| A few weeks ago, the Montana Chamber of Commerce's Jon Benion made a couple of half-hearted stabs at cap-and-trade legislation. In late August, Bennion pointed to some polling sponsored by the CoC did showing that "Montanans do not support cap-and-trade schemes" - and claims the Good Guv doesn't like cap-and-trade (he has "concerns") and instead prefers a carbon tax. In a later post, Benion claims any cap-and-trade bill would mean lost jobs for the state, citing a study by a group backed by oil and gas interests. Benion: "These are big price tags for a bill that would only reduce worldwide carbon emissions by a few percentage points over time."
What's going on here? Does the Chamber of Commerce seek more aggressive legislation than Waxman-Markey? A carbon tax, maybe? Something that, you know, would reduce carbon emissions by a lot of percentage points? Is the Chamber of Commerce here arguing for a more substantial government green jobs program for Montana?
Based on the rhetoric emanating from the body, it appears Montana's chapter is following the lead of the U.S. CoC.
David Roberts:
When the Waxman-Markey bill rolled out, {the U.S. CoC} did what it always does: pretended to agree with the goal while recommending changes in the means so drastic that they would gut the bill. See this comical letter wherein it wants to "balance environmental objectives with the need for economic growth and job creation" by lowering targets, increasing free allocations, ditching the renewable energy standard, waiting for China and India to act first, completely preempting state programs, and increasing subsidies to fossil-fuel companies. This is standard operating procedure for CoC, a game it knows how to play. It lobbies for the interests of the corporate class.
And just last month, the U.S. CoC questioned climate change itself, calling for a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" to put the "science of climate change on trial." (The CoC, presumably, would play the role of the doddering and near-incoherent William Jennings Bryant.)
As Roberts points out, "there's a problem" here: "many, many business[es] see enormous opportunities in the shift to clean energy." And perhaps some business owners even have children to whom they'd like to pass on a habitable planet.
Still, it was somewhat of a surprise when PG&E, in a blog post (!), yesterday announced it was leaving the CoC because of the organization's "extreme position on climate change":
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.
And Nike isn't happy, either.
So why is the U.S. CoC (and presumably Montana's chapter, based on its rhetoric) trying to derail meaningful solutions to an environmental crisis, despite many of its members eager to press forward with innovative green energy projects, not to mention concern for the future of the economy and country? Could it be that it's because U.S. CoC president Tom Donahue has a financial stake in the failure of any climate change legislation? Or that the author of the CoC's climate change policy - Montanan Donald J Sterhan - hobnobs with oil men (pdf)? Are we seeing the Good Ol' Boy network seeking to preserve environmental catastrophe...because there's a buck to made from it?
Whatever the reason, the U.S. CoC has made its decision. It stood at a crossroads - one path was the way of innovation, jobs, hope for the rebirth of the American manufacturing industry, and a clean and safe environment. The other, antiquated 19th-century technology, entrenched and inert financial interests, and a worldview that worships corporate kings. The CoC chose the latter.
Is that the choice of Montana's chapter? |
