Ever wondered if ‘net zero’ demands are all they’re cracked up to be? A recent challenge to the Alberta Securities Commission has sparked a fiery debate, exposing questions about climate reporting, investor influence, and the true cost of environmental policies. Is the quest for net zero really about science, or something else entirely?
A significant challenge to prevailing environmental reporting demands has emerged from the Friends of Science Society, who have issued an Open Letter to the Alberta Securities Commission. This strategic move directly responds to a complaint lodged by Investors for Paris Compliance concerning stringent net zero reporting requirements, unfolding as the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) itself announced a pause in its activities, signaling potential shifts in global climate policy approaches.
Investors for Paris Compliance positions itself as a group dedicated to holding Canadian publicly-traded companies accountable to their net zero promises. However, the timing of the Friends of Science Society’s counter-argument is particularly noteworthy, delivered just one day prior to the NZBA’s decision to temporarily halt its operations, casting a spotlight on the evolving landscape of investor activism and environmental governance.
The Friends of Science Society’s concerns are amplified by recent analyses from climate policy experts Roger Pielke, Jr. and Jessica Weinkle. Their reports suggest that central banks might be relying on exaggerated assessments of climate “damage,” raising serious questions about the methodologies used and potential conflicts of interest within the broader framework of environmental regulation and financial oversight.
This critique directly challenges previous calls for mandatory emissions measurement and disclosure, notably those made by Mark Carney during his tenure as UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. The Friends of Science Society points to a recently published US Department of Energy (DOE) report that refutes the notion of climate change as an existential threat, thereby suggesting that such mandatory reporting for carbon emissions might be largely unwarranted.
Furthermore, the Open Letter calls for an inquiry into the existence of a potential “climate cartel” operating within Canada, drawing parallels to findings uncovered by the Republican House Judiciary Committee in the United States. This suggests a deeper investigation into how environmental policies are formulated and potentially manipulated within the financial and energy sector.
The specific impetus for the Investors for Paris Compliance complaint reportedly concerns energy sector giants Cenovus and Enbridge. These corporations had previously withdrawn their published net zero plans, ostensibly to avoid being ensnared by “misinformation” claims under new, onerous legislative acts. Friends of Science Society had previously detailed the implications of such disclosure and new “greenwashing” regulations in a 2024 video.
Crucially, Friends of Science Society disputes the assertion that net zero plans are mandated under securities’ “material disclosure” laws. They cite a precedent from the US Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), where CEI argued that such “proposed disclosures are climate policy masquerading as materiality,” contending that such reporting unfairly targets disfavored industries for destruction, particularly impacting the energy sector.
The organization is particularly critical of the complex international system for evaluating corporate carbon emissions, highlighting the burdensome and expensive nature of disclosure requirements. Accounting for Scope 1, Scope 2, and especially Scope 3 (supplier/value chain) emissions is deemed virtually impossible to execute accurately, with estimates suggesting a multi-trillion dollar cost burden, notably affecting sectors like agriculture, underscoring the profound economic impact of these environmental regulations.
