webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Climate Action Partnership

see also USCAP same thing

see pooley climate wars

and http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/rff_final_report_bartosiewicz_miley.pdf

THE TOO POLITE REVOLUTION

Why the Recent Campaign to Pass Comprehensive Climate Legislation in the United States Failed

Petra Bartosiewicz & Marissa Miley January 2013

:{:{Prepared for the Symposium on}:

THE POLITICS OF AMERICA’S FIGHT

AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING

Co-sponsored by the

Columbia School of Journalism and the Scholars Strategy Network February 14, 2013 4-6 pm

Tsai Auditorium, Harvard University }:

---

Many of the members of USCAP were previously involved with the Global Climate Coalition, whose intention was to block or minimize the effectiveness of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's demands for GHG curbing legislation. After ceasing official operation in 1997 GCC was victorious in having pressured the US into refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocols.

==

The U.S. Climate Action Partnership (CAP) is a coalition of major corporations and other organizations including Alcoa Inc., General Electric Co., DuPont Co., Duke Energy Corp., Caterpillar, PG&E, the FPL Group, PNM Resources, BP, Lehman Brothersand PEW Center on Global Climate Change. Reuters reported January 19, 2007. In May 2007, automobile maker General Motors joined the group, along with insurance company AIG, Alcan, Dow Chemical, Deere & Co., Johnson & Johnson, PepsiCo and Shell. [1]

CAP was identified in the online publication ClimateBiz as "a program of Environmental Defense and numerous collaborating companies." CPA's stated URL www.pca-online.org is inactive. [2]

CAP has been criticised for greenwashing, as many of the corporations which are members of CAP are also working behind the scenes to undermine greenhouse-gas regulation. For example, USCAP members General Electric and Caterpillar have seats on the board of a group called the Center for Energy and Economic Development, which opposes greenhouse-gas regulations. USCAP member Duke Energy has joined notorious coal-lobbying group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices. Eight USCAP members sit on the board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is critical of attempts to reduce carbon; And the chamber vice president of environment says no board members have pressured the chamber to change its position. Says David Hawkins of green group and USCAP member NRDC, "We do expect them to exert pressure on other organizations." [3]

Contents [hide]

CAP as good PR

CAP is headed by Lance Morgan, the "Chief Communications Specialist at the Interpublic group," a communications conglomerate with lobbying, PR and marketing arms, according to O'Dwyer's PR Report (February 2007).

The trade publication also reported that "Powell Tate | Weber Shandwick ... is working with the newly formed United States Climate Action Partnership." CAP's goal, according to O'Dwyer's, is to have "input on any global warming legislation that is forged by the new Democratic Congress."

U.S.-Australia Climate Action Partnership

The establishment of the U.S.-Australia Climate Action Partnership was announced February 27, 2002, by the governments of the United States and Australia "following meetings on climate change" held in Washington, D. C., "between Dr. David Kemp, Australian Minister for the Environment and Heritage", and "several senior members" of the Bush administration, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman; James Connaughton, Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality; Frances Blake, Deputy Secretary of Energy; and Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs. Partnership participants included the EPA, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Department of State and their Australian counterparts." [4]

Contact details

USCAP

C/O Meridian Institute

1920 L Street, N.W., Suite 500

Washington, D.C. 20036

Web: http://www.us-cap.org

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

External resources

External articles

Categories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Action_Partnership

The U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), formed January 22, 2007 is a co-operative group of businesses and leading environmental organizations. The group's primary purpose is to call on the U.S. government to require significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Contents

"A Call For Action"

USCAP's principles and goals are summarized in their brochure "A Call For Action":[1]

We, the members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, pledge to work with the President, the Congress, and all other stakeholders to enact an environmentally effective, economically sustainable, and fair climate change program consistent with our principles at the earliest practicable date.

Targets

The USCAP Blueprint calls for the United States to act quickly to establish a mandatory, national economy-wide climate protection program that includes emission reduction targets for total U.S. emissions and for capped sectors that are:

These targets do not comply with the IPCC proposed target reductions of 25 to 40% of 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 to 95% of 1990 levels by 2050 for Annex 1 (developed) countries under Scenario A to limit Greenhouse gases to 450ppm[3]

USCAP members

This list is complete as of July 3, 2007

The 14 founding members of USCAP are:

In April, 2007 oil giant ConocoPhillips and insurer AIG joined USCAP.[4]

The following groups and companies joined in June 2007:[5]

In July, 2007, two major U.S. automakers joined:[5]

Chrysler, Ford Motor Company

Members leaving

In February 2010

all left the lobbyist collaboration and are not members anymore.[6]

Organizational structure

Journalist Timothy P. Carney, writing for the conservative think tank Capital Research Center, says that USCAP has no in-house staff. He says that, like other lobbying coalitions, it manages its affairs through outside organizations to function and coordinate the activities of its members.He further asserts that USCAP contracts with the Meridian Institute, Lighthouse Consulting, and government relations firm Powell Tate Weber Shandwick to carry out its day to day operations.[7]

Controversy

Questions have been raised about the same companies sponsoring both the partnership and lobbying groups that oppose its goals.[8]

Many of the members of USCAP were previously involved with the Global Climate Coalition, whose intention was to block or minimize the effectiveness of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's demands for GHG curbing legislation. After ceasing official operation in 1997 GCC was victorious in having pressured the US into refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocols.

Although many of these corporations have now become interested in halting climate change by 2050 through USCAP, both Yvo de Boer, UN Climate Chief and the EU have heavily criticized this long term plan for reductions as offering no short or mid-term solutions to the immediate problems of climate change.[9]

According toReuters, Robert Murray, chairman and chief executive of Murray Energy Corp., branded more than 20 major corporations that make up the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) "un-American" for allying with environmental groups he calls "enemies of coal."[10]

Former members

On February 17, 2010 Five of the member companies withdrew from the organization ^[11] The three companies ConocoPhillips, BP and Caterpillar said that "USCAP has served its purpose and that they prefer to pursue their interests independently" The other two were Xerox and insurance broker Marsh who were listed as members in January 2009 ^[12][13] Ford Motor Company announced their withdrawal from the partnership on January 23, 2012.[14]

See also

References

  1. ^ http://www.us-cap.org/ClimateReport.pdf
  2. ^ "A BLUEPRINT FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION". United States Climate Action Partnership. January 2009. pp. 25. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
  3. ^ "Fourth Assessment Report Working Group III Report "Mitigation of Climate Change"". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. pp. Page 776 in Chapter 13. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
  4. ^ Oil giant backs greenhouse gas limits - Climate Change - MSNBC.com
  5. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Action_Partnership#cite_ref-autogenerated1_5-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Action_Partnership#cite_ref-autogenerated1_5-1) EVWORLD NEWSWIRE: Chrysler, Ford Join Effort to Enact National Climate Change Legislation
  6. ^ Chesser, Paul (2010-02-24). "CHESSER: World cools toward warmists They brought it on themselves with their fudged facts". washingtontimes.com. Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2010-02-26. Retrieved 2010-02-26. "Last week, three major corporations - Conoco/Phillips, BP and Caterpillar - bailed out on the U.S. Climate Action Partnership lobbyist collaboration."
  7. ^ http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1212187939.pdf "USCAP," by Timothy P. Carney, Organization Trends, June 2008 Capital Research Center
  8. ^ Transparency Today » Blog Archive » Companies Urge Bush to Act on Climate Change-But are Political Payments to Trade Groups Contradicting Their Efforts?
  9. ^ http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gGE4TuTNkmtKhW8C_mSFweycXOJA G8 ministers pledge 'strong will' on climate amid doubts
  10. ^ The Heat Is Online
  11. ^ Mufson, Steven (2010-02-17). "ConocoPhillips, BP and Caterpillar quit USCAP". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-26.
  12. ^ http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20080115nolen.pdf
  13. ^ Xerox, Marsh Also Out Of USCAP Climate Alliance
  14. ^ Ford Motor withdraws from climate change group | WashingtonExaminer.com

External links

Categories:

theda:

My interlocutor had played a major role in efforts to get Congress to pass “cap

and trade” legislation during 2009 and 2010. Hefty DC players had worked together in

the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (otherwise known as USCAP), a coalition of

business chieftains and leaders of big environmental organizations that was publicly

launched in 2007 to push legislation to place acap on carbon emissions and create an

open market for energy producers to trade allowances under the cap. Once legislated,

caps were meant to be slowly ratcheted down in future decades, so U.S. companies and

citizens would have an incentive to use less carbon-based energy and invest in green

technologies. This “cap and trade” approach was seen by supporters as a quintessentially

market-oriented way to nudge the vast U.S. economy through a gradual transition to

reliance on sources of energy that would do less damage to the climate.

The model

originated with economists looking to harness market forces and found some favor with

major corporations and Republicans, so it seemed to be a good bet for building bipartisan

coalitions in Congress.1 Votes from some Republicans would be essential, because votes

for carbon caps would be hard to find among Democrats representing states with strong

coal or oil sectors or states heavily reliant on electricity generated in coal-fired plants.

To many savvy players, prospects for a legislative push for cap and trade looked

excellent during and right after the presidential campaign of 2008. Versions of this

approach were touted not just by the Democratic nominee and eventual victor Barack

2

Obama, but also by the 2008 Republican standard-bearer, John McCain – who was one of

the favorite GOPers among big environmentalists, because he had repeatedly cosponsored

carbon-control bills. Environmentalists who favored cap and trade presumed

that John McCain would be on their side – it was just a question of when they could make

it possible for him to play a pivotal role in forging a bipartisan deal in the Senate. With

Democratic president Barack Obama moving into the White House in early 2009 and

Democratic House and Senate leaders pledged to act on climate legislation, the time

looked ripe to move full speed ahead. On January 15, 2009, USCAP leaders issued a

meticulously negotiated blueprint for a new cap and trade system and geared up for nonstop

lobbying to get legislation through Congress.2

Visions danced in their heads of a

celebratory White House signing ceremony nicely timed to tee up U.S. leadership in the

next international climate confab scheduled for December 2009 in Copenhagen.

Following months of intricate bargaining, USCAP forces scored an initial, hardfought

success when, on June 29, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the

Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security” bill by a vote of 219 to 212.

Supporters were elated, but they got a big shock almost at once as oppositional lobbying

and media campaigns went into overdrive and fierce grassroots Tea Party protests broke

out. During the summer Congressional recess, telegenic older white protestors carrying

homemade signs appeared at normally sleepy “town hall” sessions to harangue

Congressional Democrats who supported health reform as well as the Waxman-Markey

bill. Protests were bolstered by generously funded advertising campaigns targeted on

Senators who would be asked to decide about cap and trade bills in the fall. In hasty

response, cap and trade supporters threw together a national “war room” and public

3

relations campaign. They plowed ahead toward what they hoped would be a bipartisan

deal in the Senate.

But one coalitional effort after another fell apart in late 2009 and early 2010, as

putative Senate compromises came and went. In July 2010, Senate Leader Harry Reid

finally pulled the plug when it became clear that no variant of cap and trade or any other

kind of energy legislation had any prospect of coming close to the 60 votes needed to

clear his chamber’s filibuster bar. During this pivotal year, Republicans, including longtime

supposed friends of the environmental movement like John McCain, simply melted

away; and in the end GOP Senators unanimously refused to support of any variant of cap

and trade.3 In public opinion polls, Americans registered increased wariness about

government action on carbon caps – with public worries stoked by opponents claiming

that new taxes and regulations would cost jobs, reduce family incomes, and stifle

businesses struggling to recover from the Great Recession.

Attachments