March, 21 2022, 01:22pm EDT

Climate Groups React to SEC Climate Disclosure Rule
Today the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed amendments to its climate disclosure rule that would enhance and standardize businesses' climate-related disclosures for investors.
Member organizations of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition and partners released the following statements in reaction to the news:
WASHINGTON
Today the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed amendments to its climate disclosure rule that would enhance and standardize businesses' climate-related disclosures for investors.
Member organizations of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition and partners released the following statements in reaction to the news:
"It is welcome news that the SEC is finally applying its long-held disclosure rulemaking practice to the financial risks posed by climate change, as many market participants of all types have requested. We are especially pleased to see a requirement for disaggregated reporting of carbon offsets, the use of which has long been rife with evidence of fraud, double-counting, dubious emissions-reductions claims, land rights violations, and other problems. Climate-related financial risks continue to increase, and market participants - including individuals, pension fund managers, and asset management firms - need to know how companies are approaching questions of supply chain emissions reductions, claims of avoided emissions via offsets, approaches to forest and biodiversity loss, how companies are interacting with communities defending ecosystems, and related issues. One area of concern is the treatment of Scope 3 emissions, which appears to set up a perverse incentive for firms to escape reporting requirements by not voluntarily mentioning Scope 3 in climate transition plans. Advocates will certainly be engaging with the SEC on this issue during the comment period" said Moira Birss, Climate and Finance Director at Amazon Watch
"Today the SEC took the long-overdue step of proposing a solution to the problem of undisclosed climate risks," said Ben Cushing, Campaign Manager for the Sierra Club's Fossil-Free Finance campaign. "Investors and the public deserve to know the climate-related risks that companies face and how they are being addressed. This is especially important given how many companies have made commitments to address their climate impact without disclosing the full scope of their emissions, the risks their own businesses face from climate change, or the relevant business plans to achieve their climate pledges. Understanding and mitigating growing climate risks is critical to building a stronger financial system and protecting investors and communities from climate-related shocks. We look forward to closely reviewing this proposal and offering suggestions to strengthen it, and we urge the SEC to move quickly to finalize the strongest rule possible."
"Today, the SEC finally moved toward catching up to global norms by applying its long-held rulemaking practices to the financial risks posed by climate change. Wall Street has been able to obscure its exposure to climate-related risks from investors for far too long. It was especially encouraging to see the SEC included a requirement for disaggregated reporting on carbon offsets, as they have been deployed in ways that have contributed to land rights violations, questionable emissions-reductions claims, and other issues. However, we're concerned that Scope 3 emissions disclosures are essentially left up to issuers to determine the materiality of these emissions. This shields issuers from liability for providing false information and allows firms to potentially omit disclosures for upwards of 75% of climate emissions and as much as 88% of the oil and gas sector's greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions have historically been concentrated in BIPOC communities, fueling generations of harm. We will push for the strongest possible rule during the comment period and raise our concerns with Scope 3 emissions, as well as the fact that environmental justice impacts are absent from the rule," said Erika Thi Patterson, Campaign Director for Climate and Environmental Justice, Action Center on Race and the Economy.
"The SEC's proposal is an important step toward protecting investors, ensuring fair and efficient markets, and supporting capital formation. With scientists providing ever starker warnings regarding the breadth and severity of climate-related harms, this proposal will give investors information they need to make informed investment decisions and allocate capital as they wish. Under today's proposed rule, the SEC moves toward bringing the U.S. in line with other countries already demanding disclosures, creating more transparency and leveling the playing field for companies who are serious about addressing climate-related risk. We urge the agency to carefully review suggestions for improvements to the rule and move quickly to adopt a rule that protects investors and markets," said Tracey Lewis, policy counsel at Public Citizen.
"Today's release is an important step in safeguarding US financial markets and protecting investors who have long asked for better climate-related disclosures from companies," said Kathleen Brophy, Senior Strategist with The Sunrise Project, "The Commission has proposed the disclosure of critical, decision-useful information like GHG emissions, but it also includes generous carve outs that more than address industry concerns around feasibility and reporting burden. We will focus our attention to these areas during the comment period in order to assist the Commission in finalizing the strongest possible rule."
"Shareholders deserve to understand and be protected from the increasing climate-related risks of the companies they are investing in, and today's reasonable proposal from the SEC is a good step towards better transparency and standardization." said David Shadburn, Government Affairs Advocate at the League of Conservation Voters. "We're glad to see the SEC meeting its mandate to protect investors and ensure well-functioning markets by taking climate risks seriously. Importantly, uniform climate risk disclosures will level the playing field and limit companies' ability to greenwash and make unsubstantiated emissions reduction pledges. We look forward to submitting comments in support of the strongest possible rule during the public comment period."
"There's no doubt that the climate crisis is an emerging and present threat to our financial institutions, and regulators need to step up to safeguard working families and investors.The Security and Exchange Commission's new draft rule for climate risk disclosure is an important first step to fulfill its mandate to protect investors and capital markets," said Evergreen Action Chief of Staff Lena Moffitt. "For too long, Wall Street has been allowed to conceal its exposure to climate-related risks from investors, leaving many Americans completely in the dark about a major threat to the long-term security of their life savings. By setting a clear standard for businesses to disclose data about their greenhouse gas emissions and climate risky assets, this rule will level the playing field and arm investors with vital information to protect their financial futures. We applaud Chair Gary Gensler for correcting this market deficiency as part of the SEC's ongoing mission to protect Americans. But this rule can and should be strengthened. Leaving it up to issuers to determine the materiality of Scope 3 emissions, and shielding those issuers from liability for providing false information, would allow issuers to omit the majority of their emissions from their disclosures. We will continue to engage through the comment period to ensure the final rule establishes a clear Scope 3 requirement, and look forward to the SEC's continued efforts to address the systemic threat to our economy posed by the climate crisis."
The Stop the Money Pipeline coalition is over 160 organizations strong holding the financial backers of climate chaos accountable.
LATEST NEWS
'Fundamentally Sick': Trump Border Agents Arrest Two Firefighters Battling Washington Wildfire
"What a sad, screwed up reflection of this unhinged administration and the harm they are inflicting on America," said one immigration advocate.
Aug 28, 2025
Elected officials in Washington are among those expressing outrage after federal agents took two firefighters into custody as they were helping to combat a local wildfire.
As reported by The Seattle Times, two firefighters were arrested on Wednesday while helping to put out the fire at Bear Gulch, located in Washington's Olympic Peninsula.
Sources told the paper that the arrests came after federal agents working in the area demanded that the two private contractors who were fighting the fire provide identification information on all their crew members.
One firefighter who was on the scene expressed incredulity that federal officials would conduct an immigration raid on a group of people who have been trying to put out a fire that is spread out across thousands of acres and is still far from contained.
"You risked your life out here to save the community," the firefighter told The Seattle Times. "This is how they treat us."
Local news station KING 5 confirmed that the two firefighters were taken into custody by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), although the specific reasons for the firefighters' detentions are still unknown.
Democratic Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson said that he was "deeply concerned" about the two firefighters being taken into custody, and he said he has "directed my team to get more information about what happened."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) was far more critical and outraged in her reaction to the arrests.
"Trump’s ICE is arresting firefighters who are ACTIVELY FIGHTING ONE OF THE LARGEST WILDFIRES IN THE UNITED STATES," she wrote on social media. "There aren't words to describe this cruelty. It's absurd and completely against America's best interests."
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) described DHS's actions in detaining the firefighters as "fundamentally sick."
"Trump has wrongly detained lawful green card holders and even CITIZENS," she emphasized. "No one should assume this was necessary. These firefighters put their lives on the line for us ALL and Trump is detaining them."
Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of the immigration advocacy organization America's Voice, described the arrests of the firefighters as a sad reflection of President Donald Trump's immigration policies as a whole.
"Perhaps nothing captures President Trump and Stephen Miller's obsession with mass deportation and purging the nation of immigrants than the news that, quite literally, this administration is prioritizing detaining firefighters over fighting fires," said Cárdenas. "What a sad, screwed up reflection of this unhinged administration and the harm they are inflicting on America."
The Trump administration in recent weeks has expanded the scope of immigration enforcement actions to include raids on California farms and on Home Deport parking lots where day laborers frequently gather. This appears to be the first time they have targeted firefighting crews in the middle of trying to contain a blaze, however.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Chilling Attempt to Evade Accountability': Trump to Boycott UN Human Rights Review
One ACLU expert said the move sets "a terrible precedent that would only embolden dictators and autocrats and dangerously weaken respect for human rights at home and abroad."
Aug 28, 2025
The ACLU on Thursday condemned President Donald Trump's administration for refusing to participate in a United Nations mechanism "that calls for each UN member state to undergo a peer review of its human rights records."
The president's decision to ditch the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) follows a February executive order withdrawing from various world bodies, including the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which he previously abandoned during his first term.
"The Trump administration's decision to boycott the UPR puts the US among the ranks of the worst violators of human rights," said Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU's Human Rights Program. "This move is a chilling attempt to evade accountability, setting a terrible precedent that would only embolden dictators and autocrats and dangerously weaken respect for human rights at home and abroad."
"The ACLU will continue to hold the Trump administration accountable for US human rights obligations and calls on Congress and state and local elected officials to join the fight to defend human dignity and everyone's basic rights and freedoms as promised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," Dakwar added.
trump/rubio say they're not participating in part b/c the council doesn't condemn human rights violators. THIS IS TOTAL BS. JOURNALISTS - please do not be stenographers on this. the council is far/very far from perfect. but it has been a major voice condemning violations globally.
— David Kaye (@davidakaye.bsky.social) August 28, 2025 at 11:22 AM
The Trump administration has faced mounting criticism since the February order, including after it missed an August 4 deadline to submit a national report in preparation for the next cycle of the UPR, set to take place in November.
After that deadline passed, the UPR Project at the United Kingdom's Birmingham City University and the UPR Academic Network released a joint statement noting that the US "participated in its previous three cycles of UPR in 2010, 2015, and 2020 and engaged as a recommending UN member state from the UPR's inception in 2008 until recently."
"The UPR is a nonconfrontational, cooperative mechanism which enables constructive dialogue between states on human rights. It is also a method of national self-reflection involving dialogue between civil society and the state," the signatories stressed, calling on the US to resume cooperation and other UN member states, UNHRC President Jürg Lauber, and the wider international community "to take appropriate steps and measures" encouraging the administration to do so.
The Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH) reshared that statement on social media Thursday, declaring that the US position is "threatening global human rights accountability and international dialogue," and this is a "critical moment for human rights!"
The ACLU and CLDH comments came after Agence France-Presse confirmed the Trump administration's refusal to participate in the review, reporting on a Thursday letter that the US mission sent to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk.
According to AFP:
Thursday's letter said that the UPR system, which was created after the establishment of the rights council in 2006, was meant to be "based on objective and reliable information and conducted in a manner that ensures equal treatment" of all countries.
"However, this is not the case today," it charged, adding that "the United States objects to the politicization of human rights across the UN system, as well as the UN's unrelenting selective bias against Israel."
It also accused the UN of "ignoring human rights abuses in China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela," which it said had "tarnished the UPR process" and other rights council mechanisms.
UNHRC spokesperson Pascal Sim told the news agency that "since the inception of the UPR in 2008, the secretariat has occasionally received requests from states to postpone reviews," often due to national crises, and the council will discuss how to proceed on the US review when it meets for a month beginning September 8.
Thursday's letter and the backlash come after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his department put out an annual report on other nations' human rights conditions earlier this month—a day after a coalition of LGBTQ+ and human rights groups sued over the administration's delay in releasing the congressionally mandated publication.
Amanda Klasing, Amnesty International USA's national director of government relations and advocacy, said at the time that the report made "clear that the Trump administration has engaged in a very selective documentation of human rights abuses in certain countries." Other critics highlighted Israel as an example of this.
Charles Blaha, a former State Department official who now serves as a senior adviser at DAWN, which advocates for democracy and human rights in the Middle East, called it "functionally useless for Congress and the public " and "nothing more than a pro-Israel document."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fed Gov. Lisa Cook Sues Trump Over 'Unprecedented and Illegal' Firing
The suit alleges a "pretextual" bid to oust Cook in order to "vacate a seat for President Trump to fill and forward his agenda to undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve."
Aug 28, 2025
US Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook on Thursday filed an anticipated lawsuit in response to President Donald Trump's contentious attempt to fire her—something no president has ever done in the 111-year history of the central bank's governing body.
"This case challenges President Trump's unprecedented and illegal attempt to remove Gov. Cook from her position which, if allowed to occur, would the first of its kind in the board's history," says the lawsuit, which was filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia, and names Trump, the Fed Board of Governors, and Fed Chair Jerome Powell as defendants.
The suit contends that Cook's termination "would subvert the Federal Reserve Act... which explicitly requires a showing of 'cause' for a governor's removal, which an unsubstantiated allegation about private mortgage applications submitted by Gov. Cook prior to her Senate confirmation is not."
The US Department of Justice last week launched a criminal investigation of alleged mortgage fraud committed by Cook. The DOJ referral accuses Cook of misrepresenting her primary residence information on mortgage documents for two properties in 2021 in order to secure more favorable loan terms.
Cook—who has not been criminally charged—denies any wrongdoing.
"The unsubstantiated and unproven allegation that Gov. Cook 'potentially' erred in filling out a mortgage form prior to her Senate confirmation does not amount to 'cause,'" the lawsuit argues. "Allowing the president to remove members of the board over policy disagreements would also render illusory the board's independence."
"The mortgage allegations against her are pretextual, in order to effectuate her prompt removal and vacate a seat for President Trump to fill and forward his agenda to undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve," the filing adds.
Cook's suit asks a federal judge to declare that Trump's bid to remove her is an illegal violation of her due process rights, that Fed governors may only be fired for cause, and that the unproven mortgage fraud claim does not constitute such cause. She is also seeking an injunction to bar Powell and the Fed board from firing her.
Trump's effort to fire Cook has been condemned by critics as another attempt to bully the Fed and Powell as the White House pressures the central bank to cut interest rates. Powell signaled last week that the Fed is inclined to lower interest rates during its meeting next month.
Cook is the third Trump political foe accused of mortgage fraud by his administration.
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte, a Trump appointee, has also targeted Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, who successfully sued the president and the Trump Organization for fraud, as well as Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who was the lead manager in the first of Trump's two House impeachments.
Cook, a nominee of former President Joe Biden, has served on the Fed Board of Governors since 2022. Her term is not set to expire until 2038. She is the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor.
Responding to Cook's lawsuit, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement that Trump had cause to fire the governor because she was "credibly accused of lying in financial documents from a highly sensitive position overseeing financial institutions."
However, Cook's alleged offense occurred the year before she joined the Fed board.
The president's bid to oust Cook could backfire—for him and Pulte—as the discovery process of her lawsuit may reveal "if the White House ordered a Trump loyalist to move against her," according to journalist Greg Sargent.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular