By: Politico

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports both public and private sector action to control greenhouse gas emissions. In order to be effective, such action must be based on sound science, rational debate and realistic solutions. Unfortunately, on climate change, this has not been the case.

First, the science. We need the best scientific data reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis, for one simple reason — you need good science to develop good solutions. The U.S. Chamber is not fighting climate change science, but does believe that part of being scientific is continued analysis and debate. Amazingly, the desire for accurate information often engenders quotes like this one from Brendan Cummings at the Center for Biological Diversity: “The Chamber of Commerce is pursuing a last-century, head-in-the-sand strategy to suppress climate information.”

Now is an opportune time to discuss rational debate. Cummings was responding to the regulatory comments filed by the Chamber on Aug. 1, 2008, asking the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to withdraw the Synthesis Report that they published July 17, 2008. This report summarizes 21 synthesis and assessment products (SAPs) of the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), as well as the recent IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Why did we ask for its withdrawal? Mainly because only 8 of the 21 studies referenced in the report have been released! Far from suppressing information, we were asking that all of the information be made available prior to commenting. Seriously, before the world spends trillions of dollars to address climate change, it is essential that we have the data. How else can we develop the best solutions to address this issue?

Read entire article

This brings us to the second part of the debate — costs. You have heard the commercials and seen the speeches: Addressing climate change is free, right? Environmental groups have been scared to talk about costs and sacrifices because they think it will deter the public from addressing the challenge. Not having an honest, complete discussion is bad strategy if you really want to address global climate change over the long term. There is ample evidence that surprising the public rarely makes for good politics. Any costs imposed can quickly be unimposed if the public impact is not made clear. Being honest is the truly pro-environment strategy, and the only way to develop lasting solutions.

What do the solutions look like? They look like everything. The best solutions will encompass increased efficiency at home, at work and on the roads. They will use new technologies that expand alternative energy and allow us to use traditional sources more cleanly. And they will be global in nature.

The cleanest energy of all is energy not used — wasting energy is wrong at any price. We must encourage stronger action by energy consumers and producers to use fuel and power more efficiently. These efforts should be backed by government standards and positive incentives.

And you can’t spell global climate change without the global. To help the environment, an agreement must include developed and developing economies, promote clean technology and allow countries to find their own best path to meeting reduction targets. As obvious as this seems, let me say it again: Unilateral action by the United States would be both economically devastating for us, and ultimately ineffective for the world. Here is one brief example, data from the U.S. Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration recently showed that U.S. oil demand during the first half of 2008 showed the sharpest decline in 26 years — while worldwide demand increased by 1.3 million barrels a day. Quite simply, we aren’t the only car on the road anymore.

Finally, we need to promote accelerated technology development and deployment across all of our energy sources. The fundamental reality, which many people don’t want to hear, is that even with the aggressive development of alternative sources, fuels and engines, our nation — and the world — will be heavily dependent on fossil fuels for decades to come.

Coal, oil, and gas today account for more than 85 percent of American energy. We must enthusiastically explore alternatives and diversify our energy mix, and we must develop new technologies that allow us to use traditional energy more cleanly and reduce its carbon impact.

The current climate change debate is too often a hysterical, faith-based, witch hunt. But by using accurate information, debated rationally, we can build a clean energy future. The alternative approach — throwing our economy in the water to see if it floats — serves neither our people nor our planet.

William Kovacs is the vice president of the environment, technology & regulatory affairs division of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Copyright © 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC | Distributed by Noofangle Media