More and more companies, such as Pacific Gas & Electric, are stepping away from membership in trade organizations that deny climate change.
(NEWSCOM/File)Photos (1 of 1)
Companies desert the climate deniosphere
By Moises Velasquez-Manoff | 09.28.09
Increasingly, companies are leaving trade associations that have taken positions at odds with what science is telling us about human-induced global warming — that it’s real and that we’d better address it sooner rather than later.
Last week, Pacific Gas & Electric (possibly best known nationally as the villain in the movie Erin Brockovich”) left the US Chamber of Commerce over “fundamental differences” on how to approach climate change caused by a build-up of greenhouse gases in earth’s atmosphere.
Then New Mexico-based PNM Resources announced it would let its membership in the Chamber expire over similar concerns. And in a statement, Nike expressed its discontent with the Chamber’s obfuscating approach to climate change.
In a letter [PDF], PG&E chairman and CEO Peter Darbee said:
We find it 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. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another.
An excerpt of PNM’s statement in the Albuquerque Journal:
We strongly disagree with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s position on climate change legislation and particularly reject its recent theatrics calling for a ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’ to put the science of climate change on trial. We believe the science is compelling enough to act sooner rather than later, and we support comprehensive federal legislation to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect customers against unreasonable cost increases.
A Nike statement said:
Nike fundamentally disagrees with the US Chamber of Commerce’s position on climate change and is concerned and deeply disappointed with the US Chamber’s recently filed petition challenging the EPA’s administrative authority and action on this critically important issue.
Nike believes that climate change is an urgent issue affecting the world today and that businesses and their representative associations need to take an active role to invest in sustainable business practices and innovative solutions to address the issue. It is not a time for debate but instead a time for action and we believe the Chamber’s recent petition sets back important work currently being undertaken by EPA on this issue.
Today, Exelon, an electric utility company, announced that it would not renew its Chamber of Commerce membership when it expires because of the Chamber’s opposition to climate legislation. In a speech at the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy’s national conference today, Exelon CEO John Rowe said:
The carbon-based free lunch is over. But while we can’t fix our climate problems for free, the price signal sent through a cap-and-trade system will drive low-carbon investments in the most inexpensive and efficient way possible…. Putting a price on carbon is essential, because it will force us to do the cheapest things, like energy efficiency, first.”
In a letter earlier this year, Johnson & Johnson also expressed displeasure about the Chamber’s tack, hinting that official Chamber views on climate issues were far more extreme than those held by its actual members. In an April letter [PDF], the pharmaceutical company said:
We recognize that Chamber members have varying perspectives on climate change legislation. We would appreciate if statements made by the chamber would reflect the full range of views, especially those of chamber members advocating for congressional action.
A new Scopes monkey trial on climate aside, here’s how the Chamber sums up its thinking on climate:
The long and the short of it is, preserving and protecting our economy and our environment for future generations is one of the top priorities of the U.S. Chamber. American business is the single largest investor and innovator in clean energy solutions and remains committed to propelling this nation to a prosperous and lower carbon future. We support sound policies that incentivize innovation and new business opportunities rather than the approach coming out of the House and the EPA which will strangle business with thousands of new regulation and stifle America’s competitiveness.
The Chamber isn’t the only industry association seeing desertions over the twin “regulation will kill business” and “climate change is a hoax” stances on climate issues.
Earlier this month, Alstom Power, a French manufacturer of power plant parts, left the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). Last month, Duke Energy also left ACCCE, as did Alcoa, an aluminum company.
In August, Bonner & Associates, a lobbying firm hired by ACCCE, was caught sending forged letters to members of the House. But the companies say that didn’t play into their decision to leave ACCCE.
In early September, Duke spokesman Tom Williams explained the company’s decision to the National Journal: “As the debate evolved, it became clear that there were some influential members who would never support climate legislation no matter what.”
Both Alstom and Duke supported the Waxman-Markey bill passed in the US House last June.
The exodus prompted one a blogger at Climate Progress to quip: “Will last company to leave the Chamber’s boardroom please turn off the lights!”
Editor’s note: For more articles about the environment, see the Monitor’s main environment page, which offers information on many environment topics. Also, check out our Bright Green blog archive and our RSS feed.
<< Time for El Niño’s half brother to take a bow? | MainComments
2. David Yates | 09.28.09
Now, if business and law school graduates took an oath to uphold ethics within their corporations in the same manor as physicians (the Hippocratic oath) maybe we could move this country in a worthwhile direction. Just imagine: lobbyists urging politicians to follow the conscience of their constituents! “First, do no harm.” I’m telling you there’s money in doing things right and in doing the right things.
3. Jock Shockley | 09.29.09
Its always a pity when business is behind in its research. 10 years ago these companies may have been justified in acting this way. Now that the scientific support for manmade global warming has collapsed, these businesses are out of step yet again.
I defy Peter Darbee to identify his “overwhelming majority of experts” - he may find a lot of researchers dependent on funding to agree with him, but it seems the real experts and the emeritus professors have moved out of the alarmist camp.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the whole issue is now being driven by cap-and-trade brokers (like Gore) and their strange bedfellows like the nuclear power industry (who probably can’t believe their luck).
Anybody who is current with the science is frustrated by this “man-driven-climate-change-that-we-can-stop” issue dragging on despite the science becoming clear. Sadly, though, this issue is following the money and not the science.
Its time for business to stay current and not be sad pawns to public opinion. This is a time for perceptive decision making, not big plays driven by corporate marketing departments.
I also wonder why there is such opposition to a debate on the science of “Climate Change” and man’s possible role. Who is afraid of what?
4. pata | 09.29.09
In the last few years alone, fossil fuel companies have raked in 100’s of Billions of dollars in profits. If you really want to follow the money, that’s where it goes, to Climate Change deniers, of whom many thousands are paid to work on the web, spreading the gospel of greed.
The Alan Carlin story is a hoot, or at least smile-provoking. According to his own website, he earned a Bachelor’s degree in physics from Cal Tech. He has a PhD in Economics. His work at the EPA was in Economics. No sign of competency regarding climate whatsoever. There is apparently not enough argumentation among economists, new fields of dispute must be plowed.
Isn’t it interesting, the desperate Fox tv, reaching way beyond the retirement age cohort to find a gentleman with no climate credentials whatever, who is willing to stand before a chart and pretend to be an expert. Is it surprising that others of his birth cohort tend to be less than concerned about the future of our planet?
Even his claims toward the EPA have been roundly debunked.
5. Woody Porter | 09.29.09
I defy Jock Shockley (#3) to name one internationally recognized scientific organization that agrees with his “denialist” dogma. He will excuse his inability to do so by announcing that these thousands and thousands of people are all — every single on of them — despicable cads, selling out their every vestige of their scientific integrity for government payola.
I defy him to name the “real experts and the emeritus professors” who support his position. I’ve seen such lists — and when you Google the names, you’ll find a sad platoon of senile crackpots — e.g. the late Frederick Seitz, tobacco company apologist and second-hand-smoke “denialist.
6. Deep Climate | 09.29.09
#1
Alan Carlin’s so-called suppression by the EPA is a crock. His unsolicited “report” was a pastiche of tired contrarian talking points. And key elements of the report were lifted and very slightly modified from criticism of the EPA in Patrick Michaels’s World Climate Report, a leading blog of the denialosphere.
And, of course, the right-wing think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute was behind the whole bogus fiasco.
See:
http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/30/suppressed-carlin-report-based-on-pat-michaels-attack-on-epa/
http://deepclimate.org/2009/09/25/john-broder-of-nyt-the-epa-fights-back-on-carlin-suppression/
7. Nick D | 09.29.09
One species extracts and then burns massive quantities of carbon based fossil fuels, an apt term considering the time frame involved; this carbon had been held out of the atmosphere (sequestered)for hundreds millions of years. As a biproduct of this consumption in around two centuries (with the rate ramping up towards present) enough carbon dioxide (as well as number of other green house gasses, released from fossil fuels and other activities) is released to prfoundly change the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the oceans. It is dangerous, absurd and completely illogical to think that these profound chemical changes in the oceanic/atmospheric system would not bring about profound changes in the climate of this planet. How could change of this magnitude and speed not bring about profound alteration of the planet’s climate? I don’t need an expert to tell me that given our resource use patterns we are now a primary factor in changing the earth’s climate, it is an obvious outcome.
8. Butler Yeats | 09.29.09
I find attacks on reaserchers dependent on funding dubios when the people making these attacks could easily be employed by organizations with a political axe to grind and plenty of money (many times the monitary resources offered by any science grant) to spend on sowing disinformation.
9. Mike Moxcey | 09.29.09
Despite widespread dislike towards big business, they are the ones who have the money and who are actually paying now for all the detrimental effects and good investigative science (as well as the bad science).
The reinsurance industry is the prime mover behind the widespread acceptance of the reality of global warming. They are one of the few businesses that have a global perspective longer than the next quarter. Their profits depend on longer term goals and they do read all the scientific reports.
10. Rick in Canada | 09.29.09
Same old tired stuff about Global Warming… sorry… “Climate Change”… (hard to keep up with the pc name changes)
This is just bs to make people like Al Gore rich. It was telling when I compared Gore’s book to Lomborg’s books. Gore has no footnotes and refers to no studies, Lomborg’s books are probably %25 footnotes that point to studies that prove his case.
11. Benjamin | 09.29.09
Jock Shockley, the science is clear, but not in the way you say it is. Check out the statements by the leading science organizations:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
National Academy of Sciences> (NAS)
http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
12. Liz2009 | 09.29.09
A review of Dr. Iam Plimmer’s book on the fallacy of “global warming” and his 3000 + footnotes from numerous scientific studies - in his recent book, “Heaven and Earth” is something everyone in America should read. The “hockey stick” approach doesn’t cut it when looking at 600,000 years of interesting statistics — we certainly should all be stewards of our wonderful planet, yet spending money unnecessarily for the sun to change is ridiculous.
13. Leigh | 09.29.09
Yo Benjamin, every one of those organizations is cashing in on the global warming scam. ALL of the independent scientists and organizations are screaming about the falsification of data, the desertion of scientific process and principles and the MONEY and POWER that are at the heart of this entire SCAM! Someday these global warming zealots will be put on trial for crimes against humanity for this scam and spend the rest of their lives in prison.
14. Benjamin | 09.29.09
Rick in Canada, check out this CSM article explaining that the phrase “climate change” has been in use for decades:
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/09/08/why-are-they-calling-it-climate-change-now/
Also, Bjorn Lomborg does not take a denialist position:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It:_The_Skeptical_Environmentalist%27s_Guide_to_Global_Warming
Why do statesmen like Al Gore and Newt Gingrich write books on global warming? To get rich? No. It is because they are leaders providing leadership.
15. Benjamin | 09.30.09
Leigh, I think your assessment is inaccurate. I am a scientist associated with the American Geophysical Union (I’m not a leader in that organization, though), and I have never heard another scientist, even jokingly, talk about using fraudulent science to gain wealth and power. I’m a college professor who does carbon cycle research, and I make about $60k per year - a comfortable salary, but certainly not rich. My salary does not depend on my research area, as I would make the same amount if I studied topics that had nothing to do with carbon cycling or climate. I personally am interested in studying nature and serving humanity, and have no interest in becoming rich or powerful. I am acquainted with a member of the IPCC and can attest that he is a great guy, a brilliant scientist, has moderate political views, and has no obsession with money or power. As a scientist and professor, I know many scientists, and am not aware of one of whom that holds a “denialist” point of view.
To say that us scientists are part of a grand conspiracy to defraud humanity sounds to me to be, frankly, at bit insane.
16. JimC | 09.30.09
Benjamin,
I looked up AGU and ran across their Annual Report:
http://www.agu.org/about/annual_report/AGU_08AnnualReport.pdf
From what I garnered from the annual report, AGU isn’t much more than a lobby group. They even have a picture of the White House on their site.
Some of their major contributors include Chevron, Exxon, and Northrop Grumman. Some of the political contacts mentioned included Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton.
My understanding is that their main goal - at least according to the site - is relegated to seeking funds from the government and other “services” to keep their organization alive. They had lots of information on funds - who they get funds from, what their funds were, and how they might be able to get more funds. To their credit, they did however host a couple of gatherings a year. But there was very little on anything that pertained to any specific scientific endeavors.
It made me wonder what their motivation truly was, but hey, read it for yourself - maybe you can shed some light on who and what they are.
17. James allison | 10.01.09
AGW has just been rightly exposed for the biggest science fraud in the history of modern science. To read about it go to google news and search on “briffa” and “mcintyre”. The amazing story of corruption and falsification of data will continue unfolding.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
2. More CO2 for a Greener World: One From the Tobacco Advertiser’s Playbook : Red, Green, and Blue | 09.29.09
3. US Chamber of Commerce causing members to flee due to climate change position | Agilis Energy | News & Analysis on the Changing Traditional and Renewable Energy Markets | 09.30.09
4. Twitter Trackbacks for Companies desert the climate deniosphere | csmonitor.com [csmonitor.com] on Topsy.com | 10.01.09
5. Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut. | 10.13.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. JimC | 09.28.09
Alan Carlin, senior analyst and 35 year veteran of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a degree from CalTech in physics, and a colleague, recently issued a 98 page analysis urging the EPA to take another look at the climate change issue. Referring to the report, he wrote, “We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA.”
Mr. Carlin’s analysis shows there are problems with climate models. That temperature changes are actually inching upward rather than downward. And, that the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive.
Are the people at PG&E, PNM, Nike, et al now going to quit doing business with the EPA?
Where’s the Monitor’s article on Mr. Carlin’s dissenting view? Had I not engaged other news sources - sources that want to “report” the news, rather than “shape” the news - I would have no idea there were any dissenting views within the EPA. So much for “fair and balanced”.