Bill Overview
Title: Stopping Excessive Climate Reporting Act
Description: This bill provides that issuers of securities are not required to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions.
Sponsors: Rep. Van Duyne, Beth [R-TX-24]
Target Audience
Population: People globally concerned with or affected by environmental policies and climate change
Estimated Size: 250000000
- The primary entities impacted by this legislation are likely publicly traded companies (issuers of securities) as they are the focus of the disclosure requirements.
- Indirectly, the lack of disclosure might impact investors who are increasingly considering environmental, social, and governance (ESG) data in their investment decisions.
- Globally, individuals concerned with climate change might be affected by a reduction in available data that can drive corporate accountability.
- Environmental activists and organizations depend on such data to push for better environmental practices; without it, their efforts might be impeded.
- In a broad sense, reduced transparency on emissions could affect global efforts to mitigate climate change, thus impacting global populations susceptible to climate change effects.
Reasoning
- The policy directly affects publicly traded companies as it relieves them from disclosing greenhouse gas emissions information. Indirectly, it affects investors—especially those valuing ESG data—by reducing available information crucial for informed investment decisions. Additionally, stakeholders like environmental activists lose leverage since such disclosures are used to press for company responsibility towards climate goals. Without this data, efforts to curb climate changes could be impeded, having tangible global and environmental implications.
- In terms of policy impact, companies may see eased regulatory burdens and reduced associated costs. For the broader public, the absence of such disclosures could translate to lower accountability for emissions, possibly escalating global climate issues, and affecting wellbeing indirectly due to environmental repercussions.
- The population affected becomes a mix of direct stakeholders like companies and indirect ones including investors, activists, and environmentally concerned citizens, with varying degrees of impact. As the policy does not demand budgetary allocation, its 'cost' is more in terms of information loss rather than financial outlays.
Simulated Interviews
Investment Fund Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes accessing critical emissions data harder, which hampers our ability to make informed, sustainable investment decisions.
- Lack of transparency can hurt responsible investing, potentially making sustainable choices more difficult to distinguish.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 8 |
Environmental Activist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The absence of required emissions reporting undercuts the work we do and takes away a key accountability tool.
- Corporations could become less transparent, worsening climate accountability and delaying progress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Corporate Executive (Austin, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Less disclosure means reduced overhead and cost in managing complex reporting requirements.
- While it eases corporate burdens, there is a risk of diminished public trust if we don't self-report emissions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Renewable Energy Consultant (Portland, OR)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy may slow the transition towards renewable energies as it obscures attainable benchmarks for emissions.
- It could discourage innovation in cleaner technologies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Individual Investor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The lack of emissions data makes it harder to assess if companies align with ESG values, affecting my investment choices.
- Transparency is crucial for responsible investing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Climate Science Graduate Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Without emissions reporting, companies may not feel the pressure to reduce their environmental impact.
- It feels like a step back in the fight against climate change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Retired Oil Industry Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I understand the need for less regulation, we can't ignore the real impacts of climate policies.
- The need for accountability is crucial for leaving a better world for my grandchildren.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Public School Teacher (Detroit, MI)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not requiring emissions disclosure lowers the awareness of climate issues among the general public.
- Education can fill the gap, but it makes my job harder to convince students of urgency without hard data.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Corporate Lawyer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Less emission disclosure means potentially less legal risk and fewer compliance obligations for my clients.
- The challenge is maintaining ethical practices without mandatory disclosures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
College Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy feels like a barrier in our efforts for greater climate action.
- Data transparency is critical for initiating progressive change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $0, High: $5000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $5000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $5000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $5000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $5000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $5000000)
Key Considerations
- The act may lead to a divergence in available environmental data, impacting investor decision-making.
- There may be domestic and global criticism regarding the rollback on emissions transparency amid climate change concerns.
- The policy might catalyze shifts in corporate strategies that no longer prioritize emission reductions due to lack of disclosure requirements.