Why doesn’t the EPA accept the challenge to a trial and completely and publicly embarrass them with the facts? Wouldn’t that end the discussion once and for all? Then we could move on to a responsible discussion of regulation.

When your CEO sits on the board of a company that makes 1/2 it’s revenue hauling coal (Union Pacific), is it any wonder the Chamber might have a conflict of interest surrounding climate change?

Marc,

You have created a straw man and knocked it down. Let me enlighten you on a couple of your misrepresentations or illusions:
- The Chamber represents both large and small companies. Thus any concerns the chamber voices have to looked at in that light, especially given the current state of the economy.
- Cold actually does provide higher death risk, and require greater energy consumption than heat.
- I am sure Apple's very visible break is at least in part because most of their products are manufactured OVERSEAS! Perhaps Apple's committment to GHG control will include using U.S. manufacturing so as to reduce the GHG impact of long distance shipping.

And to the idiot that made the comment about coal and UP - try to keep your computer and your server running without the coal power supplied by trains from the PRB.