Skip to comments.Investors demand information on global warming
Posted on 11/24/2003 12:35:25 AM PST by the invisib1e hand
Investors demand information on global warming
By Mark Turner at the United Nations Published: November 23 2003 19:52 | Last Updated: November 23 2003 19:52
Representatives of leading US institutional investors have announced an environmental "call for action", demanding that regulators, corporate boards and Wall Street firms make provision for the disclosure of risks posed by climate change.
At a meeting at the United Nations headquarters in New York, the comptrollers of New York state and city, and the Treasurers of California, Oregon, Maine, Connecticut, Vermont and New Mexico, launched an "Investor Network on Climate Risk" on Friday, before an audience representing more than $1,000bn (?841bn, £587bn).
In a 10-point plan, the Treasurers called on the Securities and Exchange Commission to enforce corporate disclosure rules, on companies to analyse how climate change could affect them (including regulatory, competitive, legal and physical impacts) and on investment managers to factor climate risk into their recommendations. They also proposed proxy-voting guidelines for investors to support climate risk disclosure.
While they admitted it was only a start, the endorsement by the likes of Phil Angelides, California's Treasurer, and Alan Hevesi, New York State comptroller - battlers against poor corporate governance - sent a powerful message that institutional investors are beginning to consider the assessment of climate risk as integral to their fiduciary responsibilities.
Al Gore, former US vice-president, and Kofi Annan, UN secretary-general, lent their support.[emphasis added] Mr Annan said: "Your investments will have a decisive impact on trends in future greenhouse gas emissions and on our ability to adapt."
John Holdren, professor of environmental science and policy at Harvard University, left little doubt that climate change was caused by humans and could have serious consequences if left unaddressed. Rainfall was increasing, permafrost melting, glaciers retreating, sea ice shrinking, sea level rising, wild fires increasing and storm and flood damage soaring, he said. Were business to continue "as usual", the earth would grow 2°C-4°°°C hotter by 2100, "warmer than at any time in the last 160,000 years". The change would affect crop yields, water availability, disease, flooding patterns and energy demand.
Leon Panetta, former director of the New York Stock Exchange, said: "Global warming is a perfect storm in the making", with massive consequences for investors' portfolios. "Legions of attorneys" were examining the possibility of taking actions similar to cases against the tobacco and asbestos industries, he suggested. [emphasis added]
Denise Nappier, Treasurer of Connecticut, insisted the greatest danger was not to consider climate risk. Environmental change ran "the risk of fuelling the next corporate governance crisis".
Others stressed climate change's opportunities. "Clean technology is a strategic investment whose moment has arrived," said Mr Angelides. "There is increasing evidence that investments in companies that practise prudent environmental stewardship are more likely to produce good results over the long term."
Are they trying to influence a change in Wall Street??
And if so .. you were these investors??
This is an old tactic of the left; most of these pools are administered by the products of elite universities...need i say more? They are easy marks for Kofi's pitch and Panetta's threats.
Tectonic plate shifts
Sudden releases of poisonous gas from lakes
Environmentally-caused forest fires...
World threats caused by the automobile
Invasion by aliens
Nothing short of full disclosure will do!
It's never necessary.
Some people just can't resist the temptation to show how much smarter they are (or how much dumber the rest of us are).
Personally, when I see one of those long long parenthetical "dummy" elaborations I just skip the damned thing.
Same with 18 exclamation points.
But that's just me.
The title of my post communicates that the content refers to an issue that is economic warfare (but hasn't heretofore been acknowledged as such), executed using our own laws against our own companies and shareholders. The item in parenthases is self explanatory.
Of course, the original title of the piece was (and still is) emboldened on first line of it. Pardon the faux pas. I think I stated somewhere that I meant to add (my title) but simply forgot.