In a similar vein, those noted unrealistic hippies at the Defense Department have released several studies and white papers about the threat of climate change to national and international security.

Yes, but only because they (formerly we) were tasked to do so by other unrealistic hippies.

I’m sure that the CIA will acquire newfound credibility with people when they start producing “intelligence” on the effects of AGW. Not because they necessarily believe the theory. But because they were told to do so by the President.

And then, we all know the CIA is famous for giving the answer that its political masters want to hear, don’t we? At least, that’s what we were told by the Bush-manipulated-the-intelligence crowd.

This time it’ll be different, I’m sure. No, the CIA isn’t telling you about AGW because the best way to get a big budget is to show you “get it” (and of couse the DoD doesn’t think that way either) on the issues of the day. No, of course not; the same crowd that said the CIA was only telling Bush what he wanted to hear won’t believe the CIA is simply telling Obama and Congress what they want to hear.

In the linked article, Megan McArdle astutely writes about the SEC regulation r.e. AGW effects:

Which business executives also aren’t particularly qualified to assess.

Two points.

1) Well then, since they can’t evaluate this on their own, and they don’t want trouble with the SEC, it looks to me they need to hire consultants. People who study AGW, preferably those who’s work appears regularly in the peer-reviewed journals the IPCC famously relies upon. Remember, the Barack Obama administration is simply Cook County corruption gone nationwide. And to paraphrase what Richard Daley once famously said, what’s the point of being in politics if you can’t take care of your family and friends.

There is plenty of precedent for this; the stimulous steered a lot of money to Obama’s supporters. And the Healthcare bill contains a lot of regulations that doctors and hospitals are currently ill equipped to comply with on their own. Hence business for consultants in market niches that didn’t previously exist.

I do believe Barack Obama’s SEC has just created a government-mandated market. Just as carbon trading itself would’t exist if governments didn’t mandate these exchanges.

2) This is political. Just like tasking the DoD to write threat assessments based upon the assumption that the AGW theory is true allows Thales to say “Look, you global warming deniers, even the DoD thinks AGW is a threat,” having the SEC task corporations will allow Thales to say “Look, you global warming deniers, even private corporations think AGW is a threat.”

Most small investors aren’t going to be aware of the SEC ruling; they won’t realize that they’re being propagandized about AGW by the companies they hold stock only because they were told they had to.

Yes, it appears the admnistration would be happy. However, if the same firms decide to place an advertisement that quoted their SEC filings word for word too close to an upcoming election, the same Admnistration believes democracy as we know it would be imperiled.

Illegal Aliens From Outer Space – will they come to serve man? You can’t be too careful when filling out thousands forms is involved.

LarryA:And, by the way, isn’t information about pending laws and regulations, international meddling, and consumer response just as available to investors and their advisors, who can use it to make their own assessments?

Yes, but investors can’t perform that sort of assessment without certain internal information about the company which the company might not wish to release.

In certain circumstances, a company should also evaluate the potential impact of pending legislation and regulation related to this topic.

At least someone will be reading the pending legislation.

For instance, a company may face decreased demand for goods that produce significant greenhouse gas emissions or increased demand for goods that result in lower emissions than competing products.

Not only does the company have to WAG what the legislation is going to do, they then have to WAG how their customers are going to respond to the changes created by the legislation. “We think our customers are going to be so pissed off about this legislation that they’ll do the opposite of what the government expects.”

And, by the way, isn’t information about pending laws and regulations, international meddling, and consumer response just as available to investors and their advisors, who can use it to make their own assessments?

There was nothing stopping them from making that statement already, assuming it’s truthful, which is what I mean when I say the first three bullet points are noncontroversial. Public companies are expected to disclose any and all material risks to their business.

A little common sense here. If a company knows that it would have to go out of business if a given piece of pending legislation passes Congress, of course it has to disclose that to investors!

A corporation which does business in SE Missouri, or the adjacent parts of Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas is at serious risk of major losses if (more accurately when) the New Madrid Fault lets go. An influenza outbreak as contagious and lethal as the Spanish flu of 1918 would be ruinous to airlines.

Yet as far as I know, the SEC has never explicitly required public corporations to address these threats in their filings.

The requirement that special attention be given to “global warming” is clearly a political move.

Blue: “We are not opining on whether the world’s climate is changing, at what pace it might be changing, or due to what causes.”I hope some companies take her at her word and respond along the lines of: “Climate isn’t changing, therefore we assess these factors as zero.”

Seriously. What if somebody just lists the bullet points and writes the words “Hoax”?

This is beyond stupid. The national death wish gets one step closer to fulfillment.

What a corrupt and worthless organization the SEC is.

The Drill SGT:
And when multiple firms make filings that state “if the proposed cap and trade plan has less than expected impact, it will cause us to raise prices by 10–20%, and will result in shortages of power, coal, oil and gas.If the impact is larger, we’ll go bankrupt” the adminstration will then be happy?

Given that firms are perfectly free to say that already through their lobbyists, and lobbyists will usually present the worst case scenario as default, it’s effect, if anything, will probably be to make the lobbyists slightly less effective.

Steve: The first three bullet points ought to be utterly noncontroversial. .

And when multiple firms make filings that state “if the proposed cap and trade plan has less than expected impact, it will cause us to raise prices by 10-20%, and will result in shortages of power, coal, oil and gas. If the impact is larger, we’ll go bankrupt” the adminstration will then be happy?

That should help the stock market shake off it’s nervous fears :)

PeteP: So, they should take a SWAG at what legislation MIGHT get passed at some indterminate point in the future ( something NO ONE can do ), and then guess at what the details of it might be ( impossible ), and then project them onto a business forecast ?

Well, estimating exposure to regulatory risk is always tricky in that way, but SEC rules typically require that companies at least make some broad attempt to estimate what regulatory risks exist that could impact the company, and how they would do so. The first three points here just seems like a restatement of that principle with respect to one particular kind of regulatory risk.

So, they should take a SWAG at what legislation MIGHT get passed at some indterminate point in the future ( something NO ONE can do ), and then guess at what the details of it might be ( impossible ), and then project them onto a business forecast ? Insane.

“Impact of International Accords: A company should consider, and disclose when material, the risks or effects on its business of international accords and treaties relating to climate change. ”

And worse yet, do the same thing for ‘International Accords’, none of which exist yet ? Unreal !

“Indirect Consequences of Regulation or Business Trends: Legal, technological, political and scientific developments regarding climate change may create new opportunities or risks for companies. For instance, a company may face decreased demand for goods that produce significant greenhouse gas emissions or increased demand for goods that result in lower emissions than competing products. As such, a company should consider, for disclosure purposes, the actual or potential indirect consequences it may face due to climate change related regulatory or business trends. ”

This is thinly disguised rhetoric for ‘Companies must announce plans to incorporate ‘green’ strategies into their business models and product lines !

Who wrote this crap, the UN ? The Greenies have obviously taken over 3 seats at the SEC, and are using it to push their climate agenda ! CAn this be stopped by lawsuit ???

“Physical Impacts of Climate Change: Companies should also evaluate for disclosure purposes the actual and potential material impacts of environmental matters on their business. ”

‘Well, let’s see – we’re in NYC – if sea level rises 10 feet, we’re screwed’ …..

I hope some companies take her at her word and respond along the lines of: “Climate isn’t changing, therefore we assess these factors as zero.”

From the perspective of investors, more transparency relating to which companies would or would not be impacted by climate change is a good thing. Investors can make up their own minds on how that information should affect their investing decisions.

I should be thankful for the SEC. They announced new rules affecting disclosure of market risk caused by compensation policies and re-writing decades old rules on officer and director disclosure in December that must be included in this year’s proxy statements. In addition, they actually improved the rules regarding disclosure of oil and gas reserves. Anyway, since Sarbanes Oxley was enacted in a fit of pique following the Enron debacle, they have been writing the rules so fast that we have been scrambling to keep up.

Bill, bill, bill …..