If one thinks the SEC’s use of materiality is far-fetched, wait until the Europe Union releases its final rules on “Double Materiality”, also known as Double Infinity.
Then, it is worth mentioning that the SEC has already performed an act of overreach by trying to regulate climate and/or emissions.
You know the saying: “Too many regulators could ruin a one-car parade.”
Such a materiality requirement is impossible to reconcile with the SEC’s proposed emissions disclosures. The emissions disclosures include Scope 1, which covers emissions that come directly from sources owned by a company, and Scope 2, which covers indirect emissions from energy purchased and consumed by a company. The SEC half-heartedly tries to rationalize Scope 1 and Scope 2 disclosures as essential in providing investors with material information regarding a public company’s transition risk. That category of risk includes the increased operating and investment costs resulting from stricter climate-related regulations, reduced demand for carbon-intensive products, and the potential for stranded assets such as oil and gas reserves that will result from the world moving rapidly to net-zero carbon emissions.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/08/secs-argument-for-climate-disclosure-rules-doomed-to-fail/