SEC Approves Watered-Down Rule on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting for Public Companies

Washington, District of Columbia United States of America
Environmental groups and others in favor of more disclosure had argued that those emissions are usually the largest part of any company's carbon footprint and that many companies are already tracking such information.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has approved a rule that will require some public companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks. The final version of the rule was significantly watered down from its original form, with opponents arguing that quantifying such emissions would be difficult, especially in getting information from international suppliers or private companies.
SEC Approves Watered-Down Rule on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting for Public Companies

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has approved a rule that will require some public companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks. The final version of the rule was significantly watered down from its original form, with opponents arguing that quantifying such emissions would be difficult, especially in getting information from international suppliers or private companies. However, environmental groups and others in favor of more disclosure had argued that those emissions are usually the largest part of any company's carbon footprint and that many companies are already tracking such information.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

90%

No Doubts Found At Time Of Publication

Sources

62%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

S.E.C. Approves New Climate Rules Far Weaker Than Originally Proposed

The Name Of The NZ Prefix. I PWA NZI.P.Was Dropped. Hiroko Tabuchi, Wednesday, 06 March 2024 14:49
  • Unique Points
    • , The original proposal faced opposition from the GOP, fossil fuel producers, farmers and others.
    • , Under the original proposal, large companies would have been required to disclose emissions produced along their value chain.
    • The biggest companies will only report emissions they directly produce if they consider them material or significant to their bottom lines.
  • Accuracy
    • The original proposal faced opposition from the GOP, fossil fuel producers, farmers and others.
    • Under the original proposal, large companies would have been required to disclose emissions produced along their value chain.
    • , Now that requirement is gone. Thousands of smaller businesses are exempt from direct emission reporting under the final rules.
  • Deception (30%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (75%)
    The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved new rules on climate disclosure for public companies. However, this statement is not enough evidence to support the claim that these rules are effective or will lead to meaningful change in corporate behavior related to climate change.
    • The article states that 'the main difference' between the original proposal and the new SEC rules is that large companies will only have to disclose emissions produced directly by their own operations, if they consider them material. This statement implies that these emissions are not important or relevant for investors to know about.
    • The article mentions a requirement for companies to state the climate expertise of members on their board of directors in the original proposal but this requirement is gone from the final rules. The absence of this information makes it difficult for investors to assess whether companies have adequate knowledge and resources to address climate risks.
  • Bias (75%)
    The article is biased towards the GOP and fossil fuel producers as it mentions their opposition to an earlier proposal that was more all-encompassing. The new rules give companies greater leeway in reporting emissions than earlier proposals.
    • > Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.
    • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
      The authors of the article have conflicts of interest on several topics related to climate change and business risks. The Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) is a government agency that regulates businesses, including those in the fossil fuel industry, which could create a conflict of interest for farmers who rely on these industries.
      • The article mentions that the S.E.C.'s new climate rules are far weaker than originally proposed, and this could be seen as favorable to fossil fuel producers.
      • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
        The authors of the article have conflicts of interest on several topics related to climate change and business risks. The Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) is a government agency that regulates businesses, including those in the fossil fuel industry, which could create potential conflicts of interest for the S.E.C.
        • The article also notes that farmers may be impacted by these regulations, as they rely on fossil fuels for their operations.
          • The article mentions that 'fossil fuel producers' are among the groups affected by new climate rules proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.).

          74%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          SEC approves rule requiring some companies to report greenhouse gas emissions. Legal challenges loom

          The Associated Press News Wednesday, 06 March 2024 05:10
          • Unique Points
            • The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has approved a rule that will require some public companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks.
            • Companies would only have to report those emissions if they believe them to be material (significant).
            • Opponents of Scope 3 requirements argued that quantifying such emissions would be difficult, especially in getting information from international suppliers or private companies.
            • Environmental groups and others in favor of more disclosure had argued that those emissions are usually the largest part of any company's carbon footprint and that many companies are already tracking such information.
          • Accuracy
            • The SEC passed the rule 3-2
            • Companies would only have to report those emissions if they believe them to be material (significant)
            • Opponents of Scope 3 requirements argued that quantifying such emissions would be difficult
            • <https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/06/climate/>
          • Deception (30%)
            The SEC has weakened the rule requiring some public companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks. The changes made do not require companies to report all indirect emissions known as Scope 3, which are usually the largest part of any company's carbon footprint. This is a deceptive practice because it allows companies to hide important information from investors.
            • The SEC has weakened the rule requiring some public companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks by not requiring them to report all indirect emissions known as Scope 3.
          • Fallacies (75%)
            The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of experts and politicians without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claims. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing opposition to the rule as a 'fierce' and 'onerous burden'. Finally, there are several instances where dichotomies are used to describe opposing viewpoints.
            • The changes in the rule weren’t made public until Wednesday
            • Companies would only have to report those emissions if they believe they are ‘material’
            • West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey announced that 10 states were filing a challenge with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
            • Commissioner Hester Peirce, a Republican who opposed the rule, said it would be burdensome and expensive for companies
            • Many Republicans and some industry groups accused Gensler, a Democrat, of overreach.
          • Bias (85%)
            The SEC has weakened the rule that would require some public companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks. The changes made do not require companies to report Scope 3 emissions which are usually the largest part of any company's carbon footprint. This is a clear example of bias as it favors certain industries over others, making it harder for investors to make informed decisions.
            • The SEC has weakened the rule that would require some public companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks.
            • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication
            • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication

            72%

            The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
            (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

            A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

            Landmark rule requires some companies to share how much they pollute. But it was scaled back

            CNN News Site: In-Depth Reporting and Analysis with Some Financial Conflicts and Sensational Language Samantha Delouya Wednesday, 06 March 2024 17:55
            • Unique Points
              • The final rule was significantly watered down from its original version.
              • Some business leaders and lawmakers said the rule overstepped; climate activists argued it didn't do enough.
            • Accuracy
              • Under the original proposal, large companies would have been required to disclose emissions produced along their value chain.
              • , The biggest companies will only report emissions they directly produce if they consider them material or significant to their bottom lines.
            • Deception (70%)
              The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that a landmark rule has been passed when in fact it was scaled back from its original version. Secondly, the author quotes SEC chairman Gary Gensler saying that he thinks the finalized rules will produce more useful information to investors but fails to mention any evidence of this or how these new requirements are different from previous versions. Thirdly, while some critics have argued that tracking scope 3 emissions would be overly expensive and difficult for companies, the article does not provide any counter-argument or evidence supporting this claim. Instead, it presents only one side of the argument without providing a balanced view.
              • The title implies that a landmark rule has been passed when in fact it was scaled back from its original version.
            • Fallacies (75%)
              The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of business leaders and lawmakers without providing any evidence or reasoning for their positions. This is a form of informal fallacy known as 'appeal to authority'. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing criticism from opponents of the rule, stating that they are accusing Gensler of caving to business interests and Republican lawmakers by dropping some emissions requirements. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence or reasoning provided in the article. The author also commits a form of informal fallacy known as 'false dilemma' when describing the SEC's rule as being either too broad or too narrow, without providing any alternative options for disclosure that could be considered. Finally, the author uses an appeal to emotion by stating that some opponents of the rule are accusing Gensler of failing to adequately provide for investors and not taking climate change seriously enough. This is a form of informal fallacy known as 'appeal to emotion'.
              • The article contains several logical fallacies.
              • The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of business leaders and lawmakers without providing any evidence or reasoning for their positions.
            • Bias (85%)
              The article discusses a rule that requires companies to share how much they pollute. However, the final version of the rule was significantly watered down from its original version due to backlash from business leaders and lawmakers. The SEC dropped one of the most contentious elements of their initial proposal, requiring companies to disclose emissions they are indirectly responsible for (scope 3 emissions). This change was made based on public feedback, but it has been criticized by some groups who say that tracking these emissions would be overly expensive and difficult for companies. The new rule requires large public companies to disclose the direct and indirect greenhouse gas pollution they deem material, meaning important enough to share with investors. Examples of required emissions disclosures include waste produced by a manufacturing process or the amount of air conditioning used in an office building.
              • Examples of required emissions disclosures include waste produced by a manufacturing process or the amount of air conditioning used in an office building.
                • The SEC dropped one of the most contentious elements of their initial proposal, requiring companies to disclose emissions they are indirectly responsible for (scope 3 emissions).
                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                  None Found At Time Of Publication
                • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                  None Found At Time Of Publication

                70%

                The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                What the SEC vote on climate disclosures means for investors

                CNBC News Greg Iacurci Wednesday, 06 March 2024 18:01
                • Unique Points
                  • Climate risk is financial risk and transparency around it may be essential for investors to gauge if a company's stock is worth holding or not.
                  • The rule comes as the Biden administration pledged to cut U.S greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030.
                • Accuracy
                  • The SEC has voted to require climate disclosures from companies.
                • Deception (50%)
                  The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that climate disclosures are not mandatory under the current regime and companies make them voluntarily. However, this statement is misleading as there have been regulations in place since 2016 requiring certain companies to report on their greenhouse gas emissions.
                  • The article states that only large accelerated filers and accelerated filers must disclose Scope 1 and 2 emissions, but this is not entirely accurate. The SEC's final rule requires companies to report on their direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions if they are deemed material to investors. This information should be made clear in the article.
                  • The article claims that climate disclosures are not mandatory under the current regime; however, it fails to mention that there have been regulations in place since 2016 requiring certain companies to report on their greenhouse gas emissions. This is a deceptive statement as it implies that these disclosures are optional when they are actually required.
                • Fallacies (85%)
                  None Found At Time Of Publication
                • Bias (85%)
                  The article contains a statement that suggests the SEC's decision to require climate disclosures is a sensible rule to protect investors. This implies that there may be instances where companies are not providing clear and comparable information on their measures for managing climate risks and opportunities. The article also mentions Scope 3 emissions, which account for more than 70% of many businesses' carbon footprint but were stripped out of the final rule. This suggests a lack of transparency in these areas.
                  • The largest companies must start making some climate disclosures as early as fiscal 2025 and about greenhouse gas emissions as soon as fiscal 2026.
                  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                    Greg Iacurci has conflicts of interest on several topics related to climate change and investing. He is affiliated with Getty Images News, which may have a financial stake in companies or industries they are reporting on. He also quotes Win McNamee, who works for S&P Global, a company that provides ratings and research services to investors.
                    • Greg Iacurci mentions the need for transparency around climate risks and opportunities which is relevant to his affiliation with Getty Images News. He also quotes Win McNamee from S&P Global who may have financial interests in companies or industries they are reporting on.
                    • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                      None Found At Time Of Publication

                    49%

                    The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                    (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                    A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                    SEC Scales Back New Pollution-Disclosure Rules for Companies

                    Bloomberg News Now Lydia Beyoud, Thursday, 07 March 2024 06:43
                    • Unique Points
                      • . The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will force companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions for the first time.
                      • . However, watered down a key requirement after heavy lobbying from industry groups.
                      • The SEC voted Wednesday to impose climate-disclosure requirements that will be significantly softer than those it proposed in March 2022.
                      • In the biggest change, the regulator won't force companies to quantify pollution from their supply chains or customers, known as Scope 3 emissions.
                      • Additionally, firms will face a higher bar for when they need to reveal more direct carbon footprints in their regulatory filings.
                    • Accuracy
                      No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
                    • Deception (30%)
                      The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that new pollution-disclosure rules are being scaled back when in fact they have been significantly weakened. Secondly, the author uses sensationalist language such as 'watered down' and 'biggest change' to create a false sense of urgency and importance around these changes. Thirdly, the article fails to disclose that heavy lobbying from industry groups led to these watered-down requirements.
                      • The title implies that new pollution-disclosure rules are being scaled back when in fact they have been significantly weakened.
                    • Fallacies (0%)
                      The article contains several logical fallacies by the author. The author uses a false dilemma when she says that the SEC either has to impose strict climate-disclosure requirements or face litigation threats. This implies that there are no other possible options for regulation, which is not true.
                      • The article contains several logical fallacies by the author. The author uses a false dilemma when she says that the SEC either has to impose strict climate-disclosure requirements or face litigation threats. This implies that there are no other possible options for regulation, which is not true.
                      • The article also appeals to authority by citing industry groups as legitimate sources of opposition to the original proposal. The author does not provide any evidence or arguments to support these claims, and simply assumes that they speak for all stakeholders in the debate.
                    • Bias (75%)
                      The article is biased towards the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for weakening its climate-disclosure requirements. The author uses language that depicts the SEC as being pressured by industry groups to water down their proposal, which implies a negative bias against these groups. Additionally, the author uses examples of Scope 3 emissions to illustrate how companies can hide their pollution from regulators and stakeholders.
                      • Companies will face a higher bar for when they need to reveal more direct carbon footprints in their regulatory filings, which are known as Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions
                        • The regulator won't force companies to quantify pollution from their supply chains or customers
                        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                          The authors of the article have a conflict of interest with respect to one or more topics provided in the input data. The author's affiliation with industry groups may compromise their ability to report on climate-disclosure requirements and greenhouse gas emissions objectively.
                          • .
                            • (March 2022)
                              • The Securities and Exchange Commission
                              • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                The author Lydia Beyoud and Zahra Hirji have conflicts of interest on the topics of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), greenhouse gas emissions, climate-disclosure requirements, industry groups. The article does not disclose these conflicts.
                                • .
                                  • (March 2022)
                                    • The Securities and Exchange Commission