Photo : D.R.
First, it was Albuquerque-based energy group PNM Resources, followed a few days later by their competitor, Exelon. Since early October, big names in American business have, one by one, been slamming the door to the Chamber of Commerce. Angered by “its underhanded attempts to deform the reality of climate change”, Pacific Gas and Electric, another leader in the energy sector, is also putting an end to its relations with the organisation, and the giant Apple did the same, recently. In a letter addressed to Chamber President Tom Donohue, the Vice-President of the computer multinational laments the Chamber’s point of view, and communicates “the disappointment provoked by this disaccord over such a crucial matter.”
At the origin of the disaccord are the critiques emanating from the Chamber of Commerce headquarters on the Waxman-Markey law, which has already been adopted by the House of Representatives, but is facing strong resistance in the Senate. “This legislative plan would be the United States’ most notable advancement in terms of the fight to preserve the environment. Its restrictive character would radically modify business behaviours,” says Sallie James, an analyst with the Washington-based Cato Institute, an institute for political studies and research. “Opponents are currently doing all they can to halt the progress of this law, as they know that it will determine their future economic context,” she continues.
This reluctance to fully embrace the fight against global warming has not been echoed by many American public authorities – but when this point of view comes from the strongest national organisation, which federates 3 million businesses, the debates are drawn out. The Chamber of Commerce is demanding “comprehensive legislation” that takes environmental preservation into account, “but without hindering economic dynamism”. It believes that the ecological question is “first and foremost an international problem”, and that, therefore, “businesses must not be hindered by heavy constraints”.
According to the Chamber, the Waxman-Markey law will bring about “substantial and dangerous” ecological taxes, notably on imported products, which will make certain economic partners reconsider the pursuit of their collaborations. To clarify its position further, the organisation has not hesitated to cite John Dingell, member of Congress, who foresees a “memorable mess” if Waxman-Markey comes into effect. The Chamber believes that “America doesn’t need that, especially at this moment in time.” It is beseeching political decision makers to “remain rational, and not to act precipitously.”
This unpopular position even elicited a reaction from The Yes Men, this group of American activists that makes a mockery of multinationals and politicians. They criticised the Chamber during a false press conference, highlighting its irresponsibility toward the world of tomorrow. Tom Donohoe’s reply: “for future generations, preservation of the economy is worth just as much as preservation of the environment.”
Local Chambers rebel
While in Washington, the American Chamber of Commerce has wholly rejected the Waxman-Markey bill, certain local chambers are displaying a different attitude toward the environmental question. For Aaron Nelson, President of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber, “it is indispensable for such a law to be adopted. Its application could lead to increased dynamism worldwide, thanks to which businesses will fully integrate ecological criteria into their ways of working.”
Aaron Nelson is also the cofounder of the Institute for Sustainable Development, an organisation that encourages SME to adopt ecological projects, and delivers certifications to businesses that take into account criteria favouring environmental preservation in substantial fashion. The Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber, like that of Durham, is among the top partners of this initiative.
The President of the North Carolina Chamber is far from being the only one to challenge the ideas emanating from Washington. The Institute for Sustainable Development is supported by the American Chamber of Commerce Executives (ACCE), and association independent from the US Chamber, and which federates some 1,250 Chamber Heads. “The ecological card must be fully played, as the state of the world demands a straightforward, creative and innovative attitude in order to reorient economic activities to be more respectful of the environment,” states Aaron Nelson. The President reproaches the US Chamber for underestimating the ecological stakes. “Refusing the constraints is a bad position. And we can’t wait for foreign partners to deal with the problem of global warming themselves,” he asserts. He invites the biggest sceptics to view the environmental question, not as a constraint, but an opportunity, repeating that “the ecological combat is a source of savings and valuable innovation.”
Created as part of the Institute for Sustainable Development, the Green Plus programme (1), spearhead of the organisation, demonstrates Aaron Nelson’s state of mind. Green Plus trains business Heads, providing them with concrete information to help make environmental preservation an asset – both in terms of image, and on an economic level. Advice concerns regular business expenses and relations with suppliers and partners, for example. Green Plus also encourages the adoption of a charter of good ecological behaviour within each company, and sets up meetings between leaders of the same types of companies, so that they can share their experiences and points of view on similar problems.
(1) www.gogreenplus.org
English 
