Cracks widen in campaign to stop global warming legislation
September 30, 2009 by Tom GuayPosted in: Latest News & Views, News
The chances that Congress will force companies one way or another to be “green” by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are growing.
Reason: Huge cracks are emerging in the once formidable industry opposition to creating a national cap-and-trade program to limit GHG emissions.
In recent weeks, three utilities have dropped out of industry trade groups due to the heated rhetoric the groups have adopted to downplay or dismiss the need to reduce GHG emissions.
California’s big utility, PG&E has dropped its membership with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of the Chamber’s proposal that EPA stage a trial to judge the science used to justify limiting GHG emissions. Chamber Vice President Bill Kovacsl asked EPA to model such a trial on the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial over whether evolution or creationism should be taught in school.
The monkey trial idea was the final straw for PG&E, which supports cap-and-trade legislation.
PG&E chief Peter Darbee says it’s “dismaying that the Chamber neglects 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.”
Other utilities exiting the Chamber include Exelon Corp. and PNM Resources Inc.
Apparel manufacturer Nike echoes the PG&E complaint, but has yet to drop its membership. In a memo released by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Nike says it’s time for action, not more heated debates.
Chamber member Johnson & Johnson has asked the trade group to tone down its rhetoric to reflect the reality that many Chamber members support climate change action.
In a related action, Duke Energy and Alstom Power recently withdrew from the anti-global warming campaign operating as the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). A behind the scenes analysis is detailed by the National Journal.
These companies are part of the let’s-do-something-about global warming campaign sponsored by EPA in its United States Climate Action Partnership. Its corporate members are listed here. No word yet on whether more of these companies will exit their Washington-based lobbying organizations.
Tags: Alstom Power, climate change, Duke Energy, Nike, PG&E, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
GreenandMore.com
Loading ...
October 1st, 2009 at 9:37 am
This development is truly dismaying, because the “global wamring as a result of CO2″ is junk science. Even the “experts” own models only support the radical claims if they make very unrealistic assumptions. Scientists with opposing points of view have been censured for the last 10 years, but many are just now beginning to speak out. Now is NOT the time to drop the fight. Most of the companies who support this legislation have found a lway to make a profit through regulation of GHGs, at the expense of the American people and our standard of living, not an overwhleming concern for hte planet. IF warming is occuring at all (which much current data disputes) it is much more likely the result of natural global cycles that have been going on for millions of years and which man has no power to influence. The movement to be more efficient and less wasteful is inherently sound on its own, but the rest of the “global climate change” hoopla is not, and some is even harmful to the environment.
October 1st, 2009 at 10:28 am
Lies all lies and eye wash. Global warming and cooling has happened before and will happen again. The trick is finding a way to profit from it. First any costs will be passed on to the consumer like Cap and Trade. Second Corporate America and Wall Street Own Congress through the Lobby. Sure Green Organizations have a lobby, but the amount of money doesn’t compare to what the Corporations bring to the table. Until we change Congress and the lobby law, what they say goes. Even if anything’s passed it’s so watered down as to be moot. As far as creating Green jobs through manufacturing, as soon as the company gets big enough, it has to outsource to compete.
October 1st, 2009 at 11:17 am
Anything (including self) coming out of California is usually pretty screwed up including their big power company and the love of junk science.
October 1st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
I’m glad to see there are some like-minded conservatives answering to this blog. I agree on the global warming hoax. If you’ve been following the hoax, every year since 1998 has shown a decrease in global mean temperatures. That’s why the envirowhackos have changed the “global warming” phrase to “climate change” legislation.
October 1st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
As a fifty year old I remember in the late 60′s and early 70′s the cause of the day taught in grade school was upcoming global cooling! We recall we saw several films with maps of predicted lower temperature
ranges in different parts of the world. hmmmm
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:35 am
to all above, such an inconvenient truth…..
October 5th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Major utilities such as PG&E & Duke have changed their tune because they have been bought.
They have been promised the ability to purchase and control credits, which they can sell for huge profits.
Those crafting the legislation will profit handsomely through CAP & TAX! You and I get to
shoulder the burden. And all the so called experts agree, there is no overall environmental benefit
from this legislation! Like health care its about control & access.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:47 am
The latest climate data indicates that the earth is cooling not warming. If you research weather and climate changes you will find that in the late 1800′s, we had more floods, storms, droughts, than we have now. Was there climate change then? This is just another way the government will tax us. Look at disposal fees on oil changes and new tires. The government collectes the fees and never disposes or antything. As a matter of fact, used oil and tires are sold to be remanufactured.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Thirty years ago the same scientists were saying that we would be in another Ice Age by the year 2000. Which is it??? When an idiot can receive the Nobel Prize for his so called work concerning global warming I think we need to stop look at what scientists are compiling this data and how they came to their conclusions. Also the idiot I speak of invented the Internet. Again he assumes responsibility for someone elses work.
October 5th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Al’s top scientist from NOAA has already admitted tweaking data that did not fit the desired outcome. If someone from the other point of view did the same thing, would they not be discredited for doing so. Instead he wins a Nobel piece of… prize (formally know as the Nobel peace prize until they started handing them out to every liberal whack job they could find.)
October 6th, 2009 at 9:13 am
To all above, I wonder if this thread will be around for your grandkids to read when they are old and gray? I wonder how they would reply?
October 6th, 2009 at 9:24 am
The grandkids would read this (along with the many other liberal scare pieces) and laugh at us for falling for another media driven and anti-capitalist scam such as “global warming.”
Then they’ll go to the mosques and face mecca and wonder how the dhimmi politicians got us into sharia law by being so appeasement-oriented and wish for the good old days when America was a power in the world and harken back to the empty promises of “Change we can believe in.”
October 6th, 2009 at 9:48 am
There seems to be a large bit of controversy on the GHG and global warming issues. The facts are there but the general public are more apt to believe what they see on a tv or movie screen rather than research. The “Inconvenient Truth” is that generally people are gullable. History, scientific studies, current climate data are all insupportive of the “global warming” philosophy. This remindes me of the “holes in the Ozone layer panic of the 80′s”. Are we as a society not happy unless there is some threat of devistation or human turmoil? The facts are there, the history is there and it is absolutely amazing that the government and extremists will totally ignore this fact. It reminds me of Benzine in the 70′s, Asbestos vs. Calcium Silicates in the 80′s, etc. The truth of the matter is that instead of making it a money making activity it should be made a tax break activity for those who are proactive in environmental conservation. The whole problem with that is that the government, which has managed to triple the deficit in just a matter of months, will have no avenue of investment and recovery of their mis-spending from the American workers and companies that employ them. Therefore by increasing the actual financial burden on those companies they cut their workforce, increasing unemployment. It is a totally illogical circle that is created everytime there is a poorly thought out scheme or regulatory requirement is put forth. ……… Just my opinion, and I understand that everyone will have one. Please make yours an informed one!
October 8th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Roger Revelle who was the father of the green house effects theory and who was Al Gore’s mentor wrote a paper in 1988 saying that he didn’t want the country to spend huges amounts of capital on this issue. He stated that it may take another 15 to 20 years to collect data (a novel idea) on the true impact of CO2 emissions on the environment. When told of this, Mr. Gore simply dismissed his old Prof by saying Roger was getting senile. How convenient. Did anyone take notice of last winter.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Don, So let me get this straight. A scientist that Al Gore is relying on, Al Gore also believes is senile… Funny.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I hope I never see, increases taxes and family expenses generated by the Cap and Tax legislation. Legislation based om extremely poor scientific studies, one exteremly dishonest politician and a bunch of tree huggers. I hope for the sake of this nation, it does not pass.
October 8th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Hey Red Neck, check out Roger Revelle on Google. Also, check out “The Bakken”. We got oil man, and nobody wants to drill. Nancy got 23 million for her little marsh mouse, and farmers in southern California are not being given water for their farms to protect a little smelt, which the whales eat. Remember Jimmy Carter and his snail darter campain in the great Northwest. I believe we can do a better job of protecting our environment, but what genus and species are we trying to save? It’s surely not homo sapiens. Right on, Dude.
October 9th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I really do need to get a rendering of George Bush in green tights to give me the intellectual inspiration to see this inconvenient truth as clearly as the other enlightened followers of this thread…