​Russia’s attempts to influence American politics in recent years is no secret, particularly when it comes to energy production. Which is why you’d expect policymakers to ensure proposed regulations stay clear of any association with the oppressive regime, especially in the wake of Russia’s war in Ukraine.
 
However, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) apparently is failing with its proposed climate disclosure rule. The following continues our series reviewing the questionable sources cited within the commission’s rule.
​
Our recent analysis conducted in the course of drafting our comment letter shows that significant crossover exists among the organizations funding the seven major climate initiatives cited in the proposed rule. The global network of non-profits that are pushing climate change policies through financial regulation are backed by numerous well-known activist philanthropies and climate groups that have pushed Keep-It-in-the-Ground policies for several years, such as Bloomberg Philanthropies, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), New Venture Fund (NVF), Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

• U.S. flaring intensity is down 46% since 2012
• Russian gas piped into Europe has 41% higher GHG emissions than U.S. LNG, even with the transportation emissions
• Venezuela’s flaring intensity is 18 times higher than ours
• Yet Interior Sec. Haaland couldn’t bring herself to admit that American production is more environmentally friendly.

 
A few years ago, France held up a U.S. LNG import project over alleged concerns about methane emissions, as if the alternative of Russian gas was cleaner. France was trying to make a point about Trump methane rules, despite the fact that every molecule of natural gas at the wellpad controlled by the Obama methane rule was captured by the Trump rule. But of course that was not the narrative in the media. We also now know more about how Russia funds antifracking activism in Europe as a means of crowding out U.S. competition and asserting its energy hegemony over the continent. That decision’s aged particularly poorly since the invasion of Ukraine.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) says its proposed disclosure rule is necessary to meet a growing demand by investors for information on publicly traded companies’  climate change risk. Yet only a small fraction of American asset managers are interested in such regulations whereas the majority of the pressure is from Europe. Today, we get granular to further show the weakness of SEC’s case.
 
The following continues our series based on our white paper that provides more detail.
 
SEC justifies the proposed rule as necessary to meet “significant investor demand for information about how climate conditions may impact their investments. That demand has been increasing in recent years.” SEC cites to a well-known letter to investors in 2020 from BlackRock Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Larry Fink as proof of investor demand. Fink wrote that, “BlackRock announced a number of initiatives to place sustainability at the center of our investment approach,” including exiting investments in coal.

​Absent from SEC’s discussion is any reference to the robust public debate and criticism of BlackRock’s letter and its continued investments in the coal and oil sectors. Mr. Fink’s letter is presented by SEC as though it is widely popular and uncontroversial, and that cannot be further from the truth.