Disclosure Issues Bedevil Climate-Change Debate


Big business is talking more these days about the need to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Even long-time global warming denier
Exxon Mobil feels the need to publicize
what it is doing in this regard. Claims of reductions in GHG are not,
however, meaningful unless those emissions are being estimated
consistently to begin with.

A study issued yesterday by the Ethical Corporation Institute raises
questions about how much we really know about the volume of GHG being
generated by large corporations. According to a press release about the report
(which is available only to those willing to fork over more than 1,000
euros), there are "staggering inconsistencies in how companies
calculate and verify their greenhouse gas emissions." The report found,
for instance, that companies responding to the fifth annual Carbon Disclosure Project
questionnaire used more than 30 different protocols or guidelines in
preparing their emissions estimates. The report, it appears, surveys
this potpourri of measurement techniques but does not attempt to
resolve the differences.

The absence of consistency has not prevented the Carbon Disclosure
Project from trying to use current reporting to understand the larger
framework of GHG trends. In May, the Project issued the first results of its Supply Chain Leadership Collaboration,
an initiative in which large companies such as Nestlé, Procter &
Gamble and Unilever urge their suppliers to report on their own carbon
footprint. It is unclear how much effort is made to ensure these
results are reported in a uniform manner.

Along with the need for improved GHG reporting, there are growing calls for companies to disclose the liability risks
(and opportunities, if any) associated with those emissions. Recently,
a broad coalition of institutional investors and major environmental
groups once again urged
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to clarify the obligations
of publicly traded companies to assess and fully disclose the legal and
financial consequences of climate change. The statement was aimed at
reinforcing a petition filed with the SEC last year on climate-change
disclosure.

Climate-change liability risks no longer exist just in the realm of the theoretical. Lawsuits
have been filed against the major oil companies for conspiring to
deceive the public about climate change-including one brought in the
name of Eskimo villagers in Alaska who are being forced to relocate
their homes because of flooding said to be caused by global warming. 
Famed climate scientist James Hansen recently declared
at a Capitol Hill event that oil and coal company executives could be
guilty of "crimes against humanity." If that isn't a risk worth
reporting, what is?


http://dirtdiggersdigest.org/archives/99

Dirt Diggers Digest is written by Philip Mattera, director of the Corporate Research Project, an affiliate of Good Jobs First.

AMP Section Name:Environment
  • 107 Energy
  • 190 Natural Resources