“They don’t have the science to support the endangerment finding,” Bill Kovacs, the chamber’s vice president for environment, regulatory and government affairs, said in an interview. “We can’t just take their word for it.”
Hey Bill. Trials are supposed to be about finding the truth through impartial methods. Not trying to force your predetermined conclusion as truth. And one more thing, they do have the science to support it. You don’t. And you know it.
Of course, this is simply about money. The Chamber of Commerce doesn’t want business to accept any responsibility or spend a dime to stop climate change, a sickeningly selfish, self-centered, and irresponsible position.
Hey, this is capitalism, shareholders short term greed first and the rest of the world away down the list.
Actually this is Federalism at its worst– Madison’s view that factions (which have become lobbyists) are the building blocks of the political process. But there’s something more insidious here than simply denying global warming– Bob, I’m surprised you missed it. Kovacs isn’t denying global warming at all– he’s arguing that it will be GOOD for us!
And, sadly, he may be right that EPA doesn’t have the science to counter: there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of projections of what the effects of global warming will be, many of which contradict each other. Will northern Utah get wetter or dryer? Hotter or colder? All four are possibilities. I’m not saying I agree with him– it’s sort of like saying that if you jump off that cliff, we can’t predict with certainty where (or on what body part) you’ll land, so it must be safe.
BTW, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the largest business group in the country, but it’s not “the” Chamber of Commerce. Almost every city and town has a Chamber of Commerce. In Los Angeles, even some neighborhoods have one. And they’re independent of each other and unaffiliated with the national Chamber. Some are political organizations, others are 501(c)(3) charitable orgs. Some do very good work, some provide essential business services; others stand solely for business rights. To lump them all together as opposing action on climate change is inaccurate.
Well, the 5,000+ scientists who participated in the United Nations report on climate change had no problem saying it was happening – and that the effects would not be uniform at all. It’s all in their reports. But it is happening. To pretend it’s not is like the creationists at the Scopes Trial.
Yes, the CofC’s may be independent but they apparently are working as one on this. Either that or extremists have taken control.
Our local CC doesn’t seem to know about the effort, much less support it. The USCC is a huge lobbying organization run by its members, which include some very powerful businesses. Wiki says, “The Chamber is staffed with policy specialists, lobbyists and lawyers. It is known for spending more money than any other lobbying organization on a yearly basis.”
But I think you’re still missing the really insidious part: the USCC isn’t denying global warming. They AGREE that it’s happening. And they say it will be GOOD for us.
That’s scary, because though there’s scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that it is human cause, there is NO CONSENSUS on what the specific effects will be. All they have to do is trot out the UN report, the Pentagon report, and a few others, all from respected sources yet contradicting each other, and they CAN prove that EPA cannot say with certainty what the effects of global warming will be. So (the logic doubtless goes), if you don’t know what the effects will be, how can you say they’ll be bad? This is a whole new way of countering efforts to reign in carbon emissions.
I would add that the Pentagon report suggested that the U.S. will fare better than most nations. Aside from that pesky southwest, according to the Generals, much of the U.S. will get warmer and wetter– which one could argue will be great for agriculture. They also said folks across the globe, from Asia to Europe, will die from lack of food and water. But hey, they’re not Americans, so who cares, right? (Who’s going to buy our products in such a scenario is a subject I bet the USCC doesn’t address.)
Good points. But the Pentagon and IPCC report that in totality, global warming will create havoc in economies, and may cause mass migrations and war as well as starvation, so I there is a consensus. But as to what will happen in southern Utah vs. Seattle, no one knows yet and the reports say that too.
That the CC wants their own mock trial speaks volumes about their agenda. They could just issue a report contradicting the Pentagon and IPCC reports with science and logic instead. But of course they can’t do that because they don’t have the science.
It’s only here in the States where a ‘debate’ like this is even an issue. In Japan, Europe, UK, climate change is an accepted proven fact.
That’s my point: they’re using the system against itself. The EPA has no authority to regulate effects outside our borders. All USCC has to do is show that there’s no consensus on what climate change will do to the U.S., and they can argue that if you don’t know what’ll happen here, you can’t prove it will be bad, and therefore EPA can’t regulate. Then it’s back in our incompetent Congress’s lap, where it will probably languish for another decade or more…
It’s brilliant, really, and perhaps the most insidious challenge we’ve yet seen (other than installing an anti-science president who’d go along with about anything business wanted).
They can argue all they want. EPA doesn’t need their permission to issue rulings. So, CC will pursue it in court. Assuming their own members don’t rebel first.
I hope the members do… because in court, the CC has a shot.