The Senate Environment and Public Works committee today passed the Senate's version of the cap-and-trade climate-change legislation bill - Sens. Kerry and Boxer's "Clean Energy Jobs Act." The bill passed by a 10-1 margin...with Republicans boycotting the vote.
Ah, so who's the sole Democrat that voted against the legislation?
Max Baucus.
Not that it's much of a surprise. Baucus raised "concerns" with the bill last month, saying the 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 was too lofty a goal. Baucus' statement -- "we cannot afford a first step that takes us further away from a conceivable consensus on climate change" - hints that he'll stall the bill in the Tax and Finance committee, likely convening a "green" "Gang of Six" to gut the bill, or kill it altogether.
Frankly, Baucus should listen to Lindsey Graham, Republican:
The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money.
Or retired admiral Dennis McGinn, who reminded Montana's delegation that climate change is a national security issue.
Sadly, Dennis McDonald demonstrates how you can join Baucus in opposing climate change legislation while simultaneously keeping your enviro "cred," from his Facebook page:
Cap and trade has proven to be complex, inefficient, and an obstacle to investment in alternative energy. I think a straightforward carbon emissions tax would be a lot simpler and a more effective way of getting people to invest in alternative energy.
And the Waxman-Markey House cap-and-trade bill, with all of its faults, sets the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. That's huge.
...Nike announced (pdf) that it is resigning from the board of directors because of the group's views on climate change policy. The Chamber was already in a tailspin this week, attempting to reclassify their position on climate policy following the departure of three major utilities.
"Nike believes US businesses must advocate for aggressive climate change legislation and that the United States needs to move rapidly into a sustainable economy to remain competitive and ensure continued economic growth," Nike said in a statement. "As we've stated, we fundamentally disagree with the US Chamber of Commerce on the issue of climate change and their recent action challenging the EPA is inconsistent with our view that climate change is an issue in need of urgent action."
(And wouldn't it be interesting to investigate whether similar splits exist in the Montana CoC?)
Meanwhile, in the wake of members abandoning the organization, the US Chamber of Commerce denies ever questioning the science behind global warming. Surprise! That is, of course, a lie.
Meanwhile, Sens. Kerry and Boxer unveiled their version of cap-and-trade legislation today. Its targeted carbon emissions levels are actually more aggressive than the House Waxman-Markey bill, which implies that some Democratic Senators, at least, learned lessons from how the healthcare reform strategy worked.
The split among the ranks of Chamber of Commerce members, too, makes the battle lines a bit murky. Will the bill pit the monolithic and anachronistic energy industry against the nation's more forward-thinking corporations? Who knows? I thought America's industries might push harder on public insurance in the healthcare debate - certainly our system's reliance on employer-provided insurance is a drag on most sectors of our economy - maybe folks should remember that these problems don't belong to a single economic sector, they belong to us all...
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.
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.
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.
