In the past week there were two newsworthy events regarding the U.S. Chamber and climate change:

First, the Institute for 21st Century Energy hosted 17 other nations to build consensus around a reasonable, measurable, verifiable, and global strategy to combat climate change. At the end of the two-day summit, delegates agreed on a joint declaration that commits the international business community to exercising a leadership role in tackling climate change and contributing to a new international agreement in Copenhagen. The declaration also touches on economic development, energy security and efficiency, technology and finance (read the declaration).

Second, point zero zero zero zero one of our direct membership decided that they no longer wanted us to represent them on climate action.

The New York Times, of course, reported on only one of these -- as predicted by a diarist on the Daily Kos:

Then the media will frame this as old business vs. new, and not jobs vs. polar bears.  And then public support for real action will become even stronger.

Of course public support for real action could hardly get any weaker; action on climate change consistently ranks near the bottom of issues the public wants the Government to deal with.  It is truly a shame that alarmism and misinformation from the fringe of the climate crowd has poisoned the public's understanding of the importance of taking climate action, but that is the situation. And it is not going to be improved with "framing" such as this:

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. In the last Congress, the chamber attacked the rather modest Lieberman-Warner bill, with a Harry-and-Louise-style commercial.

You know that when you see "Harry-and-Louise" mentioned a hit job has begun, next thing you know we will be "Swiftboating" climate action. More from the editorial:

This year, it testified against the House-passed bill limiting greenhouse gases, and it is almost sure to oppose a similar measure that will be introduced this week in the Senate.

How does the NYT's Tom Friedman feel about the Waxman-Markey bill?

It is too weak in key areas and way too complicated in others. A simple, straightforward carbon tax would have made much more sense than this Rube Goldberg contraption. It is pathetic that we couldn’t do better. It is appalling that so much had to be given away to polluters. It stinks. It’s a mess. I detest it.

Amazingly he wrote this in support of the bill -- we oppose it because in our opinion is that we can do better and we must do better. But apparently no approach is too flawed for the NYT editorial board:

The chamber has now declared war on the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to use regulatory means to control emissions

Of course, as the NYT itself reports, we are hardly the only ones who think that regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act is a bad idea:

Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, insisted again last week that the Obama team would still prefer cap-and-trade legislation over implementing her agency's climate regulations, which are certain to be the target of lawsuits. "I firmly believe ... and the president has said all along that new legislation is the best way to deal with climate change pollution," she said on National Public Radio's "Diane Rehm Show."

The Editors then go on to praise the companies which have left the Chamber. Of course we don’t like to see any member leave, but such is life, unlike the New York Times we have no interest in forcing representation onto anyone.  But then their framing of "old business vs. new" runs into a problem:

These companies are members of the United States Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of businesses and environmental groups that early this year came up with a plan for limiting emissions that helped shape the House bill. They see a carbon-constrained world coming and want to get out ahead of the curve — not behind it like the chamber.

You see USCAP did NOT endorse Waxman-Markey either and as for the EPA taking the lead we'll let USCAP member John Rowe, Exelon's chairman and chief executive, have the final word.

"If Congress does not act, the EPA will, and the result will be more arbitrary, more expensive and more uncertain for investors and the industry than a reasonable, market-based legislative solution."

We couldn't have said it better ourselves. So the NYT can frame away but this isn't about "Old business vs. new" -- this is about "good business vs. bad." Good business is effective climate action following common sense principles, bad business is, well, Waxman-Markey and an EPA Clean Air Act solution.

The NYT may think that we have done more to "undermine"  “a comprehensive legislative solution” than anyone, but the simple fact is Congress has yet to present one.

See our list of concrete policy recommendations and our letter to Congress outlining our core climate principles for a glimpse of what good business would be.