be the most climate efficient and those who currently cannot, but whose impact on the environment is minimal due to geography and methods which cannot be accounted for by general disclosure rules and guidelines.