On August 20, a shareholder group known as Investors for Paris Compliance (I4PC) filed a complaint with the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) against Cenovus and Enbridge.The gist of the complaint is that both companies no longer publicly post their Net Zero plans. I4PC claimed this information is as important as any other “material” disclosure required by the ASC.“Material disclosures are very important for fair markets and investments. For instance, if you opened a gold mine and stated claims about the richness of the vein in your filings, but as work progressed, the find turned out to be less rich than originally stated, that is a “material” change of fact, which must be disclosed to the ASC and your company shareholders.”.EDITORIAL: Scrap the Temporary Foreign Worker Program so Canadian young people can work again.However, in this I4PC case, the question arises — is Paris Compliance or Net Zero “material” to corporate operations or shareholder insights?As retired lawyer Andrew Roman put it, in email correspondence to me, “The very name Investors for Paris Compliance is misleading. The concept of compliance suggests that there is a law or other requirement with which one can comply. That is not the Paris Agreement, which is entirely voluntary and non-binding and unenforceable. Alternatively, if anyone needs to comply with the Paris Agreement, it is nation states, not investors. Arguably, the name ‘Investors for Paris Compliance’ is misinformation.”Last year, Cenovus, Enbridge, and other public companies quickly scrubbed their websites of all Net Zero statements when climate activist groups successfully lobbied for a change to the “greenwashing legislation” of the Competition Bureau Act, Bill C-59. Why? Were they lying, or misinforming, or greenwashing, as many activists subsequently alleged on social media?.Or was it a precautionary measure to avoid wildly expensive lawfare and nuisance claims — rather like the kind of action I4PC is now advocating via the ASC? As summarized in a blog post by Sonya Molina of CASACOM, “And starting June 20, 2025, any company making an environmental claim without solid proof can be taken to court by any private individual. The risks? Fines of up to $15 million or 3% of global revenue, orders to withdraw claims, or even the publication of corrective notices. In short, greenwashing is no longer just a reputational issue — it is now a legal and financial risk.” Unlike previous legislation, which required the greenwashing complainant to prove the guilt, now the onus is on the corporation to prove its innocence, and its claims must be supported by some internationally recognized method or body..EDITORIAL: Danielle Smith must continue fight against porn in school libraries.I4PC’s letter, appears to me, to be trying to establish within the securities regulatory sphere through this complaint, which certain bodies have “internationally recognized methods,” as it cites several in its complaint to the ASC.Ironically, two of the organizations mentioned, which are often cited in climate activists’ circles as having preeminent roles in climate and emissions evaluations, are the Science Based Targets Initiatives (SBTi) and the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), both of which are under investigation in the US for possible antitrust violations.Climate activists and carbon bean-counters are very keen to force companies into mandatory emissions reporting — not only for their own direct emissions (Scope 1), but for those indirect emissions related to their commercial activity (Scope 2), indirect emissions that occur in the upstream and downstream activities of an organization (Scope 3), e.g. product use and disposal. This would be untenable in terms of expense, and fraught with the risk of climate activists or vulture investor lawfare as emissions are always estimated, not counted like pennies in a jar..As part of the complaint, I4PC references the SBTi in Part 3, Section A, Point 39, on page 8.39. The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) states that climate-aligned target-setting must include Scope 3 when Scope 3 emissions make up at least 40% of total emissions.It turns out that the SBTi is just another climate action proxy for carbon traders. According to page 19 of the March 2025 version of “Corporate Net-Zero Standard” issued by SBTi:“The SBTi is incorporated as a UK charity, with a subsidiary, SBTi Services Limited, which hosts the SBTi’s target validation services. Our founding partners are CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, the We Mean Business Coalition, the World Resources Institute (WRI), and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).”We Mean Business Coalition was the backer of Greta Thunberg — who is now a rentable commodity. What kind of “recognized international methods” do such “climate cartel” partners really bring to the table, other than a more elegant and credible looking form of climate activism than street theater?.Friends of Science Society (full disclosure — of which I am the Communications Manager) has issued an Open Letter to the Alberta Securities Commission challenging the validity and intent of the I4PC complaint. It appears to Friends of Science Society that the I4PC complaint is intended to force these “test case” corporations into a Catch-22 on Net Zero disclosure — a lawfare and activism trap with no benefit to shareholders or society. It seems this is just another tentacle of the Tar Sands Campaign, possibly one intended to corner corporations into cap-and-trade as their Medieval indulgence for the “sin” of emitting carbon dioxide, the “Satanic gas,” while creating thousands of jobs, billions in revenues, and saving Canada from financial ruin.The US Department of Energy has just issued a new climate science report that shows there is no climate emergency, and the objective of meeting Net Zero is moot. The US Republican House of Representatives is investigating a “climate cartel” as they call it. .BARCLAY: The destabilizing effects of Liberal migration policies in Canada.Friends of Science Society has asked the ASC to open an inquiry as to whether or not there is a climate cartel operating in Canada. The modus operandi and referenced parties in the I4PC complaint have similarities to activities and networks uncovered in the House DOJ report.As Andrew Roman noted, it is the name “Investors for Paris Compliance” that is misinformation. The ASC complaint should be dismissed as a nuisance complaint, and the possibility of a climate cartel operating in Canada must be investigated.
