NIKE Quits Chamber of Commerce Board Over Climate Rift

Wed, 2009-09-30 09:49Brendan DeMelle
Brendan DeMelle's picture

NIKE Quits Chamber of Commerce Board Over Climate Rift

The exodus continues.  Nike announced today that the company simply cannot stand by and watch the Chamber of Commerce continue its campaign to derail much-needed action to address climate change.  So Nike Just Did It.

Here is Nike’s statement [PDF copy courtesy of NRDC here]:

Nike believes US businesses must advocate for aggressive climate change legislation and that the United States needs to move rapidly into a sustainable economy to remain competitive and ensure continued economic growth.

As we’ve stated, we fundamentally disagree with the US Chamber of Commerce on the issue of climate change and their recent action challenging the EPA is inconsistent with our view that climate change is an issue in need of urgent action.

We believe businesses and their representative associations need to take an active role to invest in sustainable business practices and innovative solutions.

It is important that US companies be represented by a strong and effective Chamber that reflects the interests of all its members on multiple issues. We believe that on the issue of climate change the Chamber has not represented the diversity of perspective held by the board of directors.

Therefore, we have decided to resign our board of directors position. We will continue our membership to advocate for climate change legislation inside the committee structure and believe that we can better influence policy by being part of the conversation. Moving forward we will continue to evaluate our membership.

Nike’s departure from the board of the U.S. Chamber amplifies the already strong signal sent by Exelon, PNM Resources and PG&E in recent days that the Chamber does not represent the mainstream corporate view on climate action.  Disgusted over its antics on climate, PNM Resources dropped the Chamber of Commerce altogether, leaving both its position on the board and announcing plans to let its membership in the business lobby expire.  PG&E also withdrew completely from the Chamber, and Exelon followed suit yesterday.

Today it is Nike’s turn.  Who will quit tomorrow and the next day until the Chamber gets the message that it does not speak for corporate America on this issue and should get out of the way?

Nike, PG&E, PNM Resources and Exelon – and no doubt several other major companies who still retain seats on the board or memberships with the Chamber - understand that climate change threatens their bottom line, and they want to see action to address that threat.   By quitting the Chamber, they are taking a stand in favor of clean energy.

Who is next?  Toyota, are you listening? How about Johnson & Johnson?

 

Previous Comments

I can understand their problem. I am sure 99% of their customers are AGW cool aid drinkers. But for those wanting to see the fraud of the “warmists”, check out the McIntyre story on the Yamal cherry picked warming,( http://www.climateaudit.org/ ) then read the real temperatures..

Simple check with station records around Yamal peninsula says no temperature hockey stick:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222206740006&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222236310000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222234720005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222202920005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222237110000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222208910006&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

There is no hockey stick, no unprecedented warming, no trumpeted release of Siberian methane. How can climatologists present a reconstruction of temperature, which obviously does not agree with local temperature records?(hint.. you lie!)

You accuse “the warmists” of cherry-picking fraud and then… offer six cherry-picked pieces of localised no-warming “proof”! Ooh, that’s ironic.

McIntyre INTRODUCES bias, he doesn’t remove it.

You have slagged S McIntyre.. he deserves better.

Either prove you statement or apologize.

We are still waiting for you to prove yours.

Are you a journalism student?

How about you explain McIntyre’s reasoning in your own words, just to show that you understand his argument.

What part of that is hard to understand? The “Team” spouting alarmism are the scientific Bernie Madoffs! OK, you do not go to jail for scientific fraud, but thanks to Steve anyone with a brain can see through the cherry picking of data and the collusion to hide the bogus science from peer review.

In the end, the statement that the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than present, and that we are in “unprecedented” warming is false. When the IPCC put Manns hockey stick in its report and erased the MWP, they were guilty of using non peer reviewed “science”. Here is a good summary for newbies..

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html

I can safely predict that the cool aid drinkers on this blog will not read my reference, and if they did, their blinkers would not allow them to see the error of their “beliefs” in alarmism. No one disputes some warming due to CO2.. myself I expect about 0.5 C sensitivity. Not a big deal at all, compared to historical changes, such as occured in the last 10,000 years.

When reading a review of the latest Richard Dawkins evolution book on ScienceMag, the reviewer told a troubling anecdote:

He was talking to a creationist, someone who denies evolution. He asked her how she explained the fossil hominid skeletons that scientists have found. She said that she did not believe they existed.

The astounding dismissiveness this person showed to basic fact is symptomatic of a troubling trend in society, one that is also displayed amongst agw denialists like the parent poster. Simply put, there is a growing population who have convinced themselves that they can adopt as facts pretty much anything they please. The moon launch? It was faked. 9-11? Explosives brought down the towers. Evolution? It is all part of an elaborate conspiracy to destroy the church. The holocaust? Some say it never happened.

What is common about the above delusional views is that proponents construct elaborate artifices to support their worldview. They create large numbers of quick “facts”, each of which is difficult to quickly refute without specialist knowledge. They create movies linking together their arguments. They make museums purporting to show that dinosaurs walked alongside humans. They create social support groups so they will not feel that they are outcasts from regular society and so they will feel as if they are members of a special society, one that has discovered truths that no one else knows about.

The origins of this trend are complicated. It has been made easier by a slow decay in the level and respect for education. The tools of rationality and logic, of debate and discussion are increasingly neglected in some schools and settings. Popular culture is devoid of any real knowledge or insight. New TV stations that begin showing quality programming degenerate within a few seasons to showing ghost story documentaries.

Also, there is a line of thought amongst certain religious thinkers that rationality is an enemy of religion. Cardinal Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict, was heard to say something to the effect of that “the world had made a wrong turn because of Rene Descartes”, implying that the enlightenment had taken God away from the centre of human life and had replaced Him with human reason. I am convinced that this line of thinking is widespread amongst certain right wing religious leaders.

How can we deal with this? Do you call these “believers” out, chastise them for being the fanatical indoctrinated idiots that they are? Or does that just back them into a corner. I met a guy at a party, seemingly intelligent, who honestly believed that the moon launch was faked. I really wasnt sure what to do.

As for the parent poster, he doesnt even understand the basics of science. He says that science has never “proven” agw, as if science can every prove anything. Science only disproves. And everything he says can easily be disproven.

Science - as long as it is dispassionate inquiry is fine, but you can’t deny that when raised up and worshiped also becomes some kind of God or religion - its limitations ignored, its high priests glorified and its laity class living in blind acceptance of everything passed down.

It’s the way the human race does things and scientific institutions are not exempt.

Science, is really just our acceptance that when making assertions about the physical world, that we resolve disputes about who s statements are true by looking at the physical world. Since the physical world is complicated, it takes some effort and study to understand it. Those that accuse science of being a “religion” with blind acceptance expected from the “laity” are really in my opinion making a dishonest assertion. Those in the “laity” can and have learn the methods and ideas of science. The knowledge is out in the open. But it takes some effort, quite a bit of effort actually, to really understand the complex principles that govern the world. And if an individual does not have the time nor the inclination to properly pursue such knowledge, then that is fine. However that individual then has no right to make assertions of any certainty or reliability about scientific issues, since they do not understand what they are talking about.

McIntyre has played a dishonest and antagonistic role in the public “debate” at every turn. I have nothing to apologise for and no need to prove it to you, regardless of your indignation.

However ten seconds of googling brought me to this illuminating passage: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/steve-mcintyres-ipcc-presentation/#comment-3230

No one here cares about the nonsense spouted by denialist website climateaudit. The point is that corporations are facing facts and starting to hold their organizations accountable for falsifying science. It’s about time!