There are a lot of questions in there.
I do think there needs to be some sort of divorce between the fossil fuel industry and the financial industry to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest. Board minutes are not made public, so we don't know how they manage this issue, but, from the outside, we clearly see a problem.
In terms of materiality, there are terms floating around, such as “double materiality”, “dynamic materiality” and “explosive materiality”. I had a lot of fun reading accounting texts. An accountant in 1972 called the materiality assessment an Alice in Wonderland exercise. The former chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission even said that lawyers, accountants and business people get materiality wrong all the time. That is why, in my opening remarks, I said that this was not an appropriate standard. We are managing not only a financial risk, but also an existential risk for life on earth.
Senator Galvez's bill calls for action. It's not just a matter of disclosing, you have to be part of the solution. It's not enough to talk about it or disclose the impact that climate change will have on the entity; we also have to look at the entity's impact on the real world, particularly in terms of its greenhouse gas emissions, and we have to force action in order to reduce that impact and move towards solutions.