Corporations that have board members on the Chamber should instruct their representatives to advocate and vote for socially and environmentally responsible policies. Sign a petition that asks the Chamber to follow policies that are not in lockstep with those of the worst polluting industries in America. You can see the petition at http://www.dolphinblue.com​/pg-Green-Chamber-Petition​.html.

Check out the Green Chamber of Commerce which we created as an alternative to the US Chamber of Commerce. Sustainability is the foundation our organization was built on.

Here are 5 facts (out of hundreds) that prove the U.S. Chamber is anything but environmentally sustainable:

1. Many high profile members of the U.S. Chamber are quitting or distancing themselves from the national organization. Apple, PG&E, Nike and many other corporations are publicly distancing themselves or quitting the U.S. Chamber altogether because of it’s stance on climate change and environmental protection.

2. Many local chamber affiliates are quitting the U.S. Chamber, because it’s partisan politicking around political and environmental issues in Washington DC is contradictory to what small business owners in this country want. Stan Kosciuszko, president of the Butler County, Pennsylvania, Chamber of Commerce, which is no longer a member of the Chamber, said, ‘They’ve abandoned the interests of smaller chambers like status unclear mine for their larger corporate members.’

3. Climate change presents the most critical environmental challenge of our time, threatening the global economy and the survival of hundreds of millions of people, and the U.S. Chamber has done everything in it’s power to stop any legislation around the problem. In 2009, for instance, one of their Vice Presidents demanded a “Scopes monkey trial” on global warming: “it would be the science of climate change on trial,” the chamber’s senior vice-president for environment, technology, and regulatory affairs explained. More recently, they petitioned the EPA to take no action on climate change, on the grounds that “populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.” We don’t know who those 16 companies are, but you can pretty much guess how they make their money, and why they use the Chamber to launder it.

4. The U.S. Chamber says that regulation to control carbon pollution kills jobs—this is a lie, and it’s preventing our country from creating good paying green jobs for Americans. Already, more Americans have green jobs than oil or gas jobs. The truth is that regulation is good for the environment and for the economy, but the Chamber is hoping that in these hard economic times, Americans’ concern about jobs will scare them into believing that regulation of greenhouse gases will stifle job growth.

5. The U.S. Chamber spends more money than any other group to influence our democracy and rollback environmental regulations that would help our economy and clean up our environment. In 2010, it spent over $33m on attack ads and elections throughout the country, 93% of that cash going to far-right conservative candidates intent on stopping the EPA from cleaning up our air and atmosphere.

While it’s true that the business community has a pivotal role to play in lowering global carbon emissions and promoting economic recovery through environmental and clean energy innovation, the U.S. Chamber has proven—through it’s history of lobbying to dismantle the EPA and stop any progress on climate change—that environmental sustainability is the last thing on it’s mind. Far from being a “force for green”, the U.S. Chamber is the most notorious anti-environmental, non-sustainable organization in the country.

Greenwash

Greenwash

Greenwash

Shame on greenbiz for publishing this pablum.

at best, the US Chamber seeks to perpetuate an obsolete, dirty-energy economy that suffocates innovation and alienates its own members. Nike, Timberland, Apple, and other major corporations have all withdrawn their membership due to the Chamber's regressive stances on pretty much every environmental management issue.

You 2 haters should understand that you can be for sustainability and still question climate change, cap & trade etc. How? Because sustainability is about reducing waste, reducing energy use, ensuring products are safer, etc. All this is motivated by improved profit which any business and the USCC will support. In turn, all this activity will reduce GHG - a lot!

The biggest way to reduce GHG fast and still support a strong economy and not kill jobs is to do exactly what this USCC group is doing - take out waste, which reduces costs and GHG simultaneously

The St. Louis Regional Commerce & Growth Association (RCGA) launched the Green Business Challenge in 2010 as part of the Climate Prosperity Project: http://www.stlrcga.org/x4530.xml, with over 70 local companies participating. This is a well organized, active group that facilitates sustainability practices within the local business community and supports local green businesses.

Next week, Alex will share for us all the reasons why the fox is the perfect contractor to guard the henhouse.

An 'environmental acceleration agenda' is nice. It allows the Chamber (and other big corporate lobbies) to say it believes in sustainability (and perhaps in some ways it does). HOWEVER an 'acceleration agenda' alone WILL NEVER ACHIEVE THE GHG REDUCTIONS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE. Achieving those reductions will require federal legislation, which the Chamber has spent MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO OPPOSE. The Chamber would also prefer to strip EPA of its authority to regulate GHGs through the Clean Air Act. Does anyone remember in 2009 when Apple, Nike, PG&E, Exelon and other giant American corporations quit the Chamber because of its strict opposition to climate change legislation?

Environmental organizations and other stakeholders who claim climate change is issue of our time do need (as Mr. Hahn suggests) to reframe the debate, to bring in more diverse partners and make the issue more understandable and relevant to the American public at large. After all, the average person is more likely to care about jobs than CO2 emissions. However, Mr. Hahn shouldn't be allowed to hold up the Chamber as some great crusader for a new, innovation-based economy, without revealing that its played a huge role in deep-sixing any meaningful climate change legislation and has in fact trafficked in baseless, false propaganda to scare and confuse citizens and policy makers into believing climate change doesn't exist.