PNM Resources Leaves U.S. Chamber Board, Slams Stance On Climate
)

New Mexico-based utility holding company PNM Resources announced this week that the company’s chief executive, Jeff Sterba, has given up his seat on the US Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. The Chamber has attracted severe criticism lately from some of its member companies due to its backwards stance on global warming.

PNM issued a statement lambasting the Chamber for its recent antics:
"We strongly disagree with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's position on climate change legislation and particularly reject its recent theatrics calling for a 'Scopes Monkey Trial' to put the science of climate change on trial. We believe the science is compelling enough to act sooner rather than later, and we support comprehensive federal legislation to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect customers against unreasonable cost increases," said PNM Resources spokesman Don Brown.


PNM's announcement came hours after news broke that California utility giant PG&E withdrew completely from the US Chamber, and Nike issued a public statement slamming the Chamber's views on climate, although Nike remains on the Chamber board.

NRDC counted up how many members of the Chamber board support federal action on climate change, and found that 19 companies support action while only four oppose it. With PNM Resources defecting from the board, that leaves 18 companies who support economy-wide reductions in CO2 emissions and/or federal cap-and-trade legislation:

Alcoa
Caterpillar Inc.
Deere & Company
Dow Chemical Company
Duke Energy
Eastman Kodak
Entergy
Fox Entertainment Group
IBM
Lockheed
Nike Inc.
PepsiCo
Rolls Royce North America Inc.
Siemens Corporation
Southern Company
The Robertson Foundation
Toyota Motor North America Inc.
Xerox

Which of these companies will be next to stand up publicly to the Chamber’s intransigence on climate action?

Many of them belong to at least one coalition calling for federal action to address climate change, including the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP) and the Business Environment Leadership Council (BELC). These companies’ continued involvement on the Chamber of Commerce board - which appears committed to operating at the behest of its major fossil fuel-dependent members - runs contrary to their stated support for action on climate.

Although Duke Energy recently cancelled its membership with the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and left the National Manufacturers Association previously over those groups’ efforts to fight climate legislation, Duke CEO Jim Rogers remains on the Chamber of Commerce board. Nike VP James Carter also remains on the Chamber board, despite Nike’s criticism of the Chamber’s stance earlier this week.

The recent hemorrhaging of memberships in NAM, ACCCE, the Chamber and other business groups fighting against climate legislation makes perfect sense. Many major companies understand that climate change threatens their bottom line, and they want to see action to address that threat.

These companies need to come to terms with the fact that, by remaining active dues-paying members in groups like the Chamber of Commerce, they are supporting an agenda contrary to their own best interests. How can they support groups calling for meaningful action to address climate change, while simultaneously belonging to groups that will fight tooth and nail against such action?
http://desmogblog.com/pnm-resources-leaves...-stance-climate

10 years of stable temperatures and an impending cooling trend in the face of we're all going to melt hysteria will do that.

That's the last thing the CW believers want.

one hand:pillsbury kid and a few schills, other hand: scientific community
:chinstroke:

and yet that same scientific community means nothing when they don't tow the line.

:chinstroke: indeed

The scientific community is reeling now. The fear mongers need to come up with new ways to scare everybody into their way of thinking. 10 years of stable temps and a cooling trend has that effect.

yes. like that hasn't been covered.
there's an "earth shaking revelation" posted here once a week or so.
care to dig any of them up?

meanwhile.....you've added your name to the inhofe petition which cancels out all of what i've posted.
:fool:

like when twigbrain?
you know the difference between one or two and a community, right?

"one or two" :logik:

Yeah, but both of those guys (or was it just one?) must have their sanity/motives/connections/history questioned.

when their reasoning doesn't add up, yes.
;)

That doesn't apply to GW theories, tho.

LOL @ tow the line.

right chumps, right.
:rolleyes:

Good rebate, Slappy.

:fool: :fool:

i knew you'd recognize it as such.
i'm so proud. :lol:

anytime someone from the scientific community states otherwise you dismiss them but then use that same community as proof.

Very nice!

someone from the scientific community isn't the scientific community, professor kelp.

what you continue to fail at recognizing is that its not just one person from the scientific community.

It's not that he's failing to recognize it. He's failing to acknowledge it because it fucks up the "community".

kinda like LAMO?

:whistle:

stick with something you know

(nothing)

no it's not just one.
but care to put up another hoax/false list?