In the contentious world of climate change legislation, we’ve all come to expect the same players generally lining up on the same side of the field. But something strange is going on lately. There is the ongoing debate over the US Chamber of Commerce rejection of a cap and trade bill, with companies as diverse as PG&E, Apple, Duke Energy, Exelon and Nike ending up on the support side, with most major auto manufacturers and a host of other energy and chemical companies still sitting with the Chamber and NAM, the National Association of Manufacturers. How did Energy utilities and huge manufacturing operations end up at odds with two of their primary trade organizations, and a bunch of other players in their own industries?

It’s all about vision. These companies that have broken with the Chamber and NAM, and their stockholders, understand the importance of leaving behind short-sighted policies that have reaped profits at the expense of sustainability and a healthy planet. This is simply a route that isn’t open anymore. Or at least it shouldn’t be. “The carbon-based free lunch is over,” John Rowe, CEO of Exelon, one of the nation’s largest utilities, said in a statement.  “But while we can’t fix our climate problems for free, the price signal sent through a cap-and-trade system will drive low-carbon investments in the most inexpensive and efficient way possible.”

So of course it’s not all high ethical standards here. Most players aligning themselves on the side of climate change legislation, also have something to gain, whether it be a marketing angle, or plain old business growth. Exelon, for example, is heavily invested in gas and nuclear technologies, both of which would see increased demand under a cap and trade system. But who cares? As long as we get moving in the right direction, does it matter that companies make a profit, or that our overall energy costs might go up? Time to pay the piper, it seems.

Now in another strange team-up, we have the article this last weekend in the New York Times opinion section by Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, and Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, suggesting there is room for bipartisan compromise on climate legislation. Aren’t these guys supposed to just be butting heads? Instead, Kerry and Graham come out to say that “we have found both a framework for climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution.” Sure, details will need to get worked out, but the fundamental fact is that these two sides are finding issues they can agree on, and building from there, instead of digging their heels in and resisting everything. Not bad.

So now it remains to be seen… what actually gets done. Will this bill get watered-down so badly that it lacks the ability to effectively change our energy consumption trajectory? We’ll have to see. But it certainly goes to show that exerting pressure on your legislators and your trade associations can make a difference. Maybe it’s time to let yours know you’re willing to stand firmly in a new era, no matter who might end up standing next to you.

Tags: cap and trade, climate change, green business, greenhouse gas, legislation