What’s it like for a businessman in a warming world? The purveyors of lifeboats, sandbags and desalinization equipment will probably do just fine as some parts of our planet become wrecked by stronger tropical storms and other parts see the coastlines creep ever inland as the ice sheets melt. Not to mention the increased possibility of famine, droughts and instability as millions migrate across the continents in search of habitable climes. But for everyone else, a warming world is a poorer one. So why is the nation’s premiere business lobby pushing such a short-sighted line on climate change?
The United States Chamber of Commerce, which is a lobbying organization that represents some three million companies, has long been known for its intense support for, well, business-friendly policies. Accordingly, they are always on the barricades fighting whatever new safety or environmental regulations or labor protections are being proposed by Congress. And while it’s not surprising that they aren’t exactly enthusiastic supporters of regulating the emission greenhouse gases or of a cap-and-trade plan which would necessarily increase the costs of carbon intensive businesses, their hostility to both pending legislation and climate science is troubling and bizarre. Thankfully, some companies are publicly splitting with their organization to protest their revanchist line.
Some of the most notable splitters are Exelon, PG&E and PNM Resources, three utility companies. While energy and utilities companies like Exxon Mobil or Peabody Energy have traditionally been the loudest voices opposing climate legislation, there is no hard and fast rule that energy producers must or should oppose cap-and-trade policies.
If you’re a shareholder of Exelon, which is the “nation’s biggest nuclear-plant operator by output,” then a world where carbon-emitting forms of energy are more expensive is a good one. So it only makes sense that companies which will directly benefit from a high price on carbon emission would protest the Chamber’s anti cap-and-trade efforts. But perhaps it’s not too noteworthy that companies who will see their product get relatively cheaper because of massive legislation are not in-tune with the Chamber’s efforts.
One hopes that a wider range of companies will realize that their interests are not being served by an organization that proposed a courtroom-style debate over climate science. After all, everyone is worse off if the planet experiences a climatic cataclysm. And some companies seem to be looking past their immediate self-interest and are realizing that a congressional impasse on climate legislation is not a good thing. Apple, a company whose shareholders probably won’t be disproportionally affected by the presence or absence of comprehensive climate legislation, left the Chamber. Nike resigned from the board in protest of their climate stance, but still remains a member.
Perhaps it is these latter defections which aren’t driven by a straightforward consideration of profitability that should give us the most reason for hope. Apple and Nike are two companies that depend on their image and marketing to sell products. If they can start a trend that punishes companies which support an organization that is so committed to stopping all cap-and-trade legislation and rewards those companies which split from the Chamber, then maybe more companies which are on the fence about climate legislation will realize that sticking with the Chamber is not in their interest.
But we shouldn’t have to depend on narrow, shareholder self-interest for American business to get climate change right. After all, climate change is more than just a business opportunity or something that consumers are worried about. It’s the possibility that we radically alter our climate and environment with disastrous results of unpredictable severity and scale. Doesn’t sound like a good investment — for anyone.