About 40 major corporations — led by Microsoft, Dow, Nike and Duke Energy — have written to President Obama, urging him to do everything he can to pull out some kind of climate deal in Copenhagen.
Here is the full text of the letter:
December 15, 2009
The Honorable Barack Obama
President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We are major U.S.-based companies, many of which are attending COP-15, urging your leadership in helping to secure a robust international agreement now to address global climate change. This agreement has to include significant near- and long-term emissions reductions targets and strong finance provisions, with a substantial commitment of new long-term finance from developed nations, including the United States, following on the “fast start” commitments that already have been made. Such provisions also should consist of a structure for the long term and should leverage private sector investments. An international agreement also must facilitate clean technology development and transfer, with appropriate intellectual property protections. Such an agreement will provide the market certainty that will unleash the investments needed to create jobs and enhance U.S. competitiveness.
We must put the United States on the path to significant emissions reductions, a stronger economy, and a new position of leadership in the global effort to stabilize our climate. The costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of action. Our environment and economy are at stake. In addition, millions of people in developing and low-lying nations are at risk from climate and related economic dislocations, which further pose geopolitical threats. These factors highlight the urgency for the Administration to achieve a global deal in the coming days that moves us ever closer toward a legally-binding agreement that will protect us and future generations.
Many businesses are doing their part by creating innovative technologies and reducing their carbon footprints, as well as implementing complementary efficiency and renewable energy measures. However, a “sufficiently ambitious, effective and globally equitable deal [is essential to] create the conditions for transformational change in our economy and deliver the economic signals that companies need,” if they are to invest in a low carbon future.[1]
The urgency to act is clear and the need for strong leadership is paramount. We pledge to support your leadership efforts in helping secure a strong global agreement. Moreover, businesses should provide input into the negotiating process to ensure that the policies being developed will not create unintended consequences and will maximize opportunities for innovation. We view the latest bipartisan discussions being led by Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman as critical to domestic action, and pledge our support for their continued efforts in the weeks and months ahead, too.
We thank you in advance for helping to protect our economic, environmental and national security interests for the future. Your forceful leadership is essential to securing an international deal to address climate change in Copenhagen. We look forward to working with you in the coming days and going forward following the Copenhagen conference.
Sincerely,
Aspen Skiing Company
Ben & Jerry’s
Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE)
Clif Bar and Company
Dow Chemical
Duke Energy
eBay
Eileen Fisher
Gap Inc.
GroSolar
Ingersoll Rand
Jones Lang LaSalle
Jupiter Oxygen Corporation
Levi Strauss & Co.
Lykes Brothers, Inc.
Microsoft
MissionPoint Capital Partners
Nike
National Grid
PG&E
PSEG
Seventh Generation
Solazyme, Inc.
Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)
Starbucks
Stonyfield Farm
Sun Microsystems
Symantec
The North Face
Timberland
PG&E CEO Peter Darber, appearing on CNN this morning in a piece about the Chamber of Commerce, commented on his reasoning for supporting clean energy legislation. “Sooner or later there will be controls on carbon,” he said. “The point I make is the sooner you start to work on a big problem, the less disruptive it is to a company, to an industry to consumers, and the less expensive it is. So let’s get on with it.”
CNN’s Felicia Taylor also mentions Apple, Nike, Exelon and PNM Resources, and cites the correct 300,000 figure for the Chamber’s membership. She concludes: “Some environmentalists think this improves the chances of a climate bill passing through Congress since it could suggest big business opposition is now weakening.”
The holding company owned by multi-billionaire Ronald Perelman is debating whether to leave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Huffington Post has learned.Driving the debate is the controversial stance taken by the country’s biggest business lobby on climate change.
Executives at MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, which owns significant stakes in a range of companies, most notably cosmetics maker Revlon, have been holding internal discussions on whether to pull out of the chamber over its recent challenge to the Clean Air Act. Should McAndrews & Forbes withdraw from the powerful business lobby, it would be the latest in a string of high-profile defections.
Here is their statement:
“There have been internal discussions about making our position known, meaning that we would like the chamber to have a different point of view,” said spokeswoman Christine M. Taylor. The chamber’s position on climate change “is a concern of ours,” she said.”We want to be on the right side. We’re supporters of clean energy, environmental protection — Ronald [Perelman] is involved with the NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group]. We want to state our position,” Taylor said.
The hits keep coming for the embattled United States Chamber of Commerce. On Saturday, I wrote about the Chamber’s overwhelming hypocrisy on climate legislation:
In the last few weeks a diverse group of activist, NGO and labor campaigns have launched to escalate the pressure on the Chamber and its member companies. Here is a brief summary of current efforts:
The Natural Resources Defense Council has been leading the fight. In addition to Pete Altman’s prolific coverage of the story as it develops, they have launched a website — whodoesthechamberrepresent.org — to ask the question: “Who Does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Really Represent?”
Credo Mobile sent an email to their customers on Thursday with the subject line “Earth to Chamber of Commerce: You’re killing me”:
We can’t let this stand. Help us keep up the momentum and join us in asking every CEO serving on the Chamber of Commerce board to quit the Chamber and renounce its radical stance.
The science is clear. And the Chamber is feeling the heat.
Kevin Grandia applied pressure directly to Toyota two weeks ago, calling out the company’s inconsistency in a piece at DeSmogBlog:
If Toyota is genuinely committed to sustainability as they say they are, then they can can take their lead from Nike, Exelon and others and stop supporting the US Chamber and their attack on the Obama administration’s clean energy and climate change reforms. If they don’t leave the US Chamber, then we know where their motivations truly lie.
Move On followed up on Grandia’s pressure on Toyota, writing in an email blast to members on Friday:
If Toyota is as “green” as they claim, why are they supporting a massive effort to kill President Obama’s clean energy plans?
Toyota needs to know consumers won’t stand for this. Can you ask Toyota to quit the Chamber of Commerce? If you’ve owned a Toyota, be sure to mention it when you call.
If major companies like Toyota quit the Chamber, members of Congress will be less likely to listen to the Chamber’s lobbyists.
For years, the Chamber of Commerce has pursued a right-wing agenda out of step with the business interests of many of its members. This year, they’ve launched an all-out lobbying blitz to block all of Obama’s goals—from climate to health care to fixing the economy. If the Chamber has less influence in Washington, our country has a real chance for change.
Call on Toyota to quit the Chamber of Commerce:
Toyota
(212) 223-0303
The Service Employees International Union is also running a campaign against the Chamber, petitioning Senators to “Break Up with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce”:
There’s an exodus from the corporate front group over its extreme views. We must use this opportunity to further isolate the U.S. Chamber as an out-of-touch outfit that only serves the interest of a handful of greedy CEOs.
The U.S. Chamber can’t be taken seriously. Your senators need to know this – the corporate front group is in Congress every day, lobbying for its extremist positions. They need to be immediately discredited.
Sign the petition to the Senate now: don’t listen to the extremist U.S. Chamber of Commerce on any issue.
In addition to these newer campaigns, some small businesses have dealt with the U.S. Chamber’s extremism in more creative ways. The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce offers an alternative for small businesses that want to be part of a business association but don’t agree with the U.S. Chamber’s anti-consumer policies. They have been fighting against coal plants and for federal climate legislation for years, and they applauded Senator Graham just yesterday for his newfound urgency to reach a bipartisan deal on climate change.
Frank Knapp, President of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber told me on Monday that the U.S. Chamber does not represent the best interests of most small businesses. “I co-founded The S.C. Small Business Chamber of Commerce because I didn’t believe that small business interests were being represented, specifically in South Carolina, by any other chamber,” Knapp said. “It is clear that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is driven, as most organizations are, by their largest contributors. That traditionally leaves small business interests not being considered.” Business Week asked a similar question last week.
In any large group, a few people do most of the work—usually those who are most ideologically committed or who have a direct stake in a particular outcome. So decisions often end up reflecting not the wishes of the group as a whole but those of its most engaged members. In the case of climate-change legislation like cap-and-trade, many of the companies on the Chamber’s board of directors actually support it. But among the few that publicly oppose it are coal companies, which have a huge stake in stopping any carbon-pricing system. So it’s not surprising that the Chamber’s general approach is closer to Massey Energy’s than to Nike’s.
We assume that lobbies always recognize what’s best for their members. But they don’t, and, in the case of climate change, they may very well be missing what the companies that have resigned in protest have seen: global warming isn’t just bad for the planet; it’s bad for business.
As if the Chamber’s anti-science stance on climate legislation wasn’t enough, they are a key player in other fights against other smart, popular, pro-consumer reforms. Their playbook is exactly the same for every single campaign: spend millions of dollars on misleading television commercials, trying to create fear that reform will destroy the American economy.
Here are a few of the other campaigns they’ve been involved in this year:
The Chamber has lead the fight against the Employee Free Choice Act. They ran millions of dollars worth of misleading ads in home states of key Senators, opposing the legislation. Here is one such ad:
Labor unions responded forcefully — pointing out that the Chamber used the same misleading arguments against the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act 20 years ago — but the damage was done.
On health care they are playing the same disingenuous game they play on climate change. While claiming to support reform, they continue doing everything in their power to protect the status quo. Here is the Chamber’s latest misleading health care ad, thanking Blanche Lincoln for “standing up against a government-run health care plan”:
The Chamber has used the same cynical tactics to oppose financial regulatory reform and the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. President Obama on Friday specifically called out the Chamber for “maintaining the status quo” at the “expense of American consumers” (emphasis mine):
“But all this hasn’t stopped the big financial firms and their lobbyists from mobilizing against change. They’re doing what they always do – descending on Congress and using every bit of influence they have to maintain a status quo that has maximized their profits at the expense of American consumers,” he said. “And since they’re worried they may not be able to kill this agency, they’re trying their hardest to weaken it – by asking for exemptions from this agency’s rules and enforcement; by fighting to keep open every gap and loophole they can find. And they’re very good at this, because that’s how business has been done in Washington for a very long time. In fact, over the last ten years, the Chamber of Commerce alone spent nearly half a billion dollars on lobbying – half a billion dollars.“
So while the bulk of media attention these past few weeks has focused on the Chamber’s stance on climate legislation, there should be no doubt that the group’s efforts are getting in the way of other key elements of the progressive agenda as well.
As Move On notes in their email, the Chamber’s ability to influence members of Congress decreases with each high-profile member company that departs. But the Chamber also relies on annual dues from their nearly 3 million member organizations to finance their misleading political campaigns. Small and large businesses nationwide should take a long hard look at the Chamber’s campaigns and track record, and those who don’t feel represented should end their memberships immediately. Those companies on the Chamber’s board of directors should be subject to additional pressure, since they contribute so heavily to the Chamber’s coffers for the pleasure.
Put another way, companies should only be members of the Chamber of Commerce if they support hyper-conservative anti-regulatory policies across the board, and aren’t afraid to show it. I suspect that hundreds of forward-thinking companies will jump ship in the next several months before their reputations are tarnished by association.
Progressive investor funds and their allies are increasing pressure on powerful Washington business associations to alter their climate change policy positions, following the high-profile departure of three electric utilities from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Despite Nike “fundamentally disagree[ing] with the US Chamber of Commerce’s position on climate change,” unlike Duke Energy, Alstom, PG&E, PNR Resources and others, Nike Just Can’t Do It.
Alcoa
Caterpillar Inc.
Deere & Company
Dow Chemical Company
Duke Energy
Eastman Kodak
Entergy
Fox Entertainment Group
IBM
Lockheed
Nike Inc.
PepsiCo
Rolls Royce North America Inc.
Siemens Corporation
Southern Company
The Robertson Foundation
Toyota Motor North America Inc.
Xerox
Update 2: Writing for DeSmogBlog over a week ago, Brendan Demelle challenged Nike to leave the Chamber: “Nike should take a queue from PG&E and exit the Chamber’s roster immediately, and hopefully others will follow.”
“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.
Nike helped to found BICEP, a coalition of businesses supporting congressional action to address strong U.S. climate and energy legislation. Nike has worked to address its own environmental footprint through the development of more sustainable products, energy efficiency programs and emission reductions.”
The U.S. Senate is about to begin an historic debate over whether to pass comprehensive legislation to create a clean energy economy and combat climate change. We are writing this open letter to urge the Senate to pass a bill this year that will reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases and harness market forces to spur technological innovation, invest in effective solutions, and jumpstart a clean energy economy – both in the U.S. and around the world.
Tropical deforestation accounts for one-fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than the transportation sector worldwide. The biggest driver of deforestation in the Amazon is Brazil’s cattle sector, and one of this sector’s biggest businesses is the leather industry.
Not only is the cattle industry the main driver of deforestation in the Amazon, but it accounts for 14% of the world’s annual deforestation and is Brazil’s main source of carbon emissions. When we allow the Amazon to be destroyed for cattle, we destroy one of the most biodiverse rainforests in the world which releases tons of carbon into the atmosphere contributing to climate change.
They cite Nike, Adidas, Reebok, Timberland and Clark’s among the culprits. I wonder how many of Nike’s sponsored athletes are aware of this. I know the urge to be like Mike is strong, but maybe some of them would change their minds if they realized the impact.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is taking heat from Johnson & Johnson, Nike and other corporate members over its opposition to global warming legislation pending in the House.
In a letter to the Chamber, Johnson & Johnson has asked the Chamber to refrain from making comments on climate change unless they “reflect the full range of views, especially those of Chamber members advocating for congressional action.”
Nike spokeswoman Anne Meyers said her company has also been “vocal” with the Chamber’s leaders “about wanting them to take a more progressive stance on the issue of climate change.”
* Defeat proposed measures that are economically disruptive of business and industry activities.
* Resist ill-conceived legislation that creates regulatory and legislative obstacles to development and deployment of affordable, innovative energy technologies.
* Encourage measures that foster long-term technological innovation aimed at addressing energy, security, and climate change challenges as well as long-range sustainability objectives.
* Resist ill-conceived climate change policies and measures that could severely damage the security and economy of the United States.
I wish their members the best of luck in their efforts to moderate the Chamber’s radical anti-job agenda.
