Climate Change Controversy

The Chamber also was criticized in recent weeks for its stance on climate change. The Chamber opposed House-passed legislation that would cap carbon emissions, contending it fell short on bringing alternative sources of energy into the marketplace. The bill also would spark retaliation from other countries because it includes carbon tariffs on goods imported to the United States, says the Chamber.

It also has urged the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a public hearing on the science the agency is relying on to conclude that greenhouse gases are enough of a danger to public health that regulations controlling their emissions are justified under the Clean Air Act. William Kovacs, the Chamber’s top environmental lobbyist, told the Los Angeles Times that the hearing would be “the Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st century.”

That quote—since repudiated by the Chamber—was the last straw for a few Chamber members who already disagreed with the Chamber’s stance on greenhouse-gas legislation. Three utilities announced plans to either quit the Chamber or resign their seats on its board. Then Nike resigned its board seat, and Apple quit the organization, saying it “supports regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the Chamber at odds with us in this effort.”

Many companies, big and small, recognize that curbs on carbon emissions not only are needed, but can also be good for business if crafted in the right way, said Pete Altman, climate campaign director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. In the past couple of years, there has been “pent-up frustration” that the Chamber “is refusing to budge from its extremist stance on this issue,” he said.

U.S. Chamber president and CEO Tom Donohue contends the Chamber’s position on climate change has been distorted. He said the Chamber does support federal legislation and international agreements to reduce carbon emissions.