These
senators are going after the biggest climate villains in Washington
Business trade groups are known for
throwing their weight around — and getting their way — in Washington.
The US Chamber of Commerce, the
National Association of Manufacturers, the Farm Bureau, the National Federation
of Independent Businesses, the American Petroleum Institute — these names
strike fear in the hearts of members of Congress.
They have enormous, well-funded lobbying arms and links to dark-money groups that can mobilize against any politician who crosses them.
They have enormous, well-funded lobbying arms and links to dark-money groups that can mobilize against any politician who crosses them.
Among other things, these groups
have helped completely block climate policy at the federal level. In 2009, the
Chamber of Commerce claimed to Congress that “warming
of even 3 [degrees] C in the next 100 years would, on balance, be beneficial to
humans.” And it has backed its denialism with money and lobbying. In 2017, NAM
helped convince Trump to begin the process of pulling out of the Paris climate accord.
But the ground is shifting beneath
the feet of the Chamber of Commerce and its cohort. More and more corporations
are cleaning up their energy use and supply chains and lining up behind climate action.
In 2009, Apple left the Chamber of Commerce over
its position on climate change, along with Nike and several other high-profile companies.
Since then, at least 13 more large companies have followed them out the door. Under mounting pressure, the Chamber of Commerce has recently softened its stance on climate change, claiming to be a partner in the fight, not a denier.
Through its Global Energy Institute, it released “cleaner, stronger” energy agenda, which was mostly about staying the course on fossil fuels, along with some hand-waving about “innovation.” The National Association of Manufacturers has adopted similar rhetoric.
Since then, at least 13 more large companies have followed them out the door. Under mounting pressure, the Chamber of Commerce has recently softened its stance on climate change, claiming to be a partner in the fight, not a denier.
Through its Global Energy Institute, it released “cleaner, stronger” energy agenda, which was mostly about staying the course on fossil fuels, along with some hand-waving about “innovation.” The National Association of Manufacturers has adopted similar rhetoric.
For now, it is widely seen as a
smokescreen. The leadership of these trade groups is dominated by fossil fuel
money and loyal to the GOP. The Chamber of Commerce employs a revolving roster of ex-GOP congressional aides and,
as of 2016, directs 100 percent of its election spending to Republicans.
The big trade groups are coming out
of alignment with their own members on climate change. And a group of
Democratic senators, spearheaded by Rhode Island’s Sheldon Whitehouse, wants to
highlight that growing tension, making sure that every member of these trade
groups knows the effect they are having on federal climate politics.
I recently chatted with Whitehouse, along with two Democratic colleagues in the Senate, New Mexico’s Martin Heinrich and Hawaii’s Brian Schatz, about the role trade groups play in climate politics and what might be gained by increasing the political pressure on them. (Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.)
David Roberts
These trade associations have been
lobbying against progressive priorities for a long time. What’s new?
Sheldon Whitehouse
What’s new is that climate change
has reached an unprecedented level of priority and popular interest. And with
that, corporate America has made a fairly significant move toward getting
serious about it. That has exposed a rift between the direction of a great
number of the corporate members of the COC [Chamber of Commerce] and the
Chamber itself.
It looks to us as if the COC is no
longer representing its nominal corporate board. My suspicion is that one of
the reasons they don’t reveal their funding is that they’re taking huge amounts
of secret money from the fossil fuel industry to become its front group.
Between service to the fossil fuel industry and properly representing the
corporate members of its board is a fissure we want to expose and exploit.
Martin Heinrich
This younger generation of
millennials has created a situation where most of corporate America understands
the reputational risk of denying or delaying action on climate. That has not
caught up with the Chamber, and that mismatch has allowed us to drive a wedge.
David Roberts
The Chamber has lost members, for
instance Apple and Nike, over its position on climate before. Do you know of
other members who are making noise about this issue now?
Brian Schatz
We believe there is an ongoing
rebellion among Chamber members. Some of them are going to be more public about
it than others. But the bottom line is, some of these companies — for
commercial reasons, or ecological reasons — are no longer comfortable funding
the primary actor against climate action, even as they tell their customers
that they are reforming their supply chain.
If they’re doing minor things
internally on the one hand, but funding the organization that is most effective
in preventing federal climate action on the other hand — they know this situation
cannot stand. So some are pushing the Chamber to reform its position, and some
are just simply cutting ties and deciding they don’t need the Chamber anymore.
David Roberts
How much power do the Chamber and
NAM [National Association of Manufacturers] still have in Washington? Does the
power match the myth?
Martin Heinrich
That’s what we’re trying to test
here, right? There’s a lot of inertia in decision-making in Washington, DC.
There are always powerful interests that continue to have power as incumbents
long past when structural changes start to occur in the country. So we have to
test that.
Brian Schatz
The Chamber has spent $150 million
on congressional races since the Citizens United decision.
A lot of that spending has targeted Democrats specifically, but also, they make
ads about carbon taxes. They make ads about climate action. They are not just
theoretically opposed to doing the right thing, they are spending money where
it counts and attacking the people who attack the climate problem.
Sheldon Whitehouse
If you’re a Republican, all five [of
the major trade groups] are telling you the same thing, which is, don’t touch
climate change, don’t limit carbon emissions. And the two worst, according
to Influence
Map, are the Chamber and NAM.
So I think it will be very
consequential if the two worst obstructors on climate change can be forced by
their own membership to change their position and go from being enemies to
allies.
David Roberts
The chamber has been making conciliatory moves on climate change,
at least talking about it in a more sensible way, and even putting
climate-forward businesses out front to speak for it. It seems — and you could
say this of the GOP as well — to feel some pressure to move on this. How
seriously should we take these rhetorical shifts?
Brian Schatz
I think they are going to see how
little they can get away with doing. Our job is to make sure that actions
follow the words.
Changing your congressional
testimony or the climate section of your website is not a significant move
unless it’s an indicator of a real shift, and we have no reason yet to believe
that they’ve changed their calculus. That’s why we’re going to keep pressing.
Martin Heinrich
One of the things all of us
experience here on the Hill is, corporations will take a position that
nominally may be good for the country and the planet, but they won’t always
make it a priority. We know what it looks like when they come in and start
seriously lobbying for a set of policies. And we’ve just never seen that for
climate action, even when the rhetoric has been there.
David Roberts
There seems to be a critical mass
around climate action in the corporate world — lots of big names and big
initiatives. Are those climate-conscious corporations collaborating and
lobbying? Are they a force in DC?
Sheldon Whitehouse
It’s just begun, so it’s a little
hard to tell. You’ve got the four food companies that have
agreed to lobby for a price on carbon. You’ve got Microsoft, which has followed them and
stepped up. You’ve got some strong signals out of the Climate
Leadership Council. And you’ve got the Climate Dialogue Group of 13 CEOs.
I think it’s a good, strong signal
that those things are starting to happen. But when push comes to shove, the
Chamber is here lobbying day in and day out. And it backs up its lobbying with
electioneering muscle. And it’s interconnected with climate-denying groups that
it can launch at candidates.
So the companies that want to
participate in trying to get good climate legislation out of Congress need to
understand how mature, powerful, and remorseless the opposition is.
Martin Heinrich
All those other businesses are finding
their footing on this. They want to know, what is the social impact and
pushback from their colleague corporations of taking this new leadership
position? We’re in a very unsettled time right now, but I think it’s also a
very important time for the right feedback loops to occur, to allow for some
real leadership positions to develop and solidify.
