Climate Action - The State of Play

by David Chavern

Lost in the noise of the health care debate this past month has been another reengineering of a major portion of our economy – this one on energy policy and addressing global climate change. With the UN Climate Negotiations scheduled for December in Copenhagen the issue is inching back into the spotlight so we thought it might be useful to review the current state of play. Basically there are three issues on the table: 1) The EPA's endangerment finding which would cause greenhouse gas emissions to be regulated under the Clean Air Act; 2) the passage of climate action legislation in Congress; and 3) the creation of an international framework for addressing an international problem. Let’s take them one at a time.

The EPA recently found that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare and thus can be regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA).  There are two problems here. First, there are serious questions regarding the scientific data used by the EPA to find endangerment, which is why we have called for a public hearing to open the endangerment science to examination – not climate science in general. Second, no one, repeat no one, thinks that regulating CO2 under the CAA is a good idea -- not the President, the Congress, or even the EPA. Here is EPA Chief Lisa Jackson:

"Legislation is so important, because it will combine the most efficient, most economy-wide, least costly (and) least disruptive way to deal with carbon dioxide pollution," Jackson said. "We get further faster without top-down regulation."

Even the groups which originally joined the lawsuit to force the regulation of CO2 under the CAA are having second thoughts -- here is chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club, David Bookbinder:

 "While the Clean Air Act says that we’re going to have to regulate all the stationary sources starting at 250 tons a year, that doesn't make sense for a variety of reasons."

Nonetheless the EPA's Jackson has stated that the Agency will move forward, the idea being that the threat of an economic disaster will force Congress to pass legislation.

So how is that going? Tom Donohue, speaking at our Major Economies Business Forum on Energy Security And Climate Change on Monday explained.

Our Congress has been deadlocked over a solution to climate change risks for some time. There are wide divisions among different states, regions, and industries…and the divisions between our elected officials are growing deeper by the day. But make no mistake; the American business community would welcome legislation. We have not ruled out all cap-and-trade systems or a carbon tax. The Chamber has laid out five core principles for action that we believe constitute a sensible approach to climate change.

• First, climate legislation must preserve American jobs and the competitiveness of U.S. industry.
• Second, it must provide an international solution that that includes the widest possible participation.
• Third, it must accelerate the development and commercial adoption of clean energy technologies.
• Fourth, it must reduce barriers to the development of climate-friendly energy sources.
• And fifth, it should encourage energy conservation and efficiency.

So far we have not seen legislation which fulfils these principles, but we are confident in the possibility, and are working hard to make it a reality, more from Donohue’s remarks:

"Our policy folks, our advocates, and our communicators are working everyday to build consensus, advance our principles, and make real progress on these issues. We remind everyone we talk to that this debate is not just about the climate; it is about a path forward to ensure that the United States has a long-term supply of secure and affordable energy…energy that drives our economy and underpins our quality of life."

And this debate is not just about the United States, as Jackson has confirmed, unilateral American action will have almost no effect on global emissions. This is why we are also taking a leading role on the international front. Just this week the Institute for 21st Century Energy hosted 17 other nations to build consensus around a reasonable, measurable, verifiable, and global strategy to combat climate change.

At the end of the two-day summit, delegates agreed on a joint declaration that commits the international business community to exercising a leadership role in tackling climate change and contributing to a new international agreement in Copenhagen. The declaration also touches on economic development, energy security and efficiency, technology and finance (read the declaration).

The long and the short of it is, preserving and protecting our economy and our environment for future generations is one of the top priorities of the U.S. Chamber. American business is the single largest investor and innovator in clean energy solutions and remains committed to propelling this nation to a prosperous and lower carbon future. We support sound policies that incentivize innovation and new business opportunities rather than the approach coming out of the House and the EPA which will strangle business with thousands of new regulation and stifle America's competitiveness.

Comments

[Dr Doug L. Hoffman]

The search for ways to reduce carbon emissions has led to government grant money for schemes ranging from promising to wacky. Recognizing that there is no currently viable replacement for fossil fuels, with the possible exception of nuclear power, the US and other countries with large coal deposits are desperately looking for ways to continue burning coal without incurring the wrath of nature or the IPCC. Clear evidence of the seriousness of this effort is evident in this week's special edition of Science, dedicated to carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology.

see http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/serious-black-quest-clean-coal

[ChamberPost]

Andy - Our position on climate change action has been the same for years -- we need effective legislation. This is not a new stance. (BP)

[Andy]

Alan (and Dave): climate change is not a "SCAM" - but the Chamber's public position (similar to yours) in calling for a "Scope's Monkey Trial" hearing to put the "science of climate change on trial" is not only a ridiculous waste of time but is also a disservice to its members and the American people, and is morally indefensible.

Given that the Chamber publically took this position only one month ago, you may understand my extreme skepticism regarding the Chamber's "genuine" intentions to engage in developing a constructive and timely legislative solution to climate change.

[Alan]

Al Gore: Inventor of the Internet and Global Warming.
Thanks for NOT falling for this Politically Correct SCAM (like PG&E)

[ChamberPost]

Frank W – Given the quality of the bills coming out of the current Congress I know it may seem that our insistence on legislation that is actually effective may seem “out of date” but trust us, a bad solution is no solution.(BP)

[marc rubinger]

On a topic as vital as climate change, the Chamber should not limit itself to "lobbying" and trying to "influence." Rather, it should leverage its position and assume, no grab, a leadership role! It should communicate with all members large and small about what the national Chamber expects them to do immediately to improve our climate.
Times have changed indeed. And it is time for the Chamber to ACT not INFLUENCE. Addressing climate change will take decades (if we are lucky). All members of all Chambers throughout the world should be asked to do their part by each nation's leading umbrella organization.
Stop waiting for legislators... "they" didn't pollute, we did.

[Frank W]

Your climate policy is an out of date sham. How many more corporations will have to leave the Chamber (Exelon, PG&E, PNM etc.) in protest before you change your tune? It is obvious that you are catering to a few very powerful entities. Thanks for dragging your feet and blocking progress that would help all of us (human health, economy and the environment). What a shame!

[Richard Bloom]

I cannot imagine how you can actively ignore the state of current research and continue to use half baked ideas about the "uncertainty" of the science of climate change. Look carefully at recent scientific research. It shows that scientists have been too conservative; with warming, sea level rises and glacial melting being larger than predicted. Instead of blocking climate change legislation by spreading false claims; you should be demanding smart, strong, financially sound legislation that will rapidly move the US to the technical and moral high ground that we have traditionally held.

[Larz]

I am shocked at your continuing attempts to block action on climate change. The situation is becoming critical. Please send a team of lawyers to hold back the Atlantic Ocean.

[John D.]

The US Chamber of Commerce continues to distinguish itself by being completely wrong on policy with regard to climate change and its effects on the economy. Your five principles are in the wrong order, you ignore the fact that a unilateral transition to a highly efficient green economy would be good both for American jobs and for international competitiveness, and you betray your dependence on highly polluting industries by advocating for no action until every agrees on the right direction. Why don't you think this through and see if you can't get on the right side for once?

[bill owen]

Thanks for taking a stand against the global warming fanatics, which is likely the biggest scam in history! The earth has now been cooling for the last 10 years. I guess internet Al Gore must have saved us.

[ChamberPost]

Jeff 1 - I am not sure exactly what you are commenting on. We support the development of all clean energy sources and expanded jobs in increasing efficiency - (BP)

Jeff 2 - Nice attempt at cleverness but hardly factual, trust me half of the hate mail I received is from the right (immigration, health reform etc...) I'm pretty sure that we are closer to the middle than say...you (BP)

[Jeff Waingrow]

Isn't there some way you could work the image of an elephant into the Chamber's logo?

[Jeff Wagner]

Combating climate change will mean a plethora of new opportunity for businesses to engineer and market alternative energy capability. Wouldn't it great if the smaller businesses you want to help got a nice piece of this pie? Why does the Chamber not want to be part of this on behalf of its membership?

[ChamberPost]

Karen -- Just that I may be properly embarrassed, which of our principles do you disagree with? That Congress should pass legislation which respects the economy? Or is it that we believe that we need effective, i.e. global, solutions. You certainly can’t expect us to be ashamed for calling for an acceleration of the development and deployment of clean energy sources and no one really argues against energy conservation and efficiency. -– Thanks BP

[KAREN BERRY]

SHAME ON YOUR FOR IGNORING THE FUTURE.
WHY IS IT THAT ONLY "LIBERALS" CARE ABOUT THEIR GRANDCHILDREN AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY ON EARTH? HOW SELFISH YOU ARE TO IGNORE THE SCIENCE BEHIND GLOBAL WARMING.

WAKE UP!!

[Martin O]

Climate Change is a serious issue that will cause a lot damage depending on how quickly/seriously we address it.

Addressing seriously is also an opportunity to create wealth and jobs.

Although the chamber may not like the current government action, its counter proposal is not going to solve the problem.

As climate change is a common/global problem, it will need government action to catalyze a solution. Pretending otherwise is not a mature approach.

I would urge the Chamber to be more constructive on this serious issue.