SEC: Silly Environmental Compliance?

IBD's Capital Hill ^ | 1/28/2010 | Ed Carson

[Slyscribe]

The Securities and Exchange Commission voted 3-2 to tell public companies to warn investors about the possible impact of future climate change on their business. As Megan McArdle pointed out, this is “deeply silly.” Companies already have to make disclosures about possible environmental impacts. But ordering them to speculate on how possible far-off environmental shifts might change their future bottom line is way, way outside of their expertise and of no use to investors.

[La Lydia]

Deeply silly? It is outrageously funny. It deserves to be made fun of at the highest levels of late night TV satire and ridicule.

[Parley Baer]

“about the possible impact of future climate change on their business”

This is unbelievable. The is so laughable if it was not so serious.

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

It is silly, companies are already required to disclose and discuss factors that could materially affect their businesses.

However, this could backfire on the Democrats as lots of companies begin to include specific language in their reports describing how cap and trade and other AGW restrictions would negatively impact their businesses.

[SunkenCiv]

...voted 3-2 to tell public companies to warn investors about the possible impact of future climate change on their business.

[crescen7]

Perhaps they should also warn investors of the impact of a Martian invasion, being struck by a large meteorite, or a large earthquake ?

Speaking of Earthquakes . . .

It seems like those should have names too, ya know, like Hurricanes. There should be a name for the Earthquake that hit Haiti,

of course . . .

There’s already a name for th earthquake that hit the U.S. economy. At least in Haiti they aren’t blaming the damage on the last earthquake.

[steelyourfaith]

Don't know whether to or .

Thanx !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !