Human impact on the environment may have to be proved in a US court
Human impact on the environment may have to be proved in a US court
The US Chamber of Commerce’s controversial request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to put on trial the scientific evidence for the role of humans in causing climate change has prompted several chamber members to leave the organisation, and highlights the complexity of the climate change debate in the US.
In a formal submission, the chamber states that the EPA’s position on the adverse impact of climate change on public health and welfare is “undocumented and in the chamber’s view, insupportable”.
This position prompted Apple and three major utility companies to leave the chamber including Chicago-based Exelon – the US’s largest nuclear generator – and California natural gas and electric utility giant PG&E. In a letter to the chamber, PG&E chief executive Peter Darbee says: “[The chamber] neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming is compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored.”
The chamber’s stance on climate change also led Nike to resign from the chamber’s board, though it remains a member.
Pulling strings
The chamber’s chief executive, Thomas Donohue, was prompted to make a follow-up statement, saying: “We believe that Congress should set climate change policy through legislation, rather than having the EPA apply existing environmental statutes that were not created to regulate greenhouse gas emissions … The EPA should publicly present its findings and answer questions on the limited studies it cited.”
The chamber has since stressed that it is not debating the science behind global warming. Rather, it is “unconvinced that the EPA has demonstrated, as a matter of law, that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles in the US endanger public health or welfare,” says chamber senior vice-president William Kovacs.
The chamber explains it does not support the current cap-and-trade legislation because it fails to include all major CO2 emitting economies or adequately promote new technologies.
However, those resigning from the chamber and others in the environmental and business community accuse it of being disingenuous, prioritising the interests of several powerful members and using the petition of the EPA as a distraction from its true lack of support for ambitious climate change legislation.
“If you look at the language of the [chamber’s] statement nowhere does it talk about what type of regulatory programme it supports,” says Adele Morris, deputy director for climate and energy economics at the Brookings Institution thinktank. “The burden of legislation is to figure out what actual binding regulatory measure we should adopt to address climate change. In my view, it’s time the chamber contributed to the process instead of trying to block it.”
Whether the EPA would ever agree to a trial-like proceeding on climate change remains to be seen. The petition certainly hasn’t prevented it from asserting new policies in the interim. And climate change legislation has been slowed by partisan politics, a spotlight on healthcare reform, and the intricacies of creating a viable climate policy overall.
The controversy arrives at a pivotal time as the US Senate makes a last-ditch effort to pass climate change legislation before the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in December. While legislation will eventually be passed, it is now likely to come after the Copenhagen summit. And the damage that has been done to the chamber’s reputation could prove long-lasting.