On Climate Change

by Tom Donohue

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce continues to support strong federal legislation and a binding international agreement to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change.

We believe that in order to succeed, any climate change response must include all major CO2 emitting economies, promote new technologies, emphasize efficiency, ensure affordable energy for families and businesses, and help create American jobs and return our economy to prosperity. The Congress should carefully deliberate on and enact legislation that meets these goals. 

We also have called upon the United States to join with other nations to negotiate a new international agreement that sets binding CO2 reduction commitments for each nation, while allowing each to devise its own best path to meeting its target.

These are mainstream, commonsense views that are shared by a broad majority of the American people, the business community, and a growing number of Democrat and Republican legislators.

Furthermore, we believe that Congress should set climate change policy through legislation, rather than having the EPA apply existing environmental statutes that were not created to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This is also the stated position of the President and Congressional leaders. If determined to proceed on its own, EPA should publicly present its finding and answer questions on the limited studies it cited, in keeping with the President’s pledge of transparency. 

We oppose the Waxman-Markey bill because it is neither comprehensive nor international, and it falls short on moving renewable and alternative technologies into the marketplace and enabling our transition to a lower carbon future. It would also impose carbon tariffs on goods imported into the United States, a move that would almost certainly spur retaliation from global trading partners.
 
Some in the environmental movement claim that, because of our opposition to a specific bill or approach, we must be opposed to all efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, or that we deny the existence of any problem. They are dead wrong. The Chamber has in its public documents, Hill letters and testimony, as well as dozens of concrete policy recommendations, supported efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere while keeping our economy healthy.
 
We have vigorously supported the production and use of renewable and alternative energy.  We have repeatedly supported tax incentives and credits, appropriations, and stimulus funding to promote the accelerated development of new technologies. And we are leading the fight to clear the regulatory, legal and Not-In–My-Backyard roadblocks that are currently delaying promising wind, solar, nuclear, and other renewable or emissions-free energy projects across the nation.

// Note: For those not coming in from Facebook puzzled by the non-germane and confused comments on our membership, here is more.

Comments

[Dr. Brenda Barnes]

Waxman-Markey is a beginning. By opposing it, the Chamber is showing it will oppose every single step toward Climate Change Relief.

The truthiness in the piece above is ridiculous, just like the Chamber's claim of 3 million members when the truth is 200,000. The Chamber would be even more opposed to an international bill that actually accomplished reduction of carbon emissions. The Chamber just pretends this bill is not good enough because it knows we never will get a perfect bill, so we can pretend to be for that.

[Ken Finch]

No more truthiness. I believe you only have about 300,000 members not 3,000,000., because I find your comments on health care REFORM EXTREMELT DECEPTIVE AND INFORMED BY MODERN MASS MARKETING AND COGNITIVE SCIENCE public relations more than by the truth.
You assault and attack the public option with the energy and trickiness, when in fact you know the following:
1) Your Republican allies are the ones that removed cost control from the bill, in order for you to complain about its costs.
2)Those things you are attacking the most, the public opinion is and always has been the best way to control costs, your stated goal, of which you do not really want, since you want most to protect the wealth production of the very rich Chamber members whose cold callous business is health care individual wealth production .
3) To cover these evil lies, you produce a fake plan THAT SOUNDS GOOD AND THROWS GOOD DECENT PEOPLE OFF YOUR SCENT. I CALL ON ALL DECENT CHAMBER MEMBERS TO RESIGN IN PROTEST OF YOUR TRUTHINESS AND EVIL N IN CREATING ULTRARICH FOR LITTLE PRODUCTIVE WORK, JUST DECEPTIVE BANKING SCHEMES AND MILLION DOLLAR BONUSES.

[alix]

Stop lying about your membership. It is not even 300,000. Where did you get the 3,000,000 you're claiming? On environmental issues, you are just a mouthpiece for Capitalism. All of our problems can be traced to greed. If we do not eradicate Capitalism, it will eradicate the human race.

[David Prince]

STOP YOUR DECEPTIVE PRACTICES! You substantially misrepresent your membership numbers and oppose meaningful healthcare reform!

[BruceMcF]

"It has to be international" is the standard excuse for "we support it, but everyone else has to go first". Thing is, we are the number one culprit in terms of putting the CO2 into the air over the past century - and remember, it takes 100 years to cycle out again - and further, we will not be in a position to do any arm twisting on anyone as long as we are the ones dragging our feet.

It seems more likely that the real objection you have to the Waxman-Markey bill is that when it was loaded up with giveaways to polluting companies, you saw how much support the Waxman-Markey bill provides for low-income working families, and you want to have that money diverted to welfare for the rich as well.

After all, your preference that working families live in poverty is clear from your support from fight-unemployment-last economic policy and your determined union-busting stance.

[Stephen Knutson]

Please stop relying on the US Government to implement alternative energy investment and put your huge resources into the mix. Your business partners must reduce their carbon footprint and the chamber of commerce must support taxing carbon producing interprises. When it is cheaper to produce renewable energy than burn fossil fuels we will begin to remedy the problem of climate change. Taxing carbon pollution is a viable tool to bring business to its senses.

[John Fetters]

The Chamber doesn't represent anywhere near 3 million businesses!

[jon spar]

quit lying about how many members you have in order to "inflate" your power. Your denial of climate change is more than disgusting and shameful. Since all its for is to line your already overloaded pockets at the expense of climate disaster which you seem to not care about as do the rest of you "deniers" read "greedy and stupid".

[Peter S.Mulshine]

The problems of the U.S are that since Reagan got in, all you people have been concerned w/ lineing your own pockets&paying the least wages possible ,including most small businesses which are failing to file honest tax returns.They hide sales income to pay cash to most workers,such as in the construction trades&the restaurant industry.
It has contributed to low income people being injured&dying in accidents&on the job from using inferior equipment&unskilled labor .THAT is why they support illegal immigation.Business owners feel they have GOD GIVEN right to import people who will work for less than the minimum wage.They don't want to get there hands dirty&want to be able to wring the most work out of least money&have people who will be terrified of being fired.
These types of businesses will be the first to sell defective junk from China w/no regard for customers safety.

[Jeff]

The US Cof C has truly become a dinasaur that has no other platform than to spout words that in effect mean nothing or to trash those trying effect meaningful climate change. You neither represent the best interests nor that of the american people. Quite honestly as your membership continues to decline I am not sure who or what you represent.

[eyesay]

"we don't support or oppose either [a carbon tax or cap-and-trade] in concept." Then you admit that you are not part of the solution, so you are part of the problem.

[eyesay]

Targets won't accomplish anything. We need either a tax or cap-and-trade. Which one do you support?

[Britt Griswold]

Part of vigorous support for renewable energy and climate change protection is to get our own house in order before we demand that others do the same. Someone has to go first, Right now we are nowhere near being in the lead. You guys need to suck it up and encourage your members to go out and take advantage of the coming change, not fight it.

[Jeff in SF]

"Some in the environmental movement claim that, because of our opposition to a specific bill or approach, we must be opposed to all efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, or that we deny the existence of any problem."

Yep, environmentalists...and Apple, and PG&E, and Exelon, and Nike (sort of)...how about listing these corporate giants as some of those who disagree with your position? Too close to home? How many more of your 200,000 (not 3 million as you claim) members must resign before you pull your collective heads out of the desert sand?

[ChamberPost]

eyesay - we don't support or oppose either in concept, it all comes down to the actual legislation doesn't it? (bp)

[eyesay]

There are really only two ways to legislate reduction of carbon dioxide: (1) cap-and-trade or (2) carbon tax. Cut the bullbleep, which do you prefer? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

[Larman]

The US C of C sucks just like our local one. Corporate Welfare is all they espouse.

[Allen Henderson]

"Some in the environmental movement claim that...we deny the existence of any problem. They are dead wrong."

Thank you. I'm glad you cleared that up, because between your organization doubting scientific conclusions on the topic (1) and suggesting that global warming is actually beneficial (2) I got a little confused.

By the way, I love the notion that I will be rescued from my flooded coastal city by air conditioning. Hopefully you paid those staffers well because that right there is 100% pure genius.

(1) http://www.motherjones.com/files/USCOCPetitionJune232009.pdf

(2) http://www.motherjones.com/files/USCOC%20comments%20to%20EPA%20June%202009%20attachment.pdf

[Sharry Israel]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce represents many
retail establishments throughout the U.S. As
an association dedicated to the welfare of its
members, you should be promoting environmental
safeguards to protect the well being of all our
citizens. These are dangerous times in which we live, and we can ill afford to forgo long
term public health for the sake of short range
profits!

[David]

Would you please quit lying about your membership total? You know good and well you don't have near that many members. We both know it's less than a quarter-million.
And please quit lying about the ecology issues, too. Many many people know that you're a Republican influenced anti-environment agency.
When you keep lying this way it really insults the American VOTING public.

Respectfully,

David Bell

[Lefty]

"The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country and feels no passion or principle but that of gain." -- Thomas Jefferson

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is an advocate for the selfish spirit of commerce. It knows no passion or principle but that of gain. It supports policies that place the interest of corporate profit above all other interests including the interests of public health, safety and welfare.

Knowing no passion or principle but that of gain, it follows, therefore, that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will do and say anything to protect the selfish spirit of commerce against all notions of justice, fundamental fairness and equity, even if it results in economic depression and ruin for the rest of the nation and the world.

If further follows, therefore, that the forces and advocates of commerce cannot be permitted to hold positions of public trust, cannot be permitted to have undue influence upon positions of public trust, and cannot ever again be permitted to regulate itself.

We’ve been down the road paved by the selfish spirit of commerce, more than once before. “Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.” -- George Santayana.

[Ed Swanson]

We recognize that parts of the Energy Bills address climate change with carbon emissions as the target for control.

What if we have it wrong, and the real problem is the adverse Balance-of-Payments and risks due to dependence on unreliable overseas petroleum suppliers.

The current political, scientific, and economic paradigms for energy supply and use should be carefully reviewed to ensure pending legislation will have the appropriate policies to achieve needed change.

This includes finally taking action that should have happened right after the 1973 and 1979 petroleum supply disruptions.