[btomba_77]

[link=http://www.syracuse.com/schools/index.ssf/2015/04/syracuse_university_to_divest_fossil_fuel_investments.html]http://www.syracuse.com/s…_fuel_investments.html[/link]
 

Syracuse University is ending its direct investment in coal mining and other fossil fuel companies.
 
The university announced the policy change Tuesday, after years of student and faculty calls to do so. Last fall, [link=http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/11/su_students_plan_protest_today_to_call_for_more_racial_diversity_and_student_inp.html]student protesters, calling for divestment[/link], among other issues, occupied SU’s administration building for 18 days.

[ruszja]

It worked really well with apartheid. Forced them to their knees basically…..

Divesting from coal is a good idea as long as gas is cheap. I hope they succeed, leaves more coal stocks for me.

[Unknown Member]

Dont waste your money in Coal stocks
 
Natural gas is where is the future action is at

[leann2001nl]

sounds like they’re trying to mix social policy and economic policy. can’t be good for business. I doubt the people donating to their trust fund are pleased that it’s being run based on social views instead of economic ones. 

 

[btomba_77]

It is most certainly a mix of economic and social policy.  That is precisely what divestment is.
 
 
It is nothing new to have University endowments managed with an eye toward social issues.    
 
Alumni run on both sides of the issue as you could guess.  I am sure that the trustees spoke to numerous stakeholders before deciding to go forward.   
 
If you count social media as informal polling (probably a dangerous thing to do) most university alumni groups speaking about the issue are in favor of divestment.
 
 
The big question is whether it will actually work.  It took decades for the anti-apartheid divestment movement to reach critical mass and actually have enough effect to put economic pressure on the South African regime.     I would estimate that the demand for coal stocks is even more resilient and demand for the product global, meaning the current pressure would have to increase by a number of orders of magnitude in order to force real industry change.
 
What it can do is provide money for alternative energy businesses as institutions redirect their divested funds into socially/environmentally responsible organisations.   This can be critical in keeping renewables viable and increasing in adoption.

[ruszja]

Quote from dergon

Alumni run on both sides of the issue as you could guess.  I am sure that the trustee spoke to numerous stakeholders before deciding to go forward.   

Todays alumni are not ‘stakeholders’. The people ho bequeathed their money to the university did so in the understanding that the endowment would be managed in a responsible manner for the benefit of the university. If todays trustees decide to manage the endowment for the benefit of someone else (polarbears, green venture capitalists) they betray that trust.

The big question is whether it will actually work.  It took decades for the anti-apartheid divestment movement to reach critical mass and actually have enough effect to put economic pressure on the South African regime.

You still believe divestment had an effect on SA ?

What it can do is provide money for alternative energy businesses as institutions redirect their divested funds into socially/environmentally responsible organisations.   This can be critical in keeping renewables viable and increasing in adoption.

So far, those investments are very dependent on how the political wind is blowing. Not a prudent investment for an endowment or charitable trust. Wanna buy some ethanol stocks, wind towers, solyndra ?

[btomba_77]

[font=”arial,helvetica,sans-serif”][size=”3″]I think divestment certainly played a significant role in the end of apratheid. [/size][/font]
 
[font=”arial,helvetica,sans-serif”][size=”3″] Both  F.W. de Klerk (“When the divestment movement began, I knew that apartheid had to end.” ) and Mandela thought so too. [/size][/font]
 
 
[font=”arial,helvetica,sans-serif”][size=”3″] I know that there is a counter argument that businesses started leaving SA due to poor economic conditions rather than divestment, but it was in good part the divestment that began weaking the SA economy.    [/size][/font]
 
 
 
[font=”arial,helvetica,sans-serif”][size=”3″] Divestment also had an even more important down-stream political effect, bringing the issue to light in the public eye and thus helping force Western governments into action with additional sanctions.   [/size][/font]
 
 
[font=”arial,helvetica,sans-serif”][size=”3″] So yes, I do believe that. [/size][/font]

[ruszja]

Quote from dergon

[font=”arial,helvetica,sans-serif”][size=”3″]I think divestment certainly played a significant role in the end of apratheid. [/size][/font]

[font=”arial,helvetica,sans-serif”][size=”3″] Both  F.W. de Klerk (“When the divestment movement began, I knew that apartheid had to end.” ) and Mandela thought so too. [/size][/font]

[font=”arial,helvetica,sans-serif”][size=”3″] I know that there is a counter argument that businesses started leaving SA due to poor economic conditions rather than divestment, but it was in good part the divestment that began weaking the SA economy.    [/size][/font]

[font=”arial,helvetica,sans-serif”][size=”3″] Divestment also had an even more important down-stream political effect, bringing the issue to light in the public eye and thus helping force Western governments into action with additional sanctions.   [/size][/font]

[font=”arial,helvetica,sans-serif”][size=”3″] So yes, I do believe that. [/size][/font]

They may believe that but there is just little macroeconomic data to support the claim that it affected the SA economy in any measurable way. The reality is that SA produced 65% of world gold in 1983, now they produce 6%. A lot of capacity came online in the 80s and the price decreased or was stagnant . Same with many other minerals they produce.

Yesterday I had two drinks with dinner. Today is good boating weather. My drinking caused the weather to be good. Same thing.

[kayla.meyer_144]

There’s a lot of evidence existing just to dismiss it all as wishful liberal fabrication. And SA gold production didn’t really fall off until the mid-90’s.
 
 

[ruszja]

Quote from Frumious

There’s a lot of evidence existing just to dismiss it all as wishful liberal fabrication. And SA gold production didn’t really fall off until the mid-90’s.

 
Got that right, it only went down by half throughout the 80s and things really went to s^^^ in the 90s when the new goverment brought on labor unrest to finish off the industry.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Peak gold production was 1970 followed by a steep decline, long before the labor unrest of the mid 1990’s.
 
[attachment=0]

[ruszja]

Quote from Frumious

Peak gold production was 1970 followed by a steep decline, long before the labor unrest of the mid 1990’s.

And again had nothing to do with some university or pension fund rebalancing their portfolio to shut up some loudmouth activists. SAs exports in those days were dominated by mining products, the fortunes of the country were tied to the commodities markets, not whether some university CFO felt guilty.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Rather like Cheney’s opinion about personally reducing pollution & energy, nice small and feel-good gesture that amounts to nothing. However South Africa still lost a lot of investment and revenue over the years as a result of the empty feel-good measures.
 
[link=http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/protest-divestment-south-africa.asp]http://www.investopedia.c…tment-south-africa.asp[/link]

From 1985 to 1990, over 200 U.S. companies cut all ties with South Africa, resulting in a loss of $1 billion in direct American investment. South Africa was ravaged by [link=http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalflight.asp]capital flight[/link] as businesses, investors and money left the country. The [link=http://www.investopedia.com/terms/forex/z/zar-south-african-rand.asp]rand[/link], South Africa’s currency, was significantly devalued and inflation reached double digits. The economic situation, as well as the resistance efforts of those suffering under apartheid, meant South Africa’s system had to come to an end.

 
[link=http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/12/07/nelson-mandela-divestment-the-end-of-apartheid.aspx]http://www.fool.com/inves…-end-of-apartheid.aspx[/link]
 

The divestment campaign became so significant that it made pariahs of the dwindling cohort of companies still willing to transact with the Apartheid regime. The effect was so profound that Nelson Mandela specifically recognized the movement after his release from prison. In a 1990 speech at the Oakland Coliseum, Mandela acknowledged the Campaign Against Apartheid — one of the main campus organizations — by name, thanking them for their solidarity and contributions to the anti-Apartheid struggle.
Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu drew an explicit link in a [link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/desmond-tutu/divesting-from-injustice_b_534994.html]2010 piece he wrote[/link] in the Huffington Post.
[blockquote] [i]In South Africa, we could not have achieved our freedom and just peace without the help of people around the world, who through the use of non-violent means, such as boycotts and divestment, encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the Apartheid regime.[/i]
[/blockquote]

 

Divestiture alone didn’t bring about the end of apartheid, it did have a significant effect on SA’s economy & willingness of businesses to do business with South Africa.

[ruszja]

Quote from Frumious

From 1985 to 1990, over 200 U.S. companies cut all ties with South Africa, resulting in a loss of $1 billion in direct American investment.

 
All of the large multinationals continued to do business in SA throughout the sanctions period, usually through their swiss, UK or german subsidiaries. You wanted to buy Caterpillar equipment, you just had to send your order to a PO box in Singapore. ‘Foreign Direct Investments’ is a technical term and yes those decreased during the eighties, but that didn’t keep funds, companies or investors from making smaller portfolio investments in SA corporations. There were many other moving parts in the south african economy at the time, mostly the political unrest that scared the international money away. Combine that with increasing government expenses to control the population and some poor government decisions on economic controls (currency limitations) that made it an unattractive place to invest capital. The overriding issue was the concern that the country could have a violent overthrow and go full-bore socialist.
South africans ended apartheid, not some college professors in the US.

[btomba_77]

Nice piece on hydrocarbon divestment in the [i]New Republic[/i]
 
[url=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121848/does-divestment-work]Divestment Won’t Hurt Big Oil, and That’s OK[/url] 
 

If divestment campaigners’ only aim were to move markets, theyd have a point. Its near-impossible to prove that divestment alone has ever had any financial bearing on their targets. Even the impact of divestment campaigns widely considered a successlike South Africa’s apartheid in the 1980s and tobacco in the 1990sis unclear. 
 
Does that even matter?
 
Divestment is not a strategy in itself, but a useful tactic for driving home the message of the broader campaign: In the case of climate change, the message is how the world needs to transition away from fossil fuels, and relatively fast, if it hopes to combat global warming. In the 1970s and 80s, divestment was the magnifying glass to focus attention on the United States governments apathy toward apartheid and Nelson Mandelas imprisonment in South Africa. 
 
The tobacco divestment movement borrowed heavily from the apartheid movement, but the campaigns originated in distinct ways. Public health experts and doctors led the calls to divest pensions and university funds from Big Tobacco.  
 
Both are considered a successthough not because they financially impacted their targets. They didnt. [b]Financial hardship was never the goal; the goal was political action.[/b]
 
 
climate change is a slightly different kind of movement. The reasons divestment is an attractive option are exactly why climate change is so difficult to solve: It affects everyone, but over a long time period, and corporations today hold a disproportionate power over young people’s future.  
Not every divestment campaign reaches the critical mass necessary, attracting larger and larger institutions to the cause. A study on stranded assets (the idea that fossil fuel assets will lose value due to climate change policy and become stranded) from the University of Oxford noted that [b]divestment’s ability to stigmatize poses the most far-reaching threat to fossil fuel companies. [/b]
 
All signs point to the climate movement already hitting this stage. 
 
However, that sentiment needs qualification: Most investors arent driven by public campaigns, but they do look at the risk of the investment and the likelihood of future regulations. Conceivably in the near future, if policies curbing carbon regulation truly take hold, investments in fossil fuels might become whats known as stranded assets. Whats advocacys role in all this? The campaign is helping to accelerate that process, Caldecott said.
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

One of the salient points in the article is about the issue of cost undermining the arguments. People have to realize the real cost of energy.
 
Many people are installing solar panels on their roofs. Many do it for climate reasons but there is no incentive like saving expenses to help. Listening to some interviews of some customers of Solar City, they said their primary incentive to lease the panels had to do with cost over the environment issues. Hardly a surprise there. But what people don’t realize is that much fossil fuel energy is so cheap due to subsidies we all are paying, we just don’t receive an annual or monthly bill that states “energy subsidies” so the cost becomes invisible & the cost we do see is the cheap cost of fruit imported from the other side of the world that is cheaper than local fruit, for example. How is that possible in the real world? Some see the solution as a carbon tax. But IMO, that is like getting a discount and an applied surcharge. What? That can make sense in some situations but the problem is that the carbon tax is visible while the subsidy is invisible so the carbon tax becomes the enemy. Calling it a “tax” also doesn’t help. Labels matter. Carbon tax surcharge vs present cost of energy at the pump or register, the tax is a sure loser.
 
Before we apply a carbon tax we should make people aware of the cost of subsidies. Rather like healthcare, you never know the real cost until maybe the bill comes in. Allow consumers to know the cost of subsidies not just the cost of the carbon tax. The Kochs will scream but only an informed consumer and taxpayer will really counter the real costs & create alternatives.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Not a level playing field, the alternative energy companies are still fighting more uphill battle than the fossil energy companies. And like Microsoft  vs Apple in the 1990’s, fossil fuels have the large established base that alternatives don’t have but are making inroads into. Consider Apple was a laughing stock of most investors then, look at Microsoft now. No one ever gets fired for making the safe bets that most everyone else is doing. And the fossil fuels are still raking in massive subsidies as well as scale of efficiency simply due to their footprint. And cheaper oil is helping to keep the alternative markets down.
 
But that said, I wouldn’t bet against the alternative markets either except only in the short term. Solar for example has grown larger than predicted by the anti-alternatives only a few short years ago. And there is impetus to seek alternatives over fossils for many reasons including climate-change and pollution.
 
Apple and Tesla are researching better battery technology, Toyota is researching hydrogen-cell technology with teh goal of rolling out autos using hydrogen cells, not fossil fuels. Solar is becoming more efficient and other companies are researching into other alternatives. So Solyndra didn’t make it due to being undercut by Chinese selling at below cost, like the Saudis are doing to fossil fuels & American efforts. Americans are already feeling the Saudi effort.
 
Maybe the government & states need to disinvest and providing subsidies & tax breaks and credits to fossil fuel companies if Solyndra’s investment was so evil. Try selling that in North Dakota and Oklahoma and Texas about oil and gas, you’ll be tun out of the states for removing the candy. Forget about ethanol.
 
Alternatives are down but not out and are growing. Don’t bet the farm against alternatives.We’ve already come a long way and growing.
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

As the Oklahoma residents whose homes are being damaged by Oklahoma’s “natural earthquakes” are told, do your part to support the oil & gas industry.
 
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/us/as-quakes-rattle-oklahoma-fingers-point-to-oil-and-gas-industry.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…-and-gas-industry.html[/link]
 

A 5.0-magnitude earthquake the first of three as strong or stronger over several days in November 2011 had peeled the brick facade from the $117,000 home she bought the year before. Ms. Cooper, 36, could not get out until her father pried a stuck storm door off the front entrance. Repairs have so far cost $12,000 and forced her to take a second job, at night, to pay the bill.

[b]At a packed town hall meeting days later, Ms. Cooper said, state officials called the shocks, including a 5.7 tremor that was Oklahomas largest ever, an act of nature, and it was nobodys fault.[/b]
 
Then, in February, came a class-action lawsuit against the two companies by Ms. Cooper, whose house in Prague was heavily damaged. Her suit seeks compensation for quake damage not only to her home, but to any homes in nine counties surrounding Prague.

That case has yet to be heard. But Ms. Ladras suit, now before the State Supreme Court, previews the industry response: The wells operate legally, and regulators should hear complaints against them. Letting juries decide their culpability in earthquakes invites financial disaster.

I dont want to belittle the publics concern about earthquake swarms. I live here, too, Robert G. Gum, a lawyer for New Dominion, said at an October hearing. But its no more important to the people sitting in this courtroom and the people in this state than the states economy. Its no more important in recognizing how important the oil and gas industry is to that economy.

If juries hold the companies liable for Pragues earthquakes, he added, I doubt if this is the last lawsuit that will get filed. These wells will become economic and legal liability pariahs. They will be shut down.
 
To Ms. Cooper, that message is clear. People need to just take their losses for the greater good of the oil and gas companies you know, do your part, she said.

 
Makes Solyndra’s investment loss look like a cake-walk. Chump change.
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Further on divestment:
 
[link=http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/22/3662053/axa-insurance-coal-divestment/]http://thinkprogress.org/…rance-coal-divestment/[/link]
 

Citing climate change as a major threat, one of the worlds largest insurance companies has pledged to [link=http://www.axa.com/en/news/2015/climate_insurance.aspx]drop[/link] its remaining investment in coal assets while tripling its investment in green technologies.
At a business and climate change conference held this week in Paris, AXA Frances largest insurer announced that it would sell 500 million ($559 million) in coal assets by the end of 2015, while increasing its green investments in things like renewable energy, green infrastructure, and green bonds to 3 billion ($3.3 billion) by 2020.
Insurers are the mirror of what happens in the economy and in the society, he said. We try to increase what we do on the prevention side.
A study published in [i][link=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7533/full/nature14016.html#access]Nature[/link][/i] in January found that in order to limit global warming to 2°C, 80 percent of the worlds current coal reserves would need to remain unused from 2010 and 2050. 
AXAs move away from fossil fuel assets broadens support for the [link=http://gofossilfree.org/commitments/]divestment movement[/link], which until now has largely been lead by churches, universities, and socially conscious investment funds. According to the [link=http://www.ft.com/intl/fastft/327832]Financial Times[/link], AXA is the first global financial institution to divest from investments in coal companies.

 
Also add to the cost equation, the costs due to spills and accidents. See California’s spill & BP’s & Exxon and so many others.
 
See Chernobyl.
 
 

 

[btomba_77]

[url=https://af.reuters.com/article/africaTech/idAFL8N1NM27S]
Norway’s $1 trillion wealth fund proposes to drop oil, gas stocks from index[/url][/h1]  
 

If accepted by the finance ministry and adopted by parliament, the fund would over time divest billions of dollars from oil and gas stocks, which now represent 6 percent – or around $37 billion – of the funds benchmark equity index.
 
The proposal came in a letter sent by the central bank to the finance ministry and signed by its governor, Oeystein Olsen, and the chief executive of the fund, Yngve Slyngsad, Deputy Central Bank Governor Egil Matsen said in an interview.

 
Not a political move… it’s financial diversification because Norway already is so dependent on oil extraction in its economy.

[kaldridgewv2211]

I thought there economy was based on wool sweaters.  

[btomba_77]

[link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-12/bp-ceo-says-he-ll-sell-oil-projects-to-meet-climate-targets]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-12/bp-ceo-says-he-ll-sell-oil-projects-to-meet-climate-targets[/link]
 
[b]BP Shareholders pass climate resolution, CEO will sell oil projects to comply[/b]
 

Senior BP executives met within the last few days to discuss how to cut carbon as it grapples with a shareholder resolution requiring the company to explain how its spending is aligned with Paris, Chief Executive Officer Bob Dudley said on a Wednesday conference call organized by [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/JPM:US]JPMorgan Chase & Co.[/link]

One proposal weighed up by BPs management team was exiting the most carbon-intensive projects, though Dudley wouldnt say which assets were targets because there are governments and partners involved.

We are certain weve got a path, it may not be linear, to being consistent with Paris goals, Dudley said in conversation with JPMorgans head of European oil research Christyan Malek. There are going to be projects that we dont do, things that we might have done in the past. Certain kinds of oil, for example, that has a different carbon footprint.

His comments offer a response to increasingly severe criticism aimed at the entire oil industry over its contribution to man-made climate change. BPs own shareholders [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-21/bp-bosses-get-public-grilling-on-climate-from-largest-investors]sparred[/link] with company managers at its annual general meeting in May, before voting almost unanimously to require the company to issue a report about how each new investment is aligned with Paris. The report will be issued before its next AGM in May 2020.

[/QUOTE]
 
_____
 
Related:
 
[link=https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49330150]https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49330150[/link]
 
[h1]Can big investors save the world?[/h1]  

Climate Action 100+ is a group of more than 360 investors with more than $34tn (£28tn) in assets under management.

They are worried not just about damage to the planet, but about the long-term viability of their investments. In short, irreversible harm to the environment would reduce or even wipe out the value of those investments.

This group, which includes influential institutional investors such as the Church of England Commissioners, aims to engage with “systemically important emitters” in which they hold shares to curb greenhouse gas emissions and improve governance.

One of those firms is the oil giant BP, which recently had its annual general meeting.
[/QUOTE]
 

[katiemckee84_223]

“Save the world”
 
You can’t make this hysteria up.
 
We’ve seen it for the entire 20th century. Alarmism.
 
Ice age. Food shortages. Demographic problems.
 
All proven totally nonsensical and false. Paul Erlich was the poster child, lol
 
[link=http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/]http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/[/link]
 
 
And that’s JUST since 1970. LOL
 
It’s funny when religious people make fun of other religious people; even funnier when the humans that are religious and have the same characteristics claim they aren’t.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Ice age? Clearly you’ve been hitting the sauce. Stop hallucinating.

[Unknown Member]

Have you seen the population growth projections for Africa in the coming century? Who will feed them?

[kaldridgewv2211]

That’s one of the national security concerns if you’re thinking out years. Climate changes, people will fight for water and resources. Also fighting over the Arctic.

[btomba_77]

[b]SEC to Force Companies to Disclose CLimate Risks [/b][/h1]  
[link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-fight-brews-as-sec-moves-toward-mandate-for-risk-disclosure-11624267803?mod=politics_lead_pos2]Wall Street Journal[/link]: The Securities and Exchange Commission is preparing to require public companies to disclose more information about how they respond to threats linked to climate changeand businesses are gearing up for a fight.
 
Energy and transportation companies have told the SEC that climate disclosures could be misunderstood by investors who lack experience with the data or put too much weight on one factor, like a companys total greenhouse-gas emissions.

 

[btomba_77]

[link=https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/571643-harvard-announces-divestment-from-fossil-fuels?fbclid=IwAR3WQMYBqV7aH-MsifsOoT-GEPP1VM3ukyCdT_StoMxj0Ex1F7New0B24C4]https://thehill.com/polic…_StoMxj0Ex1F7New0B24C4[/link]

[b]Harvard announces divestment from fossil fuels[/b][/h1]  
Harvard University President Larry Bacow on Thursday announced it will pull its $42 billion investment from fossil fuel industries, making it one of the wealthiest and most prestigious institutions to do so.
 
[link=https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2021/climate-change-update-on-harvard-action/]In a letter[/link], Bacow said the university has already withdrawn all direct investments in fossil fuel companies and will also foreswear any future investments, as well as allowing indirect investments through private equity to expire.
 
The last several months have laid at our feet undeniable evidence of the world to comemassive fires that consume entire towns, unprecedented flooding that inundates major urban areas, record heat waves and drought that devastate food supplies and increase water scarcity, Bacow wrote. Few, if any, parts of the globe are being spared as livelihoods are dashed, lives are lost, and regions are rendered unlivable.
 

[btomba_77]

[link=https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2F23058987%2Fsec-climate-finance-disclosure]The SEC did a sensible thing on climate change. A right-wing campaign is trying to kill it.[/link]
[h3]Right-wing groups claim financial transparency is an attack on free speech[/h3] Unsurprisingly, the SEC is facing immense pressure to withdraw this rule because of the same shadowy political spending that companies dont have to disclose in the first place. Groups like the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, Americans for Prosperity, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute have flooded the SEC with comments that argue company free speech would be violated.

Trade groups and right-wing think tanks have argued that requiring companies to report these emissions is akin to violating their First Amendment rights of free speech, pointing to a court case that ruled a regulation requiring the disclosure of conflict-zone minerals would amount to [link=https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fglobalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu%2Fcases%2Fnational-assn-of-manufacturers-v-securities-and-exchange-commission%2F]compelled speech[/link] and violated the companies rights.

The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry lobby, has [link=https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.documentcloud.org%2Fdocuments%2F20892344-comments-to-sec-on-esg-rule%23document%2Fp33%2Fa2075289]argued[/link] the rule could raise serious First Amendment issues under recent applying strict scrutiny to content-based laws compelling speech.