Climate Changes for U.S. Chamber

Global warming has put the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the hot seat. In recent weeks, three utilities have announced plans to drop their membership or reduce their role in the powerful business organization because of the Chamber’s opposition to pending legislation that would cap carbon emissions.

First, there was Pacific Gas and Electric, whose chairman found it “dismaying that the Chamber rejects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored.”

Next came PNM Resources, which announced it was giving up its seat on the Chamber’s board because it disagreed with the Chamber’s position on climate change. Then on Monday, Exelon CEO John Rowe announced the utility will not renew its membership in the Chamber “because of their stridency against carbon legislation.”

Environmental groups contend the defections demonstrate that many businesses recognize the need to combat global warming even if the Chamber doesn’t.

Hold on a second, the Chamber responded Tuesday. We do support federal legislation to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, said president and CEO Tom Donohue. There also needs to be an international agreement that sets binding carbon-reduction targets for every country, he said.

“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,” Donohue said. “They are dead wrong.”

The fact is, the Chamber doesn’t oppose all solutions to global warming, just the ones that are on the table.

It opposes the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill, which would cap carbon emissions and set up a system for trading carbon credits. That bill is “neither comprehensive nor international, and it falls short on moving renewable and alternative technologies into the marketplace,” Donohue said.

It’s a safe bet it won’t like the Senate cap-and-trade bill either. That legislation is expected to be unveiled Wednesday by Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat. It reportedly will call for a 20 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2020, a more aggressive target than is in the House bill.

The Chamber especially doesn’t want the Environmental Protection Agency to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. It’s called for a public hearing on the scientific evidence the EPA is relying on to claim that carbon dioxide emissions from cars endangers public health in the U.S.

That request appeared to be the last straw for the businesses that defected from the Chamber, because they saw it as an attempt by the Chamber to challenge the conclusion—accepted by most climate scientists—that carbon emissions are a major contributor to global warming.

No, the Chamber contends, we’re not challenging the science behind climate change. We just want the EPA to show us the evidence that proves rising temperatures pose a threat to public health and welfare.

Rising sea levels and widespread famine aren’t enough of a threat for the Chamber, it appears. When it comes to the future of our planet, it’s almost as if the Chamber is channeling Bobby Knight, the former college basketball coach who infamously joked, “If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it.”