????美國(guó)環(huán)境保護(hù)署(Environmental Protection Agency)擬定的減少碳排放提案正在引發(fā)一場(chǎng)關(guān)于氣候變化的激烈辯論。但有一點(diǎn)是明確的：企業(yè)需要向投資者更加詳盡地解釋它們面臨的氣候變化相關(guān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn),，以及它們正在采取的管控措施,。

????加州近期的大干旱和歐洲的洪水提醒我們，極端天氣事件正變得越來(lái)越嚴(yán)重,，越來(lái)越頻繁,。根據(jù)慕尼黑再保險(xiǎn)公司(Munich Re)提供的數(shù)據(jù)，天氣事件占2013年自然災(zāi)害損失的90%,，共造成1,200多億美元的損失,。該公司估計(jì)，2012年,，氣候事件對(duì)美國(guó)和歐洲經(jīng)濟(jì)的總體影響均超過(guò)5萬(wàn)億美元,，占各自國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值(GDP)的30%以上。

????除了監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)以外,，投資界也已經(jīng)意識(shí)到了這種威脅,。投資人正在要求公司披露更多關(guān)于氣候事件風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的信息，以及碳排放的預(yù)期成本,。

????身處多種行業(yè)的公司——不僅僅是保險(xiǎn)公司和碳排放密集型企業(yè)——正在被要求披露它們管控這些長(zhǎng)期問(wèn)題的措施,。這些企業(yè)未來(lái)的資金成本在某種程度上將取決于它們給出的答案。

????不幸的是,，太多的企業(yè)仍然只為投資者及其他利益相關(guān)者提供各自面臨風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的部分圖景,。在闡述它們?nèi)绾螠p輕這些風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的時(shí)候，這些企業(yè)的解釋是不完整的,。

????公司部門(mén)正在非常敏捷地滿足投資者對(duì)環(huán)境友好型資產(chǎn)不斷增長(zhǎng)的需求。私營(yíng)公司發(fā)行的綠色債券（這類(lèi)債券的所籌資金用來(lái)資助有利于環(huán)境的資本投資）急劇增長(zhǎng),。據(jù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾公司(Standard & Poor’s)估計(jì),，這類(lèi)債券的規(guī)模今年很可能翻一番，達(dá)到200億美元左右,。

????但事實(shí)證明,，就向投資者提供更廣泛的氣候和碳排放相關(guān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的可靠信息而言，許多企業(yè)的動(dòng)作要慢得多,。

????氣候風(fēng)險(xiǎn),，以及碳定價(jià)的影響，將導(dǎo)致公司面臨直接和間接風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。從生產(chǎn)到流通和銷(xiāo)售,，這類(lèi)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)可能會(huì)影響公司的整個(gè)價(jià)值鏈,。洪水和暴風(fēng)往往會(huì)打亂供應(yīng)商的部署，使得制造流程陷入混亂,，還可能抑制消費(fèi),。

????從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看，極端天氣會(huì)以意想不到的方式損害企業(yè)的盈利能力和資產(chǎn)估值,。不重視這些風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的公司可能會(huì)承受巨大壓力,，并且很難靈活地管控它們面臨的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。

????公司通常很注重披露碳排放法規(guī)施加給它們的直接負(fù)債,，特別是為獲得排放交易計(jì)劃要求持有的碳排放許可證而支付的凈成本,。這些成本的重要性無(wú)需贅言，盡管碳排放信用額的價(jià)格最近有所跌落,，但隨著時(shí)間的推移,，這些成本很可能將繼續(xù)增長(zhǎng)。但很多公司忽視了一項(xiàng)正在沿著供應(yīng)鏈傳遞,，或者正在改變產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)終端需求的碳負(fù)債成本,，而這項(xiàng)成本可能要大得多。

????The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed regulations to reduce carbon emissions are generating heated debate about climate change. But one thing is clear: companies need to do much more to explain to investors the climate-related risks they face and how they are managing them.

????Extreme weather events appear to be getting more severe and more frequent, as the recent drought in California and floods in Europe reminded us. Weather events accounted for 90% of natural catastrophe losses in 2013, causing over $120 billion of losses, according to reinsurance company Munich Re. In 2012, the overall effect of climate events on the US and European economies is estimated at more than $5 trillion for each region, or over 30% of their GDP.

????The investment community – along with regulators – has woken up to this threat. It is demanding more information from companies about their exposure to climate events, as well as the prospective cost of their carbon emissions.

????A wide range of businesses – not just insurers and carbon intensive corporations – are being pressed to demonstrate how they are managing these long-term issues. Their future cost of capital will in part hinge on the answers they give.

????Unfortunately, too many businesses still provide investors and other stakeholders only a partial picture of the risks they face. And they offer an incomplete explanation of how they are mitigating these exposures.

????The corporate sector is nimble at meeting growing investor demand for environmentally-friendly assets. Private sector companies’ issuance of green bonds, which fund environmentally beneficial capital investment, is growing rapidly. According to Standard & Poor’s, it is likely to double this year to around $20 billion.

????However, businesses are proving much slower in providing investors with robust information about their wider climate and carbon-related risks.

????Climate risk, along with the impact of carbon pricing, carries direct and indirect exposure for a company. It potentially affects its entire value chain, from production through to distribution and sales. Floods and blizzards disrupt suppliers and dislocate manufacturing, but they also can curb consumption.

????Over the long-term, extreme weather can damage both profitability and asset valuations in unexpected ways. Companies that fail to take account of these risks may suffer significant stress and have little flexibility to manage their exposure.

????Companies frequently focus on communicating their direct liability to carbon emissions regulation, notably the net cost of carbon permits they are required to hold under emissions trading schemes. These costs are important and, notwithstanding the recent decline in carbon credit prices, are likely to grow over time. But many companies ignore the – potentially much larger – costs of a carbon liability being passed down the supply chain or changing end demand for products and services.