Can Markets Respond to Climate Risk Without Government?

If the legal foundation for federal climate regulation disappears, what happens to climate risk pricing in credit and equity markets? Can markets respond to the climate crisis without the participation of government?

The 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding wasn’t just a legal trigger for Clean Air Act regulation—it functioned as a risk signal for capital markets. For some asset managers, insurers, lfinishers, corporate boards, etc., it signaled that climate risk could become a financial risk becautilize of the potential for regulatory action. So these players could justifiably incorporate climate risk into valuations, loan covenants, and so on. When you rerelocate that signal, you don’t eliminate the underlying physical and transition risks, nor the potential accrual pathways to financial performance, but you do create regulatory uncertainty by reshifting a “lever.” And markets have historically priced non-regulated risks poorly and inconsistently.

I consider what we will see is a fracturing or volatility in pricing rather than a disappearance. Here are a few examples I can consider of:

Large institutional lfinishers—particularly those with significant European lfinishing exposure—will continue pricing physical climate risk (including flood, drought, and heat stress, as well as their effects on cash flow) becautilize those risks are real regardless of U.S. regulatory posture. However, if federal carbon regulation is off the table, risks like fossil fuel infrastructure becoming stranded will probably fade away for creditors, becautilize there is no indication that we are near peak oil utilize yet.

The risk doesn’t vanish from the public balance sheet—it just relocates from ex ante regulatory cost to ex post disaster expfinishiture, almost certainly at higher total cost.

In equity markets, I don’t consider we will see significant relocatement from the large players. Passive index funds with ESG mandates—many governed by European regulatory frameworks like the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation—can’t simply ignore climate factors becautilize a U.S. administration notifys them to. Large U.S. public pension funds in politically conservative states are already under legislative pressure to abandon ESG-integrated analysis and this does not alter the reaction they have already had.

The SEC’s climate disclosure rule was already comatose and I consider this probably builds the efforts to revive it under another administration more difficult. However, voluntary frameworks, like the one from the Tquestion Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, are still around and still quite popular for companies that are attempting to navigate the real financial risks of climate alter. But if a company does not have a good story to notify on climate risk, they probably won’t build disclosures. So we will see a poorer signal in the marketplace on where the climate risks will be felt most acutely.

For the most part, I consider markets will continue to work hard at accurately pricing climate risks. However, the systemic risks will be harder to predict or price without government support. This is not directly related to the Endangerment Finding, but the simultaneous erosion of federal climate data will build assessing scenarios of systemic risk much more difficult, which will obscure potential tipping points as they occur. And many tipping points beyond a 2°C threshold are essentially uninsurable (e.g., wildfire and drought in the U.S. West).

If U.S. federal climate regulation disappears, three things become more likely simultaneously: physical climate damages accelerate (reducing the base of investable assets and collateral for loans), private insurance retreats (concentrating losses on individuals and eventually the federal government through disaster relief—although the government has simultaneously gutted FEMA), and the market signal for decarbonization investment becomes harder to discern. Each of these increases the eventual fiscal burden on the same government that stepped back from regulation. The risk doesn’t vanish from the public balance sheet—it just relocates from ex ante regulatory cost to ex post disaster expfinishiture, almost certainly at higher total cost.

What is the impact of the decision likely to be on the internal strategic decision building of U.S. firms? Will they continue to set climate goals?

Imagine a two-by-two matrix. One axis is whether the company has already priced the financial impact of climate risk (yes/no). The other is whether the company has described controls for managing climate impacts (yes/no). The company’s response will be largely determined by where it sits on that matrix today:

Yes/Yes: These companies have already priced out the risks and opportunities and have already identified a strategy to manage and take advantage. No alter; the goals will continue to be strategically important.

No/No: Whatever reasons they had for not doing the analysis before will still apply. No alter.

Yes on pricing analysis/No on controls: These companies will likely retreat from climate disclosures and tarreceives. They are not ready to fully take advantage of climate-related opportunities and they create risk of liability and extra cost by disclosing climate impact without a solid understanding of how they will benefit in the face of these risks.

No on pricing analysis/Yes on controls: These companies will probably also retreat becautilize discussing controls for a risk that is not tangible is a loss leader.

Some other considereds on what might happen to certain types of companies:

Multinationals with significant European revenue or operations must still abide by the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, which requires large companies operating in the EU to disclose climate-related financial impact information. The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) creates direct carbon costs on certain imports; so, for example, a U.S. steel or cement company selling into Europe faces a carbon price regardless of U.S. regulation.
Companies with long asset planning cycles like utilities, real estate investment trusts, infrastructure firms, agricultural businesses, oil and gas companies, and mining companies understand that a 30-year asset sitting in a floodplain or in a drought-prone area faces real physical risk over the lifetime of the asset. Their strategic planning horizon forces the issue.
Firms with institutional investor bases dominated by large asset managers will still have to respond to the investor’s utilize of climate-integrated risk models even when they no longer tout them publicly. The pressure is quieter but not gone.
Technology firms will increasingly have to deal with energy consumption. Hyperscale data centers require enormous amounts of electricity, and the economics of renewable procurement build clean energy purchasing attractive on purely financial grounds. Microsoft, Google, and Amazon are unlikely to abandon their energy transition strategies becautilize the underlying economics haven’t alterd.

The one place where we might see consequential retreat will be carbon-intensive industries with limited international exposure. The rollback of regulation will create a short-term opportunity to back away from carbon-reduction efforts, particularly if the companies have not done the calculations to display that the future costs of carbon mitigation may be significantly higher than early investment.

What might be the effects of U.S. climate policy diverging from that of other major markets?

Let’s be clear about the extent of the divergence. The EU has a functioning carbon market, mandatory climate disclosure, a carbon border adjustment, binding sectoral tarreceives, and significant green industrial policies. China has a national emission trading scheme and aggressive incentives for clean energy manufacturing, and has highlighted clean tech dominance as a core strategic objective. The UK, Japan, South Korea, Canada, and Australia all have carbon pricing or equivalent mechanisms in various stages of development. The U.S. is now shifting in the opposite direction across multiple dimensions: regulatory, disclosure, and incentives.

The U.S. is essentially notifying the rest of the world to bring their pollution here.

I see four effects of varying consequence:

Trade. The most tangible trade impact will come from CBAM, which initially covers steel, aluminum, and cement and comes into force this year. U.S. exporters in these sectors will face a carbon price at the European border calculated on the difference between the EU carbon price and whatever the production counattempt charges (for the U.S., that will become essentially zero). Economically, this adjustment is the equivalent of a tariff on U.S. goods. That price will grow as the EU Emissions Trading System price rises and CBAM coverage expands.

Capital flows and investment. Clean energy investment flows toward jurisdictions with stable policy signals. The International Energy Agency and BloombergNEF data consistently display that policy certainty is the primary determinant of renewable investment location decisions, often more important than resource availability or labor cost. This builds the U.S. signal very unreliable, so investments in clean energy will migrate toward Europe, China, India, and other markets. This is already visible in offshore wind, where European developers are scaling back U.S. commitments and redeploying capital.

At the same time, the U.S. will create short-term investment opportunities in fossil fuel infrastructure that might otherwise have been stranded. This could lock in physical assets with 30-40 year operating lives. But these assets might themselves become stranded as clean energy becomes cheaper and/or if U.S. policy eventually responds to worsening physical climate impacts.

The clean tech race. China created a deliberate decision to dominate clean-energy manufacturing—solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and electric vehicles. It now holds commanding market share in all of these. The Inflation Reduction Act was explicitly designed as a competitive response, utilizing industrial policy to build U.S. manufacturing capacity before Chinese dominance became insurmountable. I expect the current policy decisions to stall U.S. clean tech manufacturing, possibly with ramifications for the next 20-plus years.

Of course, this has implications beyond competitiveness. If clean-energy infrastructure becomes dominated by Chinese supply chains, the U.S. faces a national-security depfinishency in the technologies that will power the future. There is a deep irony in the current administration’s China hawkishness and its climate policy rollback, becautilize the clean-tech race is simultaneously an economic, climate, and geopolitical competition.

Europe is positioning itself to remain competitive in the future of technology. Europe is building manufacturing capacity in clean tech through policy incentives and the Green New Deal. As the U.S. steps back from this race, European and Chinese firms fill the vacuum, and the U.S. will become an importer of the technologies that will define economic productivity in the coming decades.

A carbon refuge. If the U.S. regulatory environment becomes significantly less demanding on carbon and environmental standards, there’s an incentive for carbon-intensive production to migrate toward the U.S.; we’re creating a pollution haven for global heavy indusattempt. That creates some competitive advantages, but it also comes at a significant cost to the health of U.S. citizens. The statistics on health impacts (asthma, lung disease, premature death) from pollution associated with fossil-fuel combustion are already staggering. The U.S. is essentially notifying the rest of the world to bring their pollution here.

Source link