In 2009, the US Chamber of Commerce — funded by top corporations from Google to JP Morgan Chase — called for the “Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century” on the science of climate change. “It would be the science of climate change on trial,” said a top Chamber official.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, lawyers representing the Chamber of Commerce put the science of climate change on trial before the United States Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. The Chamber is represented by Robin S. Conrad and Sheldon Gilbert of the National Chamber Litigation Center, the organization’s in-house trial-lawyer shop, as well as Jeffrey A. Rosen, Robert R. Gasaway, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, and William H. Burgess IV of the corporate legal firm Kirkland & Ellis.

In its filings, made jointly with a cavalcade of polluter interests and Republican politicians, the Chamber makes absurd global-cooling arguments and cites the work of the Heartland Institute’s Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

“It is arbitrary for EPA to rely on 21 years of twentieth-century warming as near-conclusive proof of human warming but then claim that the preceding 31 years of cooling and the following 13 years of no warming prove nothing”

“Over the last 65 years, temperatures have mostly been steady or declining, while CO2 levels have steadily increased”

“empirical data from independently derived temperature records show the pattern demanded by this theory and predicted by models does not exist”

“2009 Report of the NIPCC, Climate Change Reconsidered

The Chamber’s anti-science claims are the fever dreams of conspiracy theorists and hacks for hire.

When the Chamber of Commerce stood with climate deniers instead of scientific reality, corporations like Apple, PG&E Corp., Exelon Corp. and PNM Resources quit the group. However, many corporations that supposedly value science and the challenge of climate change have decided to endorse the chamber with their stockholders’ money.

Sum Of Us has launched a campaign to challenge Google to leave the Chamber. Google CEO Eric Schmidt laughed off the campaign, saying the right-wing lobbying group represents “good American values.”

As ThinkProgress Green previously reported, oral arguments began yesterday in a landmark case that consolidates a series of challenges to Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health and welfare and its related rule-makings.

Today, the three-judge appeals court panel heard arguments on other challenges to the EPA greenhouse gas rules. In all, the court is considering four cases — each a consolidation of several similar challenges.

Read the dockets and main litigants for each:

–No. 09-1322 (and consolidated cases), Endangerment Finding
–No. 10-1092 (and consolidated cases), Tailpipe Rule
–No. 10-1167 (and consolidated cases), Historic Regulations
–No. 10-1073 (and consolidated cases), Timing and Tailoring Rules

The anti-science litigants include the US Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). In 2009, the Chamber announced it wanted this challenge to the science of climate change to be the “Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century.”

Major Federal regulations have documented vast net benefits to Americans of $90 to over $500 billion a year

by Laurie Johnson, reposted from NRDC’s Switchboard

Last week, The Economist published a series of articles on the impact of regulations on the US economy and businesses. For a magazine normally regarded for insightful analysis, the poor quality of these articles is surprising. They represent more of an ideological treatise than a critical assessment of arguments offered by different sides of the debate and their supporting evidence.

In the opening introductory article, “Over-regulated America,” the writers argue that the economy is severely hobbled by an excessive number of regulations, and overly complex legislation written by Congress. The article claims two fundamental causes. First, legislators have the “hubris” to lay down rules attempting to govern every eventuality. Second, in so doing, they create huge incentives for industry to push for endless special exemptions.

While it is undoubtedly true that there are problems with the regulatory system, this line of reasoning is naïve at best. It understates industry’s role in the legislative process, and neglects the deceitful way in which opponents are framing the issue. Separately, the articles are short on facts (and long in fiction), and lack sophistication with regards to the inherently complex nature of regulation and the important role of specialization in society.

Read more

By Jessica Goad, Manager of Research and Outreach, Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper (D) is appearing in new paid radio ads airing across the state for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, an industry lobby and trade group which has a history of fighting health and safety standards for fossil fuels.  In the ad the governor states:

Hi, this is Governor John Hickenlooper.  In 2008, Colorado passed tough oil and gas rules.  Since then we have not had one instance of groundwater contamination associated with drilling and hydraulic fracturing. And we plan to keep it that way.  That’s why Colorado recently passed the toughest—and fairest—hydraulic fracturing disclosure rule in the nation.  In Colorado, we’ve proven that industry and the conservation community can come together to solve problems.  We can create jobs, promote energy security, and protect our environment. [Brought to you by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.]

Listen:

As Zaid Jilani of the Republic Report, United Republic’s new blog dedicated to exposing how money pollutes democracy, observes, “the spot is particularly remarkable because it is almost unheard of for a sitting governor to appear in a radio commercial sponsored by a certain industry.”

Hickenlooper’s background and track record may indicate why he has failed this test of good government.   Before founding Wynkoop Brewing Company in Denver, Hickenlooper was a petroleum geologist.  He took $73,666 from oil and gas interests in his 2010 election, and as Salon points out, appointed an industry campaign donor to an important regulatory position.

The governor’s smiling photo also appears on two print ads, which are greenwashed with statements like “because the environment matters.”  In response to criticism for the radio ads, Colorado Oil and Gas Association president Tisha Schuller said:

We stand by the ads, and we call them public service announcements.

However, in a strikingly public rebuke, 13 environmental groups are pushing back on the implication that drilling and hydraulic fracturing are safe and that there has been no damage from them in Colorado.  In a letter sent to Hickenlooper earlier this week, Colorado conservation groups discussed their “surprise” and “disappointment” and have asked the governor and the Colorado Oil and Gas Association to pull the ads off the air:

The ad…creates a misleading picture about the overall safety of oil and gas development…That assertion misleads the public by ignoring the high incidence of groundwater contamination from spills and releases of toxic chemicals at or near drilling sites. Since 2008, numerous instances of groundwater contamination have resulted from releases of chemicals such as petroleum liquids and produced water used and generated during drilling and hydraulic fracturing.