Storm Over the Chamber

[depakid]

BACK in the 1990s when Thomas J. Donohue was president of the American Trucking Associations, a subordinate raised a question at a staff meeting. Some of the association’s members, the aide said, wondered whether it was really necessary for the group’s president to fly on a private jet.

Mr. Donohue, a scrappy Irish-American born in Brooklyn and raised on Long Island, turned to his chief of staff and asked how many seats his jet had. “Well, eight, sir,” the aide said. “Tomorrow morning I want you to call and get a 12-seater,” Mr. Donohue shot back. The subject never came up again.



Mr. Donohue, 71, now the president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, still flies on private jets and enjoys a chauffeur-driven car in addition to his $3 million annual salary.

And his legendary pugnacity has not faded. It was on display again this fall as he and the chamber found themselves in a maelstrom over climate change policy after a number of member companies noisily resigned in protest over the chamber’s hostile stance on climate legislation. A wave of criticism arose from Congress, the White House, environmental organizations and some businesses that accused the chamber and its president of a reactionary pursuit of anti-environmental policies.

Mr. Donohue was not cowed. “Bring ’em on,” he growled at a briefing for reporters last month.

As president of the nation’s largest and oldest business association, Mr. Donohue is no stranger to sharp policy debates. During his 12-year tenure, the chamber has been outspoken on trade, tort reform, union organizing rights, financial regulation and health care. Mr. Donohue has hired an army of lobbyists and has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising, advocacy and political campaigns to make sure its voice is heard. The chamber represents its generally conservative membership of 300,000 companies and local business groups on these issues without much public protest.

But climate change poses a different sort of challenge for Mr. Donohue. Many of the chamber’s big-business members are deeply split on the issue, with some standing to profit from an economy moving away from reliance on fossil fuels, while others could see devastating increases in costs.

The companies that resigned this fall — Apple, Levi Strauss & Company, Mohawk Paper and the utilities Pacific Gas and Electric, Exelon and PNM Resources — cited the chamber’s climate policy as counterproductive. All said that some form of greenhouse gas regulation or legislation was coming and that they did not want to pay dues to an organization that appeared to be standing in its way.

R. Bruce Josten, the chamber’s chief lobbyist, dismissed the defectors as self-interested publicity seekers. He said some wanted to save their chamber dues money (as much as $50,000 a year in some cases) and planned to cut their own deals with lawmakers to benefit their bottom lines.

“We try to work with them and they vilify us. Fine,” Mr. Josten said. “It doesn’t faze Tom. It doesn’t faze me, either.”

Mr. Donohue’s challenge is to try to placate the diverse membership of the chamber while working with Congress to blunt the impact of any carbon-control regime. The chamber didn’t help its cause this summer when one of its senior policy analysts, William L. Kovacs, called for the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a new “Scopes monkey trial” on the science of global warming, reprising the famous 1925 confrontation over the scientific basis of evolution.

Mr. Donohue disavowed the comment and had strong words for Mr. Kovacs in private. But he has not relented in his opposition to E.P.A. regulation of emissions of greenhouse gases that are contributing to global warming. And he is wary of any climate change legislation that he says will “eliminate jobs and badly damage the economy.”

Mr. Donohue would not agree to an interview for this article but provided written answers by e-mail to a number of questions about the chamber’s climate change position. He said that he did not set out to pick a fight with the Obama administration over climate-altering emissions (“Absolutely not!”), and that he was trying to work with the administration to focus on the long-term challenge of climate change.

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/business/energy-environment/19CHAMBER.html?hp

My bet is that this barker and his pack aren't far removed from a major comeuppance. And it couldn't happen to a nicer set of people....