Nike runs fast and loud from the incredible, shrinking U.S. Chamber Board over its global warming denial

Nike has put on its running shoes and bolted from the incredible, shrinking industry group’s board, like so many others (see “Will last company to leave the Chamber’s Boardroom please turn off the lights!” and “Nation’s largest utility pulls the plug on the Chamber over climate denial“).  Think Progress has the details:

In the past couple weeks, three energy companies have ditched the reeling U.S. Chamber of Commerce over its opposition to global warming action. Although Nike has publicly expressed its frustrations with the Chamber’s anti-science positions, it hasn’t started to sever ties with the organization “” until now.

Facing increasing pressure from activists, Nike today announced that is resigning from the Chamber’s board of directors:

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.

The New York Times has an editorial today criticizing the Chamber for being “way behind the curve“:

The United States Chamber of Commerce’s Web site says the group supports “a comprehensive legislative solution” to global warming. Yet no organization in this country has done more to undermine such legislation. […]

The chamber has now declared war on the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to use regulatory means to control emissions “” beginning with one official’s ill-advised (and since apologized-for) demand for a “Scopes monkey trial” questioning the science behind the agency’s preliminary finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health.

Enviroknow writes that two questions remain: 1) “When will Nike formally end its membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?” and 2) “Which of the following 17 corporations “” which are on the record in support of federal climate legislation yet sit on the Chamber’s Board of Directors “” will be the next to part ways with the chamber?”

The Chamber itself is trying to run from its far-out-of-the-mainstream denialism, but it can’t outrun the truth — see Chamber of Horrors: The incredible, shrinking industry group falsely claims “We’ve never questioned the science behind global warming.”

5 Responses to Nike runs fast and loud from the incredible, shrinking U.S. Chamber Board over its global warming denial

  1. Jeff Huggins says:

    The New York Times?

    It is AMAZING to me — simply amazing — that The New York Times has the nerve and “blindness” (to its own actions) to tell The Chamber that it is “Way Behind the Curve” on global warming.

    Anyone can analyze The Times over the last 18 months and easily identify the vital stories about the matters (climate, energy) that it HASN’T covered. Anyone can also see that, when they’ve decided to cover something, it has usually been on page 10 or in another section, not on the front page. Anyone can also see how their attempts to highlight “the boxing match” and achieve “balance” have undermined much of their actual effectiveness and straightforwardness. And (especially) anyone can also see how they (The Times) have barely even said a peep about ExxonMobil even as ExxonMobil routinely runs a bunch of confusing and misleading stuff, and one-sided stuff, in The New York Times itself, often ON the front page.

    Does someone have contact information for the key leaders of The Times? Who can I call? Who can WE call? Who can 10,000 people call?

    By now, Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman, and Andy Revkin, should all have marched up to the top floor and insisted that The Times dramatically improve its coverage of these matters.

    Paul, have you done it? Thomas, have you done it? Andy, have you done it?

    The accurate truth is this: The amount of “damage” (or lack of progress) that The Chamber of Commerce may have caused pales in comparison to the amount of damage (and lack of progress) caused by the way the media have treated the climate and energy matters for several years — and actually for the last couple decades.

    Can anyone really disagree with that?

    New York Times, it is YOU who are behind the curve. And, what “curve” do you even think you are FOLLOWING. Science has spoken, very solidly. It’s TIME to INFORM and actually serve the public good. Not on page 10. Not with a focus on the boxing match. You know what I’m talking about.

    Andy, have you marched up to the top floor yet? Please let us know.

    Be Well,


  2. Greg Robie says:

    This sounds good, but the curve that the United States Climate Action Partnership and other wrote into the current legislation effects only a 4-5% deviation from 1990 emissions by 2020 when the science calls for a 20-40% shift in emissions. Whether one goes off the cliff 5° from perpendicular or simply straight ahead, one still goes over the cliff.

  3. Alain Miville de Chêne says:

    I think the proper person to communicate with at the NYT is the public editor. He is a kind of ombudsman.

  4. Jeff Huggins says:

    The Times’ Public Editor (Clark Hoyt)

    Alain (Comment 3), thank you for your comment.

    Yes, I have written to The Times’ Public Editor several times in the last year or so, and I have also left phone messages at the Public Editor’s office.

    In response: Nothing. No call-backs. No e-mail. No in-depth discussion of the problem in the paper. Nothing.

    I will try to call again tomorrow or Friday. And of course, I’ve also requested that Andy Revkin bring up these problems.

    The gap between what The Times should be doing and what they are doing is huge, and it is all a matter of public record and being documented.

    Clark Hoyt has (or should have) my e-mail address by now, unless they throw things away. And in any case, Andy Revkin has it. I’d enjoy talking to one or both of them about The Times in relation to the global warming, energy, and ExxonMobil issues.

    Be Well,


  5. Leif says:

    Right on Jeff. The right often and loudly accuses the NY Times of being a liberal new source. (As if they were not a conservative source…) One would think that at least the NYT should do some reporting as if they deserved it. Perhaps one issue a week? Even one page now and then would be appreciated.