The Biden administration recently revoked a proposal that would have permitted the trading of Natural Asset Companies (NACs) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), citing potential national security concerns. The decision has sparked controversy and opposition from federal and state lawmakers, highlighting the ongoing debate surrounding environmental conservation and economic interests.
NACs are a type of company that aims to “protect, restore, and grow natural assets,” according to the Intrinsic Exchange Group, a non-profit organization that collaborated with the NYSE to develop the new corporate taxonomy. The proposal received early support from left-wing non-profit, the Rockefeller Foundation, which sees NACs as a means to combat climate change.
However, critics argue that NACs present numerous deficiencies and dangers to the American public. Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes voiced concerns about NACs’ potential impact on U.S. energy independence, grid stability, and the illegal transfer of management, use, and ownership of lands to private entities, including hostile countries or entities.
Reyes, along with 25 state attorneys general, penned a comment letter opposing the SEC’s proposal, asserting that NACs may pose a threat to national security and subordinate the interests of millions of Americans to the aims of environmental activists and United Nations policies.
House Republicans, led by Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman, initiated an investigation into the SEC’s rulemaking process related to NACs. They expressed concerns about NACs potentially allowing private investment interests to control and manage national parks and other publicly owned lands, which they consider an unprecedented power grab and usurpation of federal authority.
Experts and Republicans further caution that NACs could lead to the offshoring of energy production to countries with poor human rights and environmental records, while also opening the door to foreign ownership of public property. They argue that activity on federal lands controlled by NACs may be determined by eco-activists rather than Congress or government scientists.
Environmentalists, on the other hand, advocate for the federal government to open lands for conservation purposes. The Bureau of Land Management is actively pursuing this approach, aligning with the SEC’s NAC proposal. NYSE, which supports NACs, argues that they capture the intrinsic and productive value of nature, including forests, wetlands, coral reefs, and working lands like farms.
The Biden administration’s decision to rescind the proposal has reignited the debate over the balance between environmental protection and economic interests. The controversy surrounding NACs reflects the larger tensions between Republicans and Democrats, as well as differing perspectives on climate change, big corporations, and the role of the government.
As the discussion continues, it remains to be seen how policymakers will navigate the complex landscape of environmental conservation, national security, and economic development.
