BloggingStocks.com – September 18, 2007
BloggingStocks.com discusses the recent Washington Post article that cites efforts by some environmental groups and investors to force companies to disclose the impact of climate change to their company. This is an interesting discussion but it begs the broader discussion regarding how much a company should discuss on hypothetical or future issues that may affect its health.
The Washington Post reports that pension fund managers representing $1 trillion have petitioned the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to required public companies to disclose the impact of global warming on their business prospects. If the SEC agrees, the change could threaten investors in utility stocks — which are among the biggest private sources of carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming.
While in theory this sounds like a good idea to me, I am intrigued by the intellectual challenge of how to put a number on the potential costs and business opportunities which climate risk could place in the path of a company.
…how big would the lost opportunity be for AEP if it could not build a new power plant because of political opposition resulting from its contribution to greenhouse gases?
No doubt those who want to avoid the regulation of these carbon dioxide emitting industries would prefer to be left alone.
You can read the rest of Mr. Cohan’s thoughts on the subject here.
Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the here.Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.