Tweet
The US Chamber of Commerce is up to its eyeballs in disgruntled members and as a membership organization, perhaps it will consider the incredible amount of damage it has done to is reputation by aggressively resisting climate change initiatives and legislation.
After all, here are a few of the highlights of the Chamber’s resistance, courtesy of Brad Johnson over at The Wonk Room:
2009: Chamber SVP Kovacs Calls For ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’ On The ‘Science Of Climate Change.’ "It would be evolution versus creationism. It would be the science of climate change on trial." Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President William Kovacs explained that the Chamber was seeking a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" on global warming to prevent the EPA from declaring greenhouse gases a threat to the public welfare. [Los Angeles Times, 8/25/09]
2009: Chamber Claims No ‘Plausible Theory’ To Link ‘Climate Change With Extreme Weather Events And Disease In The United States,’ Disputes ‘Claims Of Ocean Acidification.’ In an official filing prepared by the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis for the comments on the EPA’s proposed endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce cited blog posts by global warming deniers such as Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger to challenge a broad range of climate change science, including sea level rise and the "UN/IPCC forecasted temperature increases." [U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 8/25/09]
2009: National Chamber Foundation Promotes Global Warming Denier Book As ‘#1′ Top Book Of The Year. Promoting "Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s National Chamber Foundation writes: "Climatologists Patrick J. Michaels and Robert Balling Jr. explain that climate science is hardly unbiased," and that the "pop-culture icons of climate change turns out to be short on facts and long on exaggeration." On Twitter, the National Chamber Foundation ranked the book "#1″ in its "Top Books of ’09." [National Chamber Foundation, 8/20/09]
Now, however, the momentum is really moving against the Chamber and surely change must be in the air.
Today, Apple, to its great credit, resigned from the Chamber because of the Chamber’s policies.
From the New York Times GreenInc blog we learn that Apple was clear as to why it’s resigning.
Really clear.
Apple has become the latest company to resign from the United States Chamber of Commerce over climate policy.
"We strongly object to the chamber’s recent comments opposing the E.P.A.’s effort to limit greenhouse gases," wrote Catherine A. Novelli, the vice-president of worldwide government affairs at Apple, in a letter dated today and addressed to Thomas J. Donohue, president and chief executive of the chamber.
Thank you Apple.
And just a little note to everyone who is still hanging around and supporting the Chamber.
The Chamber’s position is clear. You stay in, and keep paying dues, you are supporting their position.
So should you stay or should you go?
We say go.
(There’s much more on the Chamber here, and hats off to Pete Altman of NRDC for keeping the heat turned on high. Stay in touch on that here.)
5 Comments
There’s some huge movement on this issue right now, the Chamber has lost what, 3-4 big members in a few weeks? Amazing.
Not just ‘members’, but look at WHO they are losing!
On the upside, it’s heartening to see Apple and some of the other corporate leaders show more integrity than the Chamber.
good on Apple ! just sent them a gold star via corp email.
I was even more stunned by PG&E’s pull out
thanks James
I wonder if part of the dynamic is the health (or interfering with health, as the case may be) industries went too far in the eyes of other corporations and power brokers. Michael Moore speaks of 9 slices of pie going to one guy while the rest of us fight over the last piece. But there are actually several people fighting over the 9 slices as well. I have often wondered why other businesses weren’t against the health industry on reform since they have to pay higher premiums for their employees. I don’t believe for a minute GE or Murdoch have been caught sleeping when people on their stations are attacking the health corporate structure. I am hoping that what I am seeing may be even more than just higher premiums, though. What if the Baucus bill, showing that some corps have so much power that they dare to even try something like that and get some seriously powerful support for it, scared the hell out of other corps? Especially in a recession, what if they are waking up to the fact that their buddies in banking and health are getting to where they can and will steal the 9 slices and leave them fighting for crumbs with the rest of us poor schmucks?
It would be a wonderful thing if corporate interests did have the same reaction to the Baucus bill that I had: Terror at the prospect that those rich and powerful enough to make a play like that could get additional money and power from the bill at which point we are snowballs in hell. Does that make any sense to anyone other than me that it could be part of what seems like a new, even if limited, corporate response? OR am I just grasping at straws? I guess only time will tell, but it’s good to have even a little hope after hanging out in desperationville.
I’ve been wondering about when the rest of corporate America is going to realize that health insurance is soaking up all the discretionary purchasing dollars that could be going to jet-skis and the like.