I Was Actually For A Carbon Cap, Before I Was Against It...

Let's play a game of guess who's responsible for each of the following quotes.

Nov. 2005:

In opening remarks to a clean-energy conference in [redacted], [Clean Energy-Loving Politician] said the first-of-its-kind agreement, under which [redacted] and eight other states could be required to cut power plant emissions by 2020, will not hurt the economy, as some have charged. He argued that it would spur businesses to develop clean- and renewable-energy technology to market worldwide.

''This is a great thing for [redacted]," [Clean Energy-Loving Politician] said, his strongest endorsement of the pact to date. ''We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs."

Oct. 2009:

"A cap and trade program... will have a devastating impact on hard-working American families and on our economy as a whole. This cap and trade bill represents an enormous, hidden tax on the American people and American businesses, and it must be defeated."

If you guessed former Massachusetts Gov. and presidential candidate Mitt Romney, high five!

Back when he was Governor of Massachusetts, Romney supported a cap-and-trade system in which his state and others would place a mandatory limit on carbon emissions. Said the Boston Globe at the time:

Governor Mitt Romney signaled his support yesterday for a regional agreement among Northeastern states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite opposition from power companies and other business interests that have been lobbying the administration against the plan.

In opening remarks to a clean-energy conference in Boston, Romney said the first-of-its-kind agreement, under which Massachusetts and eight other states could be required to cut power plant emissions by 2020, will not hurt the economy, as some have charged. He argued that it would spur businesses to develop clean- and renewable-energy technology to market worldwide.

That's a pretty strong stand in favor of cap-and-trade, coming from the same Mitt Romney who just this week sent an email to supporters of his political action committee seeking to raise money off his opposition to the cap-and-trade proposal currently making its way through Congress.

Apparently when you're Mitt Romney, your hair may be solid, but your positions on key issues shift with the wind.

Thomas Donohue: Face of the 21st Century

In 1938, the year U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue was born, a new car cost $700 and a radio broadcast of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds caused mass panic as thousands of listeners were convinced aliens had really invaded. The first mass-produced personal computer, the 1981 IBM PC, was still 43 years away, and most American households had yet to take the plunge and buy a television set.

Another relic from this bygone era? Donohue's stance on global warming, symbolized by his Chamber's call for a latter-day "Scopes monkey" trial (the original was held in 1925) of global warming science. Indeed, Donohue's group has spent the last 17 years fighting the forward march of global warming science tooth and nail. It's a backward strategy that several of the Chamber's former members have called "antics," and one which has real scientists smacking their heads against the wall.

So imagine our surprise when we saw this letter from Donohue to Apple, Inc.'s Steve Jobs. As you might recall, Apple recently decided to quit its Chamber membership over climate change and took the opportunity to publicly flagellate Donohue for his science-denying antics. Highlights of the letter (via National Journal):

It is unfortunate that your company didn’t take the time to understand the Chamber’s position on climate and forfeited the opportunity to advance a 21st century approach to climate change.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce continues to support strong federal legislation and a binding international agreement to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change.

I would have hoped that Apple would have supported our efforts to improve environmental stewardship and keep Americans at work and our economy competitive. As the world’s largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, the Chamber is leading the way to support the innovation needed to transition to a lower carbon future, including the elimination of barriers to the deployment of clean energy technologies. Supporting innovation and technology is at the very heart of our efforts to combat climate change, and we will continue to fight for an approach that embraces their merits.

It is a shame that Apple will not be part of our efforts.

The Chamber's leading the way, you say? And Apple has forfeited the opportunity to advance American innovation for the 21st century? Then Businessweek must have really messed up -- twice -- when it named Apple "America's most innovative company" for the last two years.

No, the only thing the Chamber's "leading the way" on is opposition to any serious attempt to cut our carbon pollution, having led the charge against McCain-Leiberman legislation in 2003 and 2005, Leiberman-Warner legislation in 2007, and Waxman-Markey legislation in 2009.

And with an exodus of businesses from the Chamber coinciding with an announcement this week from 150 major U.S. companies in favor of clean energy legislation, Donohue's even missed the memo from his own constituency in the American business community.

Then again, maybe he was too busy readying his tinfoil hat for the tripod invasion.

Far From the Tree: Apple Quits Chamber Over Climate Antics

Joining a growing exodus, Apple Inc. has quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over the lobby group's anti-clean energy antics, specifically citing its opposition to EPA greenhouse gas limits and its call for a Scopes-monkey trial.

In a letter to embattled Chamber President Thomas Donohue, Apple's VP for Government Affairs Catherine Novelli takes the Chamber to task (via the New York Times):

We strongly object to the chamber's recent comments opposing the E.P.A.'s effort to limit greenhouse gases...Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the chamber at odds with us in this effort.

We would prefer that the Chamber take a more progressive stance on this critical issue and play a constructive role in address the climate crisis. However, because the Chamber's position differs so sharply with Apple's, we have decided to resign our membership effective immediately.

For those of you following along at home, that makes four companies that have quit the Chamber outright, another that's quit the Chamber's board, and two more (plus the San Jose local Chamber) that have sharply criticized Donohue's antics.

A complete accounting of the exodus is available via NRDC:

Quit US Chamber: Exelon, PNM Resources, PG&E, Apple.
Quit US Chamber Board: Nike.
Says Chamber doesn't represent their views on climate: Johnson&Johnson, General Electric, San Jose Chamber of Commerce.

Feeling bad for Donohue? You can always gift him this very appropriate video on iTunes for only $1.99!

Daily Show Takedown of Big Oil, Dirty Coal Front Groups

Here at R?S?, we've been hammering away on phony front groups like the American Petroleum Institute and FACES of Coal for quite some time now. So imagine our delight when The Daily Show recently decided to do the same! Our segment begins at 5:35:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Where the Riled Things Are
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

Hey look everybody, it's Firefighter Guy and People on Raft!

Big Oil Sounds Alarm on Foreign Oil?

The Big Oil mouthpiece American Petroleum Institute is warning that the clean energy and climate legislation introduced yesterday by Sens. John Kerry and Barbara Boxer could -- wait for it -- increase America's dependence on foreign oil. From API's press release:

"Unfortunately, the Kerry-Boxer legislation is beginning to look a lot like the House’s Waxman-Markey bill and a loser for American consumers.

Analysis has shown Waxman-Markey would drive fuel prices up to between $4 and $5 a gallon and double our dependence on imports of gasoline and other fuels. We strongly encourage the Senate to not follow the House example.”

Hear that? Clean energy and climate legislation would double America's dependence on imports of gasoline! This warning comes from a group that flacks for big oil companies like ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and others -- the same folks who've spent millions to defeat clean energy and keep us hooked on failed energy policies that have... doubled our imports of foreign oil over the last two decades.

So the Big Oil playbook appears to be: (1) do whatever's best for your bottom line for decades, regardless of its implications for America's environment, economy and strategic position in the world, then (2) accuse anyone who tries to clean up your mess of trying to create.... the exact same mess.

Now, we don't spend much time with Big Oil outside of the workplace, but we're guessing if their behavior in everday social settings looks anything like their poll-tested strategy in the climate debate, it might look something like this:

Big Oil: Hey there, pretty lady. That's a great outfit! Mind if I buy you a drink?
American people: Eww, stop hitting on me!
Big Oil: No, how about YOU stop hitting on ME!

Way to be that guy, Big Oil.