The Guardian.

From rising sea levels to more severe storms and more intense droughts, climate change will present serious risks to, and create major opportunities for, nearly every industry. Citizens, consumers, businesses, governments, and international organisations are all taking action. And entrepreneurs are developing disruptive technologies that will create and destroy value.

The challenge is that investors currently don’t have the information they need to respond to these developments. This must change if financial markets are going to do what they do best: allocate capital to manage risks and seize new opportunities. Without the necessary information, market adjustments to climate change will be incomplete, late and potentially destabilising.

Public policy, consumer demand and technological innovation are driving a shift towards a low-carbon economy. Which companies and industries are most, and least, dependent on fossil fuels? And who stands ready to provide resilient and sustainable infrastructure? Which financial institutions are best positioned to gain and which to lose? In every case, which firms have the governance, resources and the strategy to manage, and profit from, these major shifts?

We believe that financial disclosure is essential to a market-based solution to climate change. A properly functioning market will price in the risks associated with climate change and reward firms that mitigate them. As its impact becomes more commonplace and public policy responses more active, climate change has become a material risk that isn’t properly disclosed.

In response to a G20 request to consider the financial stability risks, the Financial Stability Board created a taskforce on climate-related financial disclosures. Its purpose is to develop voluntary, consistent disclosures to help investors, lenders and insurance underwriters manage material climate risks. As befits a solution by the market for the market, the taskforce is led by members of the private sector from across the G20, including major companies, large investors, global banks and insurers.

After a year of intensive work and widespread consultation its recommendations are now publicly available. They concentrate on the practical, material disclosures most relevant to investors and creditors and which can be compiled by all companies that raise capital as well as financial institutions.

We are pleased that all taskforce members, companies with market capitalisation of $1.5tn and financial institutions responsible for assets of $20tn, have announced their support for the disclosure recommendations. We encourage others to participate in the consultation, to become early adopters thereafter, and to encourage the companies in which they invest to also make the disclosures.

A year ago in Paris, 195 countries committed to limit the rise in global average temperatures to less than 2C. With better disclosure, a market in the transition to that world can be built. That market will expose the likely future cost of doing business, of paying for emissions, and of changing processes to avoid both those charges and tighter regulation. And it will help smooth price adjustments as opinions change, rather than concentrating them in a short, dangerous space of time.

Of course, given the uncertainties around climate, not everyone will agree on the timing or scale of adjustments required to achieve this goal. But the right information will allow optimists and pessimists, sceptics and evangelists, to back their convictions with their capital.

Early disclosure rules allowed 20th-century financial markets to grow our economies by pricing risks more accurately. The spread of such standards internationally has helped lift more than a billion people out of poverty. Climate-related disclosures could be as transformative for 21st-century markets.

Dura lex, sed lex.

>mfw i try and use the rule of law to justify capricious despotism

I bet you love giving random jobs as well.

Fucking Reds are asking for a slap.

China has flown a nuclear-capable bomber outside its borders in a show of force for the first time since US President-elect Donald Trump’s phone call with the president of Taiwan.

The 10-minute telephone call with President Tsai Ing-wen was the first by a US president-elect or president since President Jimmy Carter switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 1979, acknowledging Taiwan as part of ‘One China’. It led to protests from Beijing.

The Xian H-6 bomber flew along the disputed 'nine-dash line' around the South China Sea on Thursday, US officials told Fox News, passing over a number of disputed islands. The officials said it was designed to send a message to the incoming administration.

The Pentagon found out about the flight on Friday and officials said it was the first long-range flight along the demarcation line in more than 18 months – though this sortie extended further than previous ones.

The H-6 is the Chinese version of the Russian Tupolev Tu-16 jet bomber and has been used by China to drop nuclear devices in tests.

Mr Trump has used Twitter to criticise Beijing's policies, including the build-up of “a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea”.

Fox reported that Admiral Harry Harris, the head of US Pacific Command, had warned repeatedly about Chinese military build-up in the area over the last year. Satellites have shown China preparing to ship advanced surface-to-air missiles to contested islands, it said.

The US first adopted the “One China” policy in 1972 after meetings between Richard Nixon and Chairman Mao Tse-tung, and it was later solidified by President Jimmy Carter.

Under the policy, the US retains unofficial ties to Taiwan while recognising Beijing as representing China. China considers Taiwan a renegade country.

White House officials said they spoke with the Chinese leadership following Mr Trump’s call with President Tsai.

Federal officials called to reassure the country that the US still adheres to “One China”, which does not recognise Taiwan as its own sovereign nation.

Liberty for sure.

Chick-fil-a was defo chik-fil-a before though.

Fuck off bro it's chic-fil-a.

What I find confusing is that people are OK with an adversarial foreign power meddling in our election just because their guy won.

It's not confusing at all.

Some people clearly place a higher value on having their chosen president than they do on having a 'clean' election. Like when the Bolsheviks dissolved the National Assembly in 1917 after losing.

Dodgy? Sure. Confusing? Not at all. People just value things differently. And it's pretty evident that a lot of Trump voters believe a Clinton presidency, rightly or wrongly, would be worse for America than Russia leaking some emails.

Ted Bundy.

Quote from: MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE on December 11, 2016, 12:48:40 PM

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on December 11, 2016, 12:32:32 PM

Quote from: باب عيد الميلاد on December 11, 2016, 10:50:10 AM

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on December 11, 2016, 08:40:56 AM

inb4 "this proves Russia dindu nuffin"

Brah, Russia would've still dindu nuffin if they were behind the leaks. There's nothing wrong with exposing dirt on any political candidate or faction in any country.

>there is nothing wrong with interfering in a sovereign democratic election

nice ethical bankruptcy

No, there isn't. There's a problem with subverting one.

You could make a solid case that this is Russia's motivation, of course, but there's a difference between interference and subversion.

Subversion is a form of interference. You're truly delusional if you can't see that.

. . .

Yeah, I know. My point is that subversion is a specific form of interference. The space of actions that can be defined as interference is bigger than the space that can be defined as subversive.

They honestly just scare the fucking shit out of me. Worse than spiders.

Quote from: HubbleTurkeyscope on December 11, 2016, 02:05:25 PM

First "liberty" and now this? Are you having a stroke, Meta?

His MDMA habit has permanently disassociated him from reality as we know it.

This is almost certainly true.

Pissing clear liquid is healthy.

He's always had that. Are you from the Berenstein dimension?

Apparently so.

Even Rodin's Thinker is different for me.

I must've jumped realities.

It's always been liberty

>missing the point

Like I said, I'm trying to determine if anybody else remembers it at democracy.

It's "liberty"

YouTube

I know.

The point is I vividly remember it being democracy.

I'm basically trying to see if I can validate the Mandela Effect.

Question: What makes me believe him more than anyone else who says they have insider knowledge?

And why would I trust Assange to be forthcoming with details about his leakers?

Hasn't the FBI come out and said they don't think there was Russian involvement, while claims around the CIA are based on anonymous sources and not official statements?