The Carbon Debate

Well, things are moving along, with or without Congress. You know it's real when the SEC gets involved.

The ultimate fate of carbon policies may be up in the air. But utilities and industrial enterprises are still under pressure to report their climate-related activities to investors.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has voted 3-2 along party lines to force companies to consider their potential exposure to climate change when it comes to filing their financial statements. While the position is one that the Obama administration has advocated, its genesis formed a few years earlier as investor and environmental groups joined hands to petition the body for uniform rules.

"The transition to a carbon-constrained economy is underway, and public access to material information concerning the risks and opportunities that companies face, and their means of addressing those risks and opportunities, is vital to investors," writes the California Public Employees' Retirement System.

The group, which asked the SEC more than two years ago for guidance, says that disclosure should include corporate policies and governance structures related to climate change as well as a tabulation of the registrant's current and forecasted greenhouse gas emissions. As such, investors need to know what the potential financial risks may be along with any climate change-associated litigation. [energycentral.com]

Piracy - a military matter? or a commercial matter?

First of all, here's a link to a very interesting map of pirate attacks around the world. They certainly are clustered around Somalia, but there are some off the Americas as well.

My bigger question, raised when the US military got involved with the latest big act of piracy and hostage taking:
Is this a military matter, where commerce is part of the national interest and should be protected?

Or is it a commercial matter, where insurance against piracy is simply the cost of doing business? This seems to be the attitude, by and large, up to this point.

Here's my opinion: dealing with piracy should be a private, commercial matter. The consumers of the goods being shipped will pay the additional costs for the safety of transport. If the matter is taken over by the military then you and I, the taxpayers, are subsidizing the businesses that choose to use this shipping lane. Why should I do that? If I'm a purchaser of those goods, I'll make the decision whether or not I'm still going to purchase at a higher price and then the market sends a clear signal on whether that shipping lane should be used.

I haven't seen any media discussion of this. Has anyone?