Representative John D. Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee, noted:
"The responsibility to solve this problem does not lie solely with one industry. Each will be asked to make an appropriate contribution to the collection box."A sampling of responses follow. For the full list, visit the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:
"...the Chamber urges Congress to take the issues raised in this letter into account before drafting any new climate change legislation. In addressing climate change, Congress should adhere to the Chamber’s core principles of competitiveness, technology, reduction of barriers, maximum flexibility, international, economy-wide solutions, and conservation and efficiency. The domestic economy must not be harmed now or over time, and the engagement of the international community, particularly developing nations, is critical."From the Union of Concerned Scientists:
"A domestic economy-wide cap and trade program should be designed with a view to linkage with other cap and trade programs world-wide. As discussed earlier, that should rule out “safety valves” or other provisions that could undermine the integrity of the program and prevent such linkage.From the National Association of Manufacturers:
Over time, major developing countries will have to slow, stop and reduce their overall GHG emissions, if the world is to succeed in addressing the threat of climate change.
The best way to ensure this is for the U.S. to join other major industrialized countries in spurring the transfer of clean technologies on a large scale to developing countries, through development of robust global carbon markets, together with targeted assistance programs. Future economic growth, in both the developed and the developing world, must be based on access to abundant clean sources of energy."
"Any proposal that does not anticipate and encourage world-wide participation or account for and disincentivize nonparticipation will be doomed to simply transfer the emissions from one country to another....From the American Chemistry Council:
Again, the NAM supports climate change policies that are cost-effective, compatible with our marketplace economy, transparent, flexible, preempt the increasing patchwork of state climate change laws, global in scope and involve all of our trading partners, and take into account all greenhouse gas sources and reservoirs. In particular, any such policies should aim to
achieve results with minimum overall impacts on the U.S. economy. To that end, a “cap and trade” program is one option for encouraging GHG emission reductions, as are carbon tax and standards approaches.
In this context it is important to highlight that a 'cap and trade' program affecting CO2 is very different from past enacted programs. The challenges are substantial."
"...ACC believes that U.S. climate policy must: 1) encourage development of new sources of lower-carbon energy supply, especially natural gas; 2) provide sufficient time to bring enabling energy technologies to market,; 3) include significant government-sponsored research, development and deployment of lower carbon technologies, and 4) link, in some fashion, U.S. implementation of a compulsory climate program with actions taken by other major-emitting nations.
...Ideally, policies designed to reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions would primarily rely upon market-based mechanisms that allow the market to determine how the nation's GHG emissions reduction targets will be achieved."