MT Chamber of Commerce should change climate position

The Montana Chamber of Commerce (guest column, April 10) claims that legislative efforts in Washington, D.C., to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases are just plain stupid because those efforts will cause huge job losses and drive up energy prices while providing no significant benefits. It's hard to believe a group that says it represents Montana businesses could be so out of touch with reality.

The chamber claims that the study presented at the climate change forum it recently sponsored in Billings documented a "startling" loss of 4,000 to 6,000 jobs by 2020 in Montana if the Lieberman-Warner bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now being considered by Congress were to pass.

The chamber clearly did not even read the study it is flogging. That study did not project that people would lose their jobs in Montana as a result of greenhouse gas regulation. Instead, it projected that job growth would be very slightly slower: Instead of the Montana economy creating 183,000 new jobs over the next 12 years, the Montana economy would "only" create 178,000 new jobs. Instead of adding, on average, 15,000 new jobs each year, the economy might "only" add 14,600 new jobs each year. What is startling is not how many jobs we will lose, but rather how many we will gain as we move toward a low-emissions economy.

Even the finding of slower growth is questionable. The study the chamber is promoting makes very pessimistic assumptions about how competitive markets perform and the entrepreneurial capacity of our businesses. In short, the chamber defames the very system it claims to champion.

The Chamber's study assumes that we and our businesses will be incapable of adapting and innovating in the face of a new energy reality where the cost of using fossil fuels is significantly higher. The outrageousness of that assumption is obvious if we look back over the technological innovations that have transformed our economy and lives during the last quarter-century: the spread of computer technology, the rise of the Internet, and the revolution in telecommunications. If public policy creates the right set of incentives, the range of innovation and adaptation open to us as we move to reduce greenhouse gases is incredibly broad and the resulting cost quite modest and bearable.

The chamber's analysis also fails to recognize the promise of increased energy efficiency. Recent reports by the Governor's Climate Change Advisory Committee and national research organizations have identified many simple measures that can be taken to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. And far from costing the economy anything, these measures will produce net savings. An example is the switch to compact fluorescent bulbs, which is mandated in the 2007 Energy Act.

The chamber also seeks to scare Montanans about how high electricity and gasoline prices are likely to go if public policy seeks to protect climate stability by reducing greenhouse gases. And indeed it's probably correct to expect some price increases. But it's important to understand that it is higher prices that provide the incentives to both households and businesses to adapt, to become more efficient and to innovate, and efficient and creative responses to high energy prices can actually reduce our overall energy costs.

The core of the chamber's argument against greenhouse gas regulation is that we gain nothing by trying to reduce the pace of climate change. This is not because global warming will do no harm to Montana, the United States or the world; although they don't say so, we assume that even the chamber knows that's not true. Instead, the chamber argues that reductions in American greenhouse gas emissions can have no significant impact on the global climate unless other countries, especially the developing economic giants of Asia, limit their emissions as well. So why act alone?

The logic is impeccable: The U.S. should not act unless other nations do. But it applies with equal force to those other nations: China shouldn't act unless the U.S. does. The European Union shouldn't act unless India does. And so forth. Where the chamber's logic leads us is to a "race to the bottom" that results in global inaction and ultimately self-destruction. What is clearly needed is international negotiation leading to global agreements to reduce emissions, and the U.S. can only have an influential place at the negotiating table if it shows it is prepared to take significant action. As it stands right now, we discredit ourselves in the international community by whining about the costs of reducing emissions while at the same time suggesting that much poorer nations should take on the job.

If we fail to act, rather than avoiding modest costs, we will be actively assuring changes in world climate that will fundamentally change the Montana that we know, leaving behind for our children and grandchildren a dramatically diminished natural landscape, society and economy.

Copyright © 2008 Missoulian