Recently, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been one of the loudest voices against a climate change bill. But now they have formidable opposition from … some of the members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
It looks like the Chamber started lobbying on this issue without checking with some of their largest members — like Johnson & Johnson and Nike — who support a carbon cap. Now the Chamber is getting called out in the press. Oops.
Here’s the story from Politico: “Chamber under fire on warming“
Today’s New York Times features a story that may not shock you, but should concern us all:
According to internal reports dating back to 1995, scientists working for the Global Climate Coalition, an industry-sponsored group set up to wage a lobbying and public relations war against global warming action, were telling their bosses that human-caused global warming could not be refuted. But, that didn’t stop industry lobbyists from waging a cynical campaign to undermine the science and cloud the debate.
Read the full story here.
Americans were outraged a decade ago when cigarette makers made similar claims about the evidence linking smoking and lung cancer. And then we discovered reams of damning research hidden away in tobacco company vaults.
The only real difference between then and now is that global warming stands to threaten more than just people — millions of species face extinction, entire ecosystems altered beyond recognition, the natural world as we know it today irreparably diminished.
The House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment is holding hearings this week on landmark climate and energy legislation.
We are launching a regular Fact Check series to correct the record on false and misleading statements from climate action opponents.
Here’s our third installment:
The policies to spur innovation and utilize the creativity of America’s scientists and engineers are not in this bill. — Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
The centerpiece of this bill will make clean energy profitable by capping carbon – and that’s exactly what will give scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs an economic incentive to create new technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have empirical evidence that cap and trade works. When the formula was applied in the 1990s to lower acid rain pollution from power plants, it worked faster and more cheaply than anyone predicted.
The expected market price for SO2 allowances was in the range of $579-$1,935 per ton of SO2. The actual market price in January, 2003 was $150 per ton.
This bill is a big energy tax. — Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
The bill is not a tax. Under a cap on carbon, there will be a small increase in energy bills for the average American – and Congress has the tools it needs to protect U.S. consumers. The EPA estimates that the cap in the American Clean Energy and Security Act can be met for as little as $98 per household per year – about a dime a day per person. That’s roughly what it costs to brew one pot of coffee in the morning, and substantially less than a pack of chewing gum.
That’s nothing compared to what will happen to our economy and our pocketbooks if we fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — punishing heat waves, droughts, water shortages, rising sea levels, worldwide food shortages, intense hurricanes and more. Even the military is worried about the national security implications.
There is no smoking gun that people are responsible for global warming. — Mike Burgess, (R-TX)
The “smoking guns” are everywhere scientists look.
Fact: the decade of 1998-2007 was the warmest on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
Fact: glaciers are in retreat on every continent.
Fact: the Arctic Sea ice extent has been diminishing over the past 20 years in agreement with model predictions.
Fact: levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the last 600,000 years (and probably in the last 20 million), and getting higher every year.
Fact: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2,500 of the best climate scientists in the world, citing hundreds of the latest studies, has concluded that global warming is happening, and human activity is responsible. So has the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which even President George W. Bush called “the gold standard.”
Cap and trade legislation will export millions of jobs out of our economy. — Steve Scalise, (R-LA)
Ohio has lost more that 213,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. For Michigan, the figure is almost 497,000 jobs lost.
One way to create new jobs in America, including manufacturing jobs, is with a cap and trade bill to address climate change, which could spark a manufacturing renaissance. A single wind turbine contains 250 tons of steel, along with 8,000 parts, from copper wire, gearboxes and ball bearings to electronic controls. Jobs making these components, and installing and maintaining turbines, can be created here in America.
EDF has created a map detailing where a carbon cap will create jobs in 12 states – go to www.lesscarbonmorejobs.org.
Global warming will help sea life. — Joe Barton, (R-TX)
The ocean is acidifying because of increased absorption of atmospheric CO2, produced by human activity, posing a threat for shell-forming species, which are an essential part of the marine food web.
Many forms of ocean life that use calcium carbonate to form their skeletons or shells, including familiar species such as corals and shellfish. Ocean acidification makes it harder for these “calcifying organisms” to maintain themselves.
You can see why yourself with a simple experiment. Calcium carbonate comes in many forms, and is the primary component in chalk, lime, and marble. Take a piece of chalk and put it in a glass of water. It will just sit there – a wet piece of chalk. Now slowly pour in some vinegar – an acid. The water will start to bubble, emitting CO2, and the chalk will dissolve.
This is an exaggerated example of what’s happening in the ocean. The ocean isn’t as acidic as a glass of water with vinegar, so calcifying organisms aren’t actually dissolving in front of our eyes. But the ocean’s increased acidity makes it harder for them to form healthy shells and skeletons.
Changing ocean circulation patterns would also affect the nutrient delivery system for marine life. As oceans absorb more heat, upwellings of cold, nutrient-rich waters can become less frequent. Without this nourishment, blooms of plant plankton, a critical link in the marine food chain, are disrupted. Food for sea life up the food chain, like krill, larger fish, and seabirds, is cut off.
Some signs already show that the marine food web is fraying. In 2005 on the U.S. West Coast and 2004 in Britain, hundreds of thousands of seabirds failed to breed. Dead seabirds like cormorants and Cassin’s auklets have washed up on West Coast beaches. The culprit for the collapse appears to be slackening upwellings, which decreased phytoplankton blooms in these coastal areas. Fewer phytoplankton mean fewer fish, leaving the birds to face mass starvation.
The delta smelt is “a worthless little worm” that deserves to go the way of the dinosaurs. — George Radanovich (R-CA)
Actually, it’s a fish, not a worm. The delta smelt, once one of the most common fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, is now listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The goal of the act is not just to protect single species but also the ecosystems on which they depend. Peter Moyle, a fisheries biologist at UC Davis, calls the delta smelt an indicator species: Its condition reflects the overall health of an ecosystem.
Unfortunately, no smelt were called before the Committee to testify that they deserve to live.
This Congress doesn’t know what will happen in a week, much less 30 years. — George Radanovich (R-CA)
If true, how can some members of Congress predict that global warming action will hurt the economy?
One thing we do know: In about one week some members of Congress will sieze this critical opportunity to take historic action to fight global warming while others will continue to blindly deny that human activity is causing global climate change, in the face of all scientific evidence.
That’s what David Yarnold had to say about the Earth Day announcement from Wal-Mart and BP Solar to double the number of solar panels on Wal-Mart stores in California over the next 18 months. The new solar installation project will create more than a hundred jobs while reducing use of energy from the power grid. (See a video of him discussing the announcement on Governor Schwarzanegger’s blog.)
David emphasized that even with progress like this, we still need Congress to act:
We need a national cap on carbon to limit emissions, and a way to reward companies and states that develop and utilize clean energy solutions such as solar. The commitment to Wal-Mart [that] BP is making today is a step in the right direction.
As Tony wrote earlier, the House subcommittee working on climate legislation celebrated Earth Week with a packed schedule of testimony.
One of the more interesting participants was Mayor John Fetterman, from tiny Braddock, Pa., who has become a national champion in the fight to cap carbon pollution. He did a great job explaining that for communities like his, a cap on carbon will be an economic lifeline (see the video). He was joined on the panel by Nat Keohane, EDF’s chief economist.
Here are some wrap-ups:
We’ll hear more testimony today, including appearances by former GOP Senator John Warner and Al Gore, and next week the subcommittee starts the tough work of marking up the bill.
The House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment is holding hearings this week on landmark climate and energy legislation.
We are launching a regular Fact Check series to correct the record on false and misleading statements from climate action opponents.
Here’s our second installment:
No one will buy hybrid vehicles unless forced to by the government. – Joe Barton, (R-TX)
Americans have already demonstrated that they will buy hybrids if they are reliable, economical, and stylish, and if they incorporate the convenience features we now expect in automobiles. The Toyota Prius was one of the best selling cars of 2007, with more than 181,000 sold. To date, Toyota has sold more than 700,000 Priuses in the U.S. In 2008, Toyota sold 30,693 of its large SUV, the Sequoia.
Cap and trade will kick working families when they’re down. – Fred Upton, (R-MI)
American working families are definitely down. Ohio has lost more that 213,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. For Michigan, the figure is almost 497,000 jobs lost.
One way to get some of these jobs back is with a cap and trade bill to address climate change, which could spark a manufacturing renaissance. A single wind turbine contains 250 tons of steel, along with 8,000 parts, from copper wire, gearboxes, and ball bearings to electronic controls. A wind turbine tower contains more than 50 tons of steel. Jobs making these components, and installing and maintaining, turbines can be created here in America
EDF has created a map detailing where a carbon cap will create jobs in 12 states – go to www.lesscarbonmorejobs.org.
The number of manufacturing jobs in January 2005 (14.1 million) was well below its peak of nearly 20 million in late 1979. Causes of the decline in American manufacturing include a shift in consumer spending away from manufactured goods, in favor of services; a steady increase in labor productivity, which allows firms to produce more with fewer workers; and competition from foreign producers.
This bill is a disguised tax. – Robert Michaels, California State University
The bill is neither disguised nor a tax. Under cap and trade, there will be a modest increase in energy bills for the average American. EPA estimates it will only cost the average American household about 12 to 15 cents a day more in total energy costs. That’s roughly what it costs to brew one pot of coffee in the morning, and substantially less than a pack of chewing gum.
That’s nothing compared to what will happen to Planet Earth, and the economy, if we fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — punishing heat waves, droughts, water shortages, sea level rise that threatens coastal cities, food shortages around the world, intense hurricanes, and more. Even the military is worried about the national security implications. One never hears about these costs from the opponents of this bill – either because they don’t believe global warming is real, or they refuse to believe what scientists are saying about the future consequences of inaction.
