Chamber of Commerce's Tom Donohue Refuses To Say He Believes In Science Behind Climate Change
By Nicole Belle Tuesday Oct 27, 2009 1:00pm
Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue gave an interview to the Politico yesterday, the majority of which is your basic claptrap posturing after the White House put the Chamber of Commerce in its place and called it a lobbying group: the White House is wrong, membership is stronger than ever, yadda yadda yadda. Apparently, all those companies that have left the CoC, like Nike, PG&E, Exelon, PNM Resources, and Apple over their climate change stance are just penny-ante companies not worth worrying about.
But showing that they are firm in their resolve to not budge from their 20th century industrial age thinking here in the 21st century, I noted this little nugget from Donohue:
Under pressure from MoveOn.org and other groups, Apple, PG&E and Exelon have left the Chamber over the issue — and Nike resigned from its spot on the board. And pressure on others to follow suit is often intense.
Donohue refused to say if he believes the science behind global warming. “Is the science right? Is science not right? I don’t know,” he said.
Interesting. Especially considering his comments last week:
“We have not, are not and will not” challenge the science behind climate change, he added, noting that the Chamber has for years called for comprehensive climate legislation “that is workable.”
Uh huh. We go back to yesterday's Politico interview:
What he does know, though, is that he’ll fight anything that the Chamber believes would unfairly harm business, especially if the Environmental Protection Agency moves forward, while Congress haggles, with its authority to regulate the release of greenhouse gases.
“If we got the EPA one, then we are in deep sh-- as a country,” he said. “You want to see unemployment? You will see some.”
Good to see your priorities straight. Who cares about poisoning the planet (and us with it) if it means unemployment?
MoveOn's campaign encouraged Prius-owning members to send pictures of their cars to Toyota to express their displeasure with their continued membership in the CoC. If you're a Prius driver, you may want to consider adding your picture as well.
Login or Register to post comments.
"a lobbyist group"? I'd think he'd wear that like a badge of honor.
Really, what else would you call the CoC?
The Business Roundtable is a politically conservative group of chief executive officers of major U.S. corporations formed to promote pro-business public policy.
Does that Compute?
"The White House also has gone out of its way to cultivate another corporate group, the Business Roundtable, which is much smaller than the chamber"
It's an outright freaking lie . . . isn't it obvious?
http://www.businessroundtable.org/about/members
I shouldn't even have voted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54PV2_b4-ow
I've never understood how it is that people who claim to be all about "business" never seem to see all the unlimited business opportunities inherent in any large-scale paradigm shift. All they see is the old stuff ending; they never catch sight of all the new stuff that's BEGINNING.
Like the classic example: how GM snatched away the EV1 back in the late 90's. They had the jump start on the electric car industry. They actually HAD an electric car, one that people really loved. The first ones in to a whole new class of automobiles for the public - they could have made BILLIONS. But noooo - the minute the government withdrew its mandate, they destroyed all those cars. Now they're a hair away from collapsing completely, when they could have been the first car company to ride the wave of the new technology.
Troglodytes. That's all these people are. Clinging to old ways, beliefs and methods while the world goes zooming past them. And then they complain when their industries collapse and they end up in bankruptcy. Well, I for one will be glad to see them go. We simply can't afford them anymore
... in fact of the electric cars at the time the EV1 was introduced, the EV1 was clearly the worst. Honda and Toyota were offering larger cars, with more seating and cargo room and comparable ranges.
Electric Cars were/are a direct threat to the parasitic industries associated with the automobile esp. regarding maintenance (auto parts, oil change, etc), not just the oil companies. Since electric vehicles don't require as much maintenance and/or gas, they were a direct threat to the revenue model of the industry. Especially to the American auto manufacturers which were especially dependent on the revenue from their piece of sh*t vehicles with built-in obsolescence. Frankly I can't feel sorry for these dinosaurs closing down (other than the obvious loss for the American work force).
You are correct regarding the fact the main reason why electric cars were introduced in the US were because of California's zero emission mandate. Once the GOP suceeded in lobbying against that law, the electric cars were dropped and not just by GM.
After 6 years of not being a member I joined this year. Thought what the hell, maybe they can help.
Well the NRA called me, played a tape of their leader ranting about the UN and then asked for money. Asked what i thought,,,, they hung up when I started to answer...
The CoC hasn't helped, again. Just collect dues. They don't ask members what to vote on, just announce what their stand is. No input from the trenches, just decrees from on high.
Now I remember why I wasn't a member for al those years, and why I'm not a member next year :)
!
Chamber of Horrors?
the COC does more to fight for the little guy-small business-local regional then Obama's so called Business Roundtable intends to do.
The COC is just an obstacle to total CORPORATE DOMINATION to Obama and his Corporate Owners. They want to get rid of it.
I can't believe people can't see through this.
Delusional much?
God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, sin, heaven, hell, and the rest of the Catholic codswallop...
he doesn't believe in reality.
Funny how money and power can induce people to try to appear stupid in public. And that would appear to be what has happened to this guy.
Perhaps someone should introduce Donohue to the term, Green Jobs.
It may very well be that global warming spells the doom of the human race, and it's one thing to collect facts about the environment and say that a definite change can be shown to have happened, but it seems to me that there's absolutely no way to prove conclusively that human beings are the cause of any perceived "warming".
I'm no scientist, so maybe it's more obvious to those who are that human beings are to blame, but somehow I've managed to miss any reporting done that conclusively links the activities of humans to what is happening. We can't even predict the weather more than 3 or 5 days out, and yet people say they can prove that humans are to blame for bad environmental change?
to reproduce.
Chuy!
What's the matter", maroon? Is your google broken, or is your vocabulary insufficient to the task of deciphering the words used to describe the data.
Your comment is much gentler than the one I started to submit but then deleted it.
Google will provide me with probably 35,697,242 links to stories about global warming and whether or not human beings are responsible.
If you please, would you be so kind as to tell me how to sort the links providing truth from the links providing garbage.
Thanks in advance.
shud eye uze fonix?
with Obama-Dems blessings. Well burn the state of West Virgina for heat and call it Green Technology and everyone will "buy it". We'll put grain in our fuel tanks while starving nations die off and pat ourselves on the backs for our ingenuity and forward thinking.
I've about had it.
We can multi-task. We can try to slow down global warming and try to help the staving people in other countries as well as our own at the same time. That is the challenge of our time. To try to do things better and more efficient. What the fu*k would it hurt to try? Giving up sure as hell is not the answer.
Toyota and say I'm Mad! And I'm not going to TAKE IT ANYMORE!
you would still be bitching because the troll union would be out of business.
... basically you are saying that the fact that you don't know jack sh*t about the subject is proof enough to discredit the conclusions from those who know and study the subject. Wow, just wow.
culture fanatics Tyler.
Pop culture fanatics? Where does that play into this discussion? Kind of the same question about "internet news junkies". How about people who just take the trouble to educate themselves about today's world, before they start denying the findings of science.
we can't even predict weather with any accuracy because these Newscasters spend more time doing idiotic promotions then they do accurate weather forecasting give him at least some credit.
Who do you believe, and why?
According to http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmnh/buginf...
Recent figures indicate that there are more than 200 million insects for each human on the planet! A recent article in The New York Times claimed that the world holds 300 pounds of insects for every pound of humans.
Granted that insects aren't building smokestack-laden factories putting who-knows-what into the air, but their predominance would seem to indicate that they ought to have a large impact on the environment, if the 300-to-1 ratio between the weight of insects and humans on the planet is accurate.
I'll ask again: who do you believe, and why? What experience do you have that enables you to discern the truth from the lies?
we can blame the insects for our enviroment. They helped form the modern eco-system. The termites are major players in the enviroment and have been for millenia. We just arrived as if in a flash of light and smoke, and yes we too have had an impact but it is virtually instantanious - so it may in fact already be a time to adapt or perish. We won't know the consequences of industry's slap across earth's face for about fifty years.
sometimes you can discern truth from wishful thinking just by noting who is doing the talking.
... maybe it's the existence of humans themselves. Maybe wiping a large number of humans from the environment is nature's way of solving the problem.
I used the phrase "bad environmental change" above. That was probably a mistake, because it makes a judgment as to the result of the change. Who's to say that Mother Nature wiping humans off the face of the earth isn't a positive change in the long run?
Ya.
I think the best path is away from a conflict of interest with the living earth and towards a symbiotic relationship with it.
That's entirely achievable but we have to overcome societal and corporate inertia.
... do you really want to keep digging with your silly illogical arguments?
Who do you believe, and why?
... science is not about belief but validated models and fact. Nature does not give a flying f*ck about what you or I believe. She is a b*tch that way.
Let me rephrase, just for you, then:
Who, in your opinion, has provided the best "validated models" and facts? How can you tell?
... you know the sh*tload of physicists, climatologists, biologists, and chemists that have done so in places like Nature. Organizations like NASA, Wildlife NGOs, the European Environmental Agency, etc, etc, etc.
How can I tell, simple... I actually have to publish for a living, so I am very well aware of how the peer review process works and its function as the cornerstone of scientific progress.
But if you want, you can conduct a simple experiment tonight: sleep in your garage with your car on. And tomorrow try to do the same with a few ant farms... Now that I think about it, maybe you want to conduct the ant experiment first.
... like these?
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/...
Let's just say this guys opinion is subject to conflict of interest on the question. Let's assume off the bat that we can drop his name from the sample set of opinions. OK? OK.
Maybe he should stick to things he knows about, like commerce.
Maybe he should concentrate his efforts on changing the flow of commerce to accomodate the planet for Gods' sake.
Reslugs just plug their ears and cover their lying eyes and think the truth will just go away.
The truth is a stubborn thing. It just hangs in there no matter what people do to try to dispel it.
Ya, that and they think they're on a sleigh ride to hell anyway so earth be damned.
http://www.businessroundtable.org/about/members
Nothing Corporate or Big Business about it! We believe in the little people!
Yes We Can! Change You Can Believe In!
Said it before, and I'll say it again: If taking serious action against climate change cost jobs and hurt the economy (which it may well not), then so be it.
Half of the town I live in is going to be underwater by 2050 (bayfill at essentially a foot above current sea level), and depending on whether you listen to optimists or pessimists like the UN, climate change will cause somewhere between a global resource, land, and food crises on a scale akin to a major world war, or the end of civilization as we know it. And yes, the former of those two is the optimistic position.
When your entire greenbelt ends up a desert it takes time to adjust, and let's just say that a little unemployment will be the LEAST of the worries of a lot of people in the world. But hey, the US is big and sparsely populated, so we may well still be able to maintain our quality of life, so long as we are good enough at fighting off a few other resource-desperate countries.
It's like these people think they don't live on the same planet that everybody else does, so if they don't like global climate change it won't happen to them or something. Maybe they figure they're so rich that they can just buy their way out of the disaster.
He's not being asked to believe in the Cookie Monster, but recognize objective data. One implies that a person hasn't been convinced by evidence, the other that they simply disregard evidence.
Good point!
Donohue refuses to believe in evidence that contradicts his distorted world view. Doing so makes him uncomfortable.
He can't do that in public service. You have to deal with the evidence in life or you'll make mistakes. This man does not represent us.
the man looks old enough to have been able to notice the changes via his own personal observance, probably thought the telephone was bad for business.
emancipation proclamation based on the negative effect it was going to have in the competitiveness of the economy of the Southern States.
and have resisted calls by those with prejudice against older Americans working to step aside for the next generation. He is 71.
New century...old man. Only old men in suits can pull of that kind of stupidity.
there are plenty of new century youngins in shorts which can give this idiot a run for the money.
This the same entity that put it's weight behind BushCo to get the precription drug card plan passed supposedly for seniors when in fact, it was solely for Bush's reelection.
Oh yes, the US Chamber of Commerce put their name on several so called grass roots efforts to reach seniors... (to go inside Senior Citizen homes, senior care enters, etc.Z).
I know, I helped work their scam while doing contract PR for a local PR firm that was employed by a huge PR firm in D.C. named the DCI Group. Believe me when I tell you the US Chamber is much like FOX... just another arm of the GOP!
Ah yes , he's worried about unemployment and "we the peasants" , what a crock , he's just beng true to his God and his only "virtue" , profit ( $ ) and greed .
All CoC should be dismantled. They are nothing but a fascist enterprise, whose only goal is to destroy worker's and wipe out small businesses.
The are vile and evil to the core. Plus, the really suck!
... you have to be born with it, this dip shit put's an exclamation point on it!
Login or Register to post comments.