Maybe I'm missing the article, but I think this is overblown. What's changed is that financial firms can no longer make unsubstantiated claims about climate action, but the burden to do so opens them up to potential liability with no real upside. He even said that literally nothing has changed with how they plan to invest, but they don't want to make a claim that they can't support with strong evidence.

This makes sense. And it's not a big deal.

Or that's my reading of it, anyway.