rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Weekly Mulch: Companies ditch chamber for climate bill

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

Major utility corporations, like Exelon, California’s Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E)  and New Mexico’s PNM have announced that they are leaving the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of the organization’s controversial stance toward climate change and opposition to a clean energy bill. The Chamber represents business interests, and according to a New York Times editorial, “no organization has done more to undermine [climate change] legislation.”

Air America’s Beau Friedlander explains that the three utility companies stand to win a lot from climate change legislation, as they produce electricity at nuclear power plants that release minimal carbon emissions. Yet their departure from the Chamber is still significant because Exelon is the nation’s largest utility, and PG&E is the second largest utility in California.

Moreover, Jonathan Hiskes of Grist notes that PG&E’s environmental values clash with the 97-year-old business advocacy group. PG&E is a leader in solar energy, and both PG&E and Exelon are members of the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), an alliance of environmental groups and businesses that advocate for climate change legislation. Other companies like Johnson & Johnson, and Microsoft decided to continue their membership, but have expressed that they do not agree with the Chamber’s position on climate change.

Chamber leaders tried to defend themselves on Tuesday, arguing that they have “mainstream, commonsense views” towards climate change. Thomas Donahue, the Chamber’s president and CEO, explained that just because the organization opposes Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations of greenhouse gas emissions and the Waxman-Markey bill, it doesn’t mean that they oppose climate change action altogether. Yeah, right. Kate Sheppard of Mother Jones points out that the Chamber’s recent claims are inconsistent with their track record:

“…The Chamber spent more than $17 million dollars in the first half of 2009 lobbying Congress, much of that in opposition to cap-and-trade policy. They’ve also threatened to sue the Environmental Protection Agency if they move forward on regulating carbon dioxide, and formally filed suit against the EPA for granting California the right to set higher automobile emissions standards.”

Andrew Leonard also calls out the Chamber’s contradictions in a piece for Salon titled “How to lie about climate change.” In another statement for the Chamber, Eric Wohlschlegel said that the Chamber “never questioned the science behind global warming…[but] the science behind the EPA’s recent finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health and welfare.” Leonard calls Wohlschlegel’s assertion a blatant lie, recalling that the Chamber asked the EPA in August to defend their findings in court. The case is strikingly similar to the Scopes Monkey trial. Much like pitting evolution against creationism in a court of law, it’s pretty ridiculous that the science behind climate change is still in question.

Finally, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) revealed a draft of the new climate bill on Wednesday. Brian Beutler of Talking Points Memo notes that the new bill, called the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, is still a work in progress and is expected to change dramatically as it moves through the Senate.

“When that’s all done, and the whole thing’s stitched back together, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can bring it to the floor. He’s suggested that this may not happen until next year, but whenever it happens; expect a punishing debate and votes on amendments, which will culminate in a filibuster. If it can muster 60 votes to overcome that, then it may be in the clear. Bloodied and battered, but alive. But that’s hardly a safe bet.”

AlterNet’s Brian Merchant outlines the pros and cons of the new draft and touches on how it differs from the House’s climate bill. Key changes include steeper emission reduction targets, added incentives for nuclear power and more affordable carbon offsets. The new bill also gives the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and introduces a price collar on carbon, which limits how cheap or expensive carbon prices can be. The price collar will prevent prices from falling too low and stabilize costs.

“So while the bill appears far from ideal, I’m actually encouraged—this looks like a bill that has a real shot at passing, and it would at least set us solidly on the long-overdue course to start seriously reducing emissions,” Merchant writes.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment and is free to reprint. Visit Sustain.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on the environment and sustainability, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health, and immigration issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net, Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.newsladder.net.

This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.