By Amanda DeBard
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business trade association, has suffered the defection of five of its members, including Apple Inc. and Nike Inc., over its hard-line opposition to pending climate change legislation.
The resignations, submitted in just the past two weeks, have shined a spotlight on the deep divisions in industry over how to deal with the issue of climate change.
The chamber is leading the charge against President Obama's effort to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere. But three utilities, along with business powerhouses Nike and Apple, support the climate legislation that passed the House in June.
Disagreements are common in large trade associations. But resignations over policy are rare, an indication of how high the stakes are in opposing a top-agenda item of a sitting president.
Apple is the latest company to publicly split with the chamber over climate policy. The maker of Macintosh computers and iPhones said Monday that it wishes the chamber would "play a constructive role in addressing the climate crisis" and finds it frustrating to be at odds with the chamber over regulating greenhouse gas emissions, according to a letter to the chamber from Catherine A. Novelli, Apple's vice president of worldwide government affairs.
As a result of the chamber's position, Apple said, it would resign its membership effective immediately.
In response, the chamber said its position on climate change is misunderstood, explaining that it opposes the pending legislation rather than comprehensive climate policy.
"The chamber is a consensus-driven organization and welcomes input from any company that wants to work on a comprehensive approach to reduce greenhouse gases," said Eric Wohlschlegel, a chamber spokesman. "While well continue to represent the broad majority of our membership on this goal, we recognize that there are some companies who stand to gain more than others with the current options on the table."
Three major utilities - PG%26amp;E Corp. of California, Exelon Corp. of Chicago and PNM Resources of New Mexico - said they also disagree with the chamber's position on its call for a public hearing on the Obama administration's assertion that there is a link between carbon dioxide and public health and welfare.
The link, if it exists, would allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate all carbon dioxide emitters.
The hearing would be the equivalent of a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century," Peter Darbee, PG%26amp;E's chief executive, said in a blog post last month announcing the split.
"The carbon-based free lunch is over," John Rowe, Exelon's chief executive, said last month.
Mr. Rowe said the world's climate problem cant be fixed free of charge, but his company supports the legislation because it "will drive low-carbon investments in the most inexpensive and efficient way possible."
Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power generator, could earn more than $1 billion a year in profit if the pending legislation becomes law, Mr. Rowe said.
PNM Resources said it objected to calls to put "the science of climate change on trial" and would withdraw from the chamber. The utility had previously informed the chamber that it would allow its members on the chamber's board to lapse.
The three utilities are members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a group of businesses and environmentalists that supports the pending legislation. The House-passed climate bill was based in part on proposals advocated by USCAP.
Nike also quit the chamber's board late last month, but will retain its membership in the group. The global athletic company said it "does not believe that on the issue of climate change the chamber represents the diversity of views held by board members."
Separately, Johnson %26amp; Johnson, General Electric Co. and the San Jose Chamber of Commerce have said the chamber's position on climate change does not reflect their corporate views, but they have not severed ties with the business group.
Pete Altman, climate campaign director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the actions of the companies show their frustration with what he called the chamber's "retrograde" position on climate change regulation.
"Companies keep proving me wrong, because I think it's hard for them to leave the chamber. It's a big hurdle, because this is just not normally what companies do in order to express opinions," Mr. Altman said. "I have been surprised at how many companies are leaving or publicly criticizing the chamber."
He added that the departures were based on a mix of reasons. He noted that some utility companies see the chance to profit from the legislation, while manufacturers desire a climate bill that gives them certainty about the future. In the cases of Nike and Apple, he said, they have made corpor|||Although Apple makes a good product, it will not suffer any ill-effects from carbon taxes except related to worsening economy. I am not surprised Jobs has bought into the hype. If he had more to lose, he might take a greater interest in actually looking at the evidence.
Note: has anyone else noticed that certain alarmists travel in packs.|||Dumb answer. Apple is only one of many intelligent companies quitting the moronic chamber.
Report Abuse
|||I come down on the side of the evidence. Not the side of the fear mongers. Here is an article that uses real research and qualified scientists. ( not Wikki)
http://www.nationscrier.com/index.php?op…|||Chamber of commerce since they are the only ones making any sense.|||I come down on the side of the Chamber of Commerce with this law suit. I would love to see it.
I want to see how you can defend "peer review" and define what is and is not a qualified peer review vs. sending it out among those who are predisposed to accept what you say.
I also now wonder what the believers think about the hockey stick graph now that the IPCC has disavowed is and removed the graph from page 5 of their report?|||It is evident that the world is arguing over what turns out to be an over-simplification of a complex problem. We can't try to force one solution to what might be perceived as urgent by some. The Chamber of Commerce has said that it is willing to work for adaptation and moderation. That ought to be the line of more organizations. We can work together to provide solutions. They don't argue the facts. The solutions, and whether they are effective or not, is the argument. More should adopt their sane approach to operation.|||I think I'd come down on the side of the National Academy of Sciences. Their purpose is to provide "experts serve(ing) pro bono to address critical national issues and give advice to the federal government and the public."
http://www.nationalacademies.org/about/
What is the purpose of the US Chamber?
"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation representing 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations. More than 96% of U.S. Chamber members are small businesses with 100 employees or fewer.
As the voice of business, the Chamber's core purpose is to fight for free enterprise before Congress, the White House, regulatory agencies, the courts, the court of public opinion, and governments around the world."
http://www.chamberbiz.com/about/default.…
If you want an honest opinion about climate change, I'd think asking scientists with nothing to gain would be a better option than asking an organization whose purpose is to represent businesses that may not be as profitable if legislation passes.
I am heartened by the fact that many companies are starting to stand up to be heard though. They are thinking about the long term instead of short term, and that will help improve the welfare of everybody as well as help long term profitability.|||Do not misquote the Chamber's position. The split is over the solution not with the science. The Chamber acknowledges the need to reduce CO2 to mitigate warming -- they do not see a scam. The Chamber, along with just four of its member companies opposes Waxman-Markey.
In a phone interview with the NY Times, the Chamber's spokesman said "“We’ve never questioned the science behind global warming, ... The chamber is trying to move forward with solutions on climate change,”
There is no real debate as to whether global warming is real. The debate is what to do about it. The National Chamber of Commerce has been very clear about that.|||A Congressional Hearing needs to happen. Bring in all of the so-called "Man-did-it" global warming experts and allow them to defend their sloppy/fraudulent science.
Let's start with the discredited/shamed 'hockey-stick' club. Then throw in a couple of hippy-type activists, like Hansen and Gore.
I would almost guarantee that when such a hearing is over, there will be criminal charges brought against the AGW lackies.|||you are so correct my friend.
MAN made Global Warming is a ruse to CONVINCE people that we are responsible for a natural event and how we must pay MORE to save the Planet,....what nonsense will they come up with next.
Obviously what we do when burning fossil fuels does no good to the quality of the air we breath and the pollution of the waters of this Earth is a disgraceful thing, but it is NOT the cause of Climate Change.
read this:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephilli…
or this:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLE…
or this even:
http://www.lenzie.org.uk/scam.php
or if you are one of those "conditioned" individuals who get all their information from watching T.V. try watching some of these:
http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=…|||For determining if global warming is real and the consequences, it is best to go with scientists. The US Chamber is a lobbying organization that represents business interest and many times those interest are not the same as the greater social interest. Therefore, society can't count on the US Chamber to act in the nations best interest. If it is a rational actor, it will act in the best interest of its most influential members.
The thing about scientist is there are so many and none have the same interest, they do not often speak with one voice. It is impossible to get them all on the same page. Many can score big points by exposing flawed methods, conclusions that don't logically follow from results, and repeating published experiments that end with different results. It is extremely competitive. The fact that a very large majority are worried about AGW should make you afraid.|||I hope you can get by on your looks.|||Anyone who says global warming is 'a scam' is either woefully or wilfully ignorant.|||I come down on the side of the climate scientists and scientific evidence. So do the many groups which are quitting the US Chamber of Commerce.
Frankly I couldn't care less what the Chamber of Commerce position is on a scientific issue, but I'm glad so many companies aren't willing to support such an ignorant position.|||First, you have plagiarized a copyrighted article (Washington Times, aka Unification Church) for your question. I'm not going to report it, but if you do it again I will.
Second, I'm sure General Electric would love to have you call them a "green," it's certainly not their reputation and it would mean all those silly commercials of theirs have had an influence on you.
As for your poll, I come down on the side of the scientists.|||The wise go with what qualified scientists say
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_…
not political groups with conflicts of interest like the Chamber of Commerce. It is nice to see many businesses leaving the Chamber of Commerce, though. Who would want to be associated with science deniers?
No comments:
Post a Comment