The Boston Globe Versus The Truth

by David Chavern

The Boston Globe editorial board must be acquainted with the old comic's adage "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story!"  Their editorial about us today is certainly more about drama than accuracy.

We do bear some of the blame.  As I have said repeatedly now -- including to the Globe's owner (the New York Times) -- the use of the Scopes analogy was flatly wrong, it was incorrect and obscured the Chamber's real position.  While we understand that irresponsible parties will continue to pound us with that quote because it makes them feel good, the Globe should know better than to full out lie when it asserts (on its supposedly respectable editorial page)  that the analogy reflects the Chamber's viewpoint.  It doesn't and they know it doesn’t.

We are going to have a "carbon constrained future."  That means that there will be some system (cap-and-trade, carbon tax, regulation, etc.) that puts an economic price on the emission of carbon.  The trick is to find a system that

1. respects the fact that this is a global problem requiring common global solutions,
2. incentivizes the rapid development of technological solutions, and
3. doesn't trash our economy, making us all poorer and thus less able to address the problem.

By way of negative example, I take from their editorial that the Globe would LIKE the EPA to regulate carbon emissions through the Clean Air Act, thus accelerating the exodus of carbon emitting manufacturing to China and other countries.  They get the jobs, we all get the bad air -- that sure sounds like a big win!

Listen, we are highly confident that our current policy positions reflect the views and interests of a vast majority of our members.  The resignation of three companies who did not provide us with significant support and who are all economically interested in a specific legislative outcome, does not an exodus make. If companies want to curry favor with the NRDC at our expense and so be it, they have that right.  However, no one should confuse an orchestrated PR exercise with a true commentary on our true positions.

Comments

[James Macek]

Cap and trade is based on unproven science and GE knows it. However, it is very hard to ignore the fortune they stand to make if this bill or one like it passes. The free market operates perfectly when left alone, but the promise of increased profits through legistlation sometime tempts men and corporations beyond their ability to resist. I am sorry that GE and the other alternate energy companies were not more concerned about the future of the country than thier short-term profits.

[John Petro]

The chamber needs to get ahead of this issue. It should come out with a strongly worded statement that global warming is real, it is very serious, that the deniers of global warming are just plain nuts and that we need action now. Then focus on international action and win win solutions. The chamber must get positive on this issue or everyone will start writing their favorite companies to exit the chamber and no one will take the time to oppose that view. You have been laging on this important issue to long.