On October 4, 2023, the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) published a proposed rule that would create an entirely new type of company called a Natural Asset Company (NAC). An NAC, “is a corporation whose primary purpose is to actively manage, maintain, restore (as applicable), and grow the value of natural assets and their production of ecosystem services.”  The deadline for public comments to the SEC was extended to January 18th.  The number of comments must have been overwhelming because on January 17th, the New York Stock Exchange withdrew the proposed rule.  Read National Eagle Forum’s press release here. Watch Noah Wall Executive Vice President for Policy and Government Affairs for the State Financial Officers Foundation discuss NACs and share the breaking news of the NYSE withdrawing the rule.  We must keep our eyes on this issue as we expect it to come back again disguised as something else.  Read below how NACs threaten private property rights and American national security.

There are numerous problems with this scheme. As Margaret Byfield of American Stewards for Liberty warned in Real Clear Markets recently, these include:

• [NAC] companies would be given license to control lands, both public and private, and would be required not to conduct any “unsustainable activities, such as mining, that lead to the degradation of the ecosystems….Sovereign nations, such as the United States Government, can provide their lands to private investors, including those outside the United States. China, for example, may be able to invest in a NAC and effectively be a stakeholder in our national parks. Russia could assume control of lands currently leased to produce oil and place them off limits for future natural resource development.

• NACs would prevent the productive use of the land, which would hurt the landowners financially, but also reduce the supply of minerals, food, and other goods that come from the land.

• How might a company make control of land profitable while also not using the land? The method is admittedly confusing, perhaps intentionally. They profit from “ecological performance” such as “conservation, restoration, or sustainable management.” These NACs would quantify and monetize these natural outputs (such as air or water). The best comparison would be using the air we breathe as a cryptocurrency of sorts. And, these natural assets that collectively belong to all of us would now belong to corporations run by what many would call environmental special interests.

• Traditional accounting standards would not be used to regulate NACs. Likely, this is because NACs would not withstand scrutiny under generally accepted accounting principles.

• This effort would be a huge windfall for the federal government and the NACs. The government would create an entirely new revenue stream that would solely benefit the Davos-type [World Economic Forum] crowd that gives the current administration support. Both Big Government and radical environmentalists stand to benefit.

• These efforts intentionally prioritize environmentalism over human flourishing. [Prospective auditors] admit that “producing these essential goods and services and managing resources wisely is as valuable, or perhaps even more valuable, than the food production.”issu