19
earlier, when its resistance to the science linking chlorofluorocarbons and ozone loss had
sparked bitter protests against the company, DuPont officials had decided to take a
different tack when the global warming issue emerged.
Ideological conservatives were appalled by CEOs’ defections. As early as June
2000, the conservative Marshall Institute’s William O’Keefe recognized the political
implications of the business coalition’s dissolution and rebuked business leaders for their
squeamishness in the face of environmentalist coercion: “Prior to Kyoto, the business
community was focused, united and forceful,” he said. “Our support for S.R. 98 [Byrd-
Hagel] and our willingness to openly debate the climate change issue and undertake a
major advertising campaign was a significant achievement. Momentum was on our side.
Unfortunately, we did not sustain it because many in the business community do not
understand perseverance…Because of this failure, the [Clinton] Administration and its
environmental allies have regained the momentum. They have succeeded in fracturing
out unity and putting industry on the defensive” (www.marshall.org).
Congress Takes up Climate Change
Activity in Congress reflected changes in the political context and the breakup of
the industry coalition. Between 1998 and 2002 Democrats and moderate Republicans
introduced dozens of bills that purported to address climate change—by giving credit for
early action to reduce emissions, promoting research on climate change and technologies
to reduce or sequester carbon emissions, promoting voluntary emissions reductions or
automotive fuel efficiency, establishing tax incentives for energy efficiency, or adding
CO2 limits for utilities to the Clean Air Act rewrite—but did not vigorously promote
these measures. By 2003, however, continuing efforts by environmentalists and scientists
to raise public concern about global warming, combined with public advocacy by some
powerful corporate leaders, created incentives for aspiring leaders to make a more serious
attempt at instituting mandatory, economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions limits. The
2003 Climate Stewardship Act failed, and a similar bill lost by an even larger margin in
2005, reflecting rank-and-file senators continuing reluctance to act in the face of serious
political uncertainty. Nevertheless, the momentum for mandatory emissions limits
appeared to be growing. By 2005 many thought that greenhouse gas regulation was
Convention