Wanted: Business as an honest environmental partner

Commentary

By Gary Wilson

What is it with some business and industry groups when it comes to environmental issues?

Why can’t they be honest participants in the debate?

During years of negotiating contracts for a large corporation there was one thing I always wanted from the other party.

That was to come to the table with good intent and to make an honest effort to find common ground. If we did that we usually came to an agreement and on the rare occasion we didn’t, we parted ways on good terms with respect for each other and the process.

But those principles aren’t in the playbook for certain business groups when dealing with environmental issues.

Who are you, really?

Here’s what I mean.

Two weeks ago in this space I wrote about pending legislation introduced by the Republican majority in the Ohio legislature that would govern water withdrawals from Lake Erie.

Details are here but suffice to say that the bills were heavily criticized by editorial boards and environmental groups as not aligned with either the letter or spirit of the Great Lakes Compact.

The compact requires states to develop and implement water conservation plans and Ohio’s proposal was deemed too permissive with a bias toward using water as a commodity to create jobs.

But not all stakeholders sided with the editors and environmentalists.

A group called the Coalition for Sustainable Water Management issued a press release and position paper in support of the new laws saying “This bill takes a common sense approach to ensuring sustainable water supplies for future generations.”

There it is.

A sustainable water group endorsing the conservation legislation that had been dissed by the press and Ohio’s leading environmental group.

Who are these folks? Why would they go against the grain?

A little digging reveals that the Coalition for Sustainable Water Management is actually a project of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and a number of industry and trade groups. A quick net search for the coalition takes you to the Ohio Chamber site.

Not exactly a group focused on sustainable water management, the Ohio Chamber’s website talks about “uniting business to improve Ohio.” There is no mention of a sustainable water subsidiary.

And the Ohio businesses aren’t alone in concealing their identity.

When the Asian Carp crisis blew up a few years ago there were calls and legal action by Michigan and other states to close the locks in Illinois leading to Lake Michigan, the primary vector for the advancing carp.

Another “coalition” surfaced under the name “Unlock Our Jobs” and it lobbied heavily for keeping the locks open, presumably to protect jobs as its name suggests.

A search revealed that “Unlocks Our Jobs” is really a project of the Chemical Industry Council of Illinois, a  user of the Chicago waterways system.

Why call yourself “Unlock Our Jobs” when no jobs had been “locked up?”

Lobbying for jobs must sound better than pitching for the chemical industry, I guess. Who can be against jobs?

Neither the Ohio Chamber of Commerce nor the chemical industry coalition responded to requests to comment.

Disingenuous path by business

I provide these illustrations because business and industry have taken a disingenuous path when they use deceptive tactics like giving their lobbying efforts misleading names.

Everyone — politicians, environmental groups and citizens — knows that business is a key stakeholder when addressing environmental problems and potential remedies. And despite their seeming opposite viewpoints, Great Lakes focused environmental groups tend to be collaborative by design and welcome participation by business.

They have even been conciliatory with business to the point of marginalizing their cause for the sake of a deal. The concessions they made to secure a Great Lakes Compact deal are an example.

In other words, today’s brand of Great Lakes advocates aren’t dogmatic or even close. Pragmatism rules the day.

But they deserve for business and industry to be honest participants in the discussion. No hiding behind narrowly focused front groups with faux names and simplistic, self-serving solutions to complex problems.

And since these misleading names are easily exposed,  their use only damages the credibility of the group’s position.

And business and industry don’t have a lot of credibility to spare right now.