ALG Editor’s Note: In the following features article from TimesCheck, Kevin Mooney who points out, even though lots of corporate sponsors dropped out of USCAP, the New York Times only covered it in a blog post.
Corporate Exodus From USCAP Hidden Away In Blog Post
By Kevin Mooney
Corporations are beginning to pull out of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a major driving force behind “cap and trade” proposals. But The New York Times would prefer that readers not become privy to yet another setback for the environmental movement. When USCAP was formed it earned expansive coverage but news of its possible demise only earns a blog post…
Where is the coverage of corporations that have pulled out of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) after lobbying in favor of anti-emissions regulations? The three year old pressure group was heralded and celebrated for its efforts in the New York Times when it first came together. But now that it is contracting, USCAP is suddenly less news worthy.
BP America, Conoco Phillips and Caterpillar have all announced they are pulling out of USCAP, which included a coalition of businesses and green groups that supported “cap and trade” legislation modeled after the Kyoto Protocol. Just a few weeks after the 2008 elections, USCAP representatives appeared at The National Press Club (NPC) to declare their moment had arrived and that Europeanization of the American economy was at hand.
Under cap and trade, electric utilities, manufacturers, and other firms would be limited in the amount of carbon dioxide they could release into the air. Companies that emitted more than their prescribed limit would then have to buy “carbon allowances” in a government-contrived system from companies that had carbon credit. If they pollute beyond their “cap,” these companies would then have to “trade” for, i.e., buy, credits in companies that produce more environmentally friendly products.
Anti-emissions regulations were needed despite the recession USCAP members argued as recently as a few months ago because they would discourage the use of carbon-based energy sources in exchange for “green technologies that will create new jobs.”
With election of Barack Obama and large Democratic congressional majorities, green activists and compliant business leaders had good cause to anticipate legislative results.
“We are greatly encouraged by the new leadership coming into office,” Frances Beinecke president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said at NPC press conference in 2008. “Since the president-elect has announced his goals, the Democratic leadership will have to respond, and it might be possible to pull over some Republicans.”
David Crane, president and CEO of NRG Energy, a power-generation company based in Princeton, N.J., told NPC audience members that the transition away from a carbon-based economy to one more reliant on clean energy sources is similar in scope to the movement away from the “horse and buggy” to the internal combustion engine.
Crane, who described himself as a “dyed-in-the-wool free market capitalist,” said a price on carbon is needed so that market forces will respond and embrace alternative technologies.
Oh brother.
The Times and other liberal media organs have ignored economic reports that raise question about the viability of green jobs.
Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain, has produced a recent study that shows green jobs are mostly temporary, heavily subsidized and subtract away from economic performance.
It also important to note that the announcements from BP America, Conoco Phillips and Caterpillar come on the heels of the “climategate” scandal that has gone a long way toward debunking the research underpinning man-made global warming theories.
Instead of published a thorough and detailed report on the possible demise of USCAP these developments are instead reduced to a blog where corporate leaders who are now backpeddling away from cap and trade are permitted to put their best spin on a dramatic policy reversal.
