{"title":"银行业的气候难题","authors":"Jeremy C. Kress","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Over the past decade, a consensus has emerged among academics and policy makers that climate change could threaten the stability of banks, insurers, and the broader financial system. In response, regulators from around the world have begun implementing policies to mitigate emerging climate risks in the financial sector. The United States, however, lags significantly behind other countries in addressing such risks. This article argues that the United States' sluggishness in responding to climate-related financial risk is problematic because the U.S. banking system is uniquely susceptible to climate change. The United States' vulnerability stems, in part, from a little-known statutory provision that prohibits U.S. regulators from relying on external credit ratings in bank capital requirements. Because of this deviation from internationally accepted capital standards, when a credit rating agency downgrades a “dirty” company, U.S. banks that lend to that company need not compensate by maintaining a bigger capital cushion. Over time, this dynamic will likely incentivize “dirty” companies to borrow more from U.S. banks, intensifying the U.S. banking system's exposure to climate risks. This article contends that the United States must overcome this unusual weakness by taking bold steps to safeguard the domestic financial system from the climate crisis.</p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"59 4","pages":"679-724"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ablj.12217","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Banking's Climate Conundrum\",\"authors\":\"Jeremy C. Kress\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ablj.12217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Over the past decade, a consensus has emerged among academics and policy makers that climate change could threaten the stability of banks, insurers, and the broader financial system. In response, regulators from around the world have begun implementing policies to mitigate emerging climate risks in the financial sector. The United States, however, lags significantly behind other countries in addressing such risks. This article argues that the United States' sluggishness in responding to climate-related financial risk is problematic because the U.S. banking system is uniquely susceptible to climate change. The United States' vulnerability stems, in part, from a little-known statutory provision that prohibits U.S. regulators from relying on external credit ratings in bank capital requirements. Because of this deviation from internationally accepted capital standards, when a credit rating agency downgrades a “dirty” company, U.S. banks that lend to that company need not compensate by maintaining a bigger capital cushion. Over time, this dynamic will likely incentivize “dirty” companies to borrow more from U.S. banks, intensifying the U.S. banking system's exposure to climate risks. This article contends that the United States must overcome this unusual weakness by taking bold steps to safeguard the domestic financial system from the climate crisis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Business Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"59 4\",\"pages\":\"679-724\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ablj.12217\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Business Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12217\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12217","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Over the past decade, a consensus has emerged among academics and policy makers that climate change could threaten the stability of banks, insurers, and the broader financial system. In response, regulators from around the world have begun implementing policies to mitigate emerging climate risks in the financial sector. The United States, however, lags significantly behind other countries in addressing such risks. This article argues that the United States' sluggishness in responding to climate-related financial risk is problematic because the U.S. banking system is uniquely susceptible to climate change. The United States' vulnerability stems, in part, from a little-known statutory provision that prohibits U.S. regulators from relying on external credit ratings in bank capital requirements. Because of this deviation from internationally accepted capital standards, when a credit rating agency downgrades a “dirty” company, U.S. banks that lend to that company need not compensate by maintaining a bigger capital cushion. Over time, this dynamic will likely incentivize “dirty” companies to borrow more from U.S. banks, intensifying the U.S. banking system's exposure to climate risks. This article contends that the United States must overcome this unusual weakness by taking bold steps to safeguard the domestic financial system from the climate crisis.
期刊介绍:
The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.