Yet another blow to the US Chamber of Commerce today, as Nike announced that it is resigning from the board of directors because of the group's views on climate change policy. The Chamber was already in a tailspin this week, attempting to reclassify their position on climate policy following the departure of three major utilities.

"Nike believes US businesses must advocate for aggressive climate change legislation and that the United States needs to move rapidly into a sustainable economy to remain competitive and ensure continued economic growth," Nike said in a statement. "As we've stated, we fundamentally disagree with the US Chamber of Commerce on the issue of climate change and their recent action challenging the EPA is inconsistent with our view that climate change is an issue in need of urgent action."

Nike said in their statement that they will maintain membership in the Chamber in order "to advocate for climate change legislation inside the committee structure" and because they believe they "can better influence policy by being part of the conversation." They will, however, "continue to evaluate" their membership moving forward. Here's more from their  statement:

It is important that US companies be represented by a strong and effective Chamber that reflects the interests of all its members on multiple issues. We believe that on the issue of climate change the Chamber has not represented the diversity of perspective held by the board of directors.

The country's largest electric utility, Exelon, announced on Monday that they are leaving the group, following the recent departures of California utility PG&E and New Mexico utility PNM.

Nike is also a member of a business coalition advocating for comprehensive climate change legislation—Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy, or BICEP for short.

America's waters are in deep trouble. The destructive practice of bottom trawling, which involves dragging nets attached to rubber wheels mow down all plant and animal life in the way, is growing in popularity, and over-fishing is endangering marine predators. The giant garbage patch of the Pacific is growing, and the oceans continue to absorb acidifying carbon dioxide that stunts the growth of coral and shells.

Up until now, such issues have always been addressed in isolation, if at all, and often by separate government agencies— regulate a little fishing here, designate a reef preserve there.  But with the onset of climate change, many of these problems are not only increasing but also becoming more and more intertwined. This June, President Obama created the Ocean Policy Task Force to devise a long-term, coordinated plan for managing America's oceans, coasts, and great lakes, as well as their resources.

The taskforce brings together 24 experts from environmental organizations and government entities, from the NRDC to the US Navy. Its goals include helping coastal communities adapt to climate change and ocean acidification and better managing the diverse ecosystems of the oceans and Great Lakes.

Ken Stump, Policy Director at the Marine Fish Conservation Network and a Task Force member, is pleased with the much-needed attention that the president has given to ocean policy. But he warns that Congress could still be a stumbling block to enacting any legislation. "The repeated attempts to legislate the [marine] reforms have not made it out of the House Natural Resources Committee," said Stump. "In both major parties there is a strong emphasis on economic production from the oceans, along with a lot of lip service about sustainable use of resources."

A Marine with the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit spends his final moments with his family before deploying on the USS Bonhommen Richard Sept. 24. Service members with the 11th MEU had the opportunity to bring their families and loved ones on board the amphibious assault ship before it left San Diego Bay. (US Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Jeffrey Belovarac.)

Today's must-reads are America's next top pundit:

Follow me on twitter! David Corn, Mother Jones' DC bureau chief, also tweets, as does awesome new MoJo blogger Kate Sheppard. So do my colleagues Daniel Schulman and Rachel Morris and our editors-in-chief, Clara Jeffery and Monika Bauerlein. Follow them, too! (The magazine's main account is @motherjones.)

Via John Judis, who has more about this, here's a story I missed a couple of weeks ago from the Boston Globe:

When the housekeepers at the three Hyatt hotels in the Boston area were asked to train some new workers, they said they were told the trainees would be filling in during vacations.

On Aug. 31, staffers learned the full story: None of them would be making the beds and cleaning the showers any longer. All of them were losing their jobs. The trainees, it turns out, were employees of a Georgia company, Hospitality Staffing Solutions, who were replacing them that day...."It’s unbelievable," said Lucine Williams, 41, who has worked at the Hyatt Regency Boston for nearly 22 years and was making $15.32 an hour plus health, dental, and 401(k) benefits when she lost her job. "I don't know how they can treat people like that."

The outsourced workers make $8 per hour with no benefits.  Nice work, Hyatt.  I think I'll be staying elsewhere in the future.  Now please excuse me while I go throw up.

The Census Bureau reported today that income inequality increased in 2008.  Megan McArdle reacts:

I'm a little surprised; the work of Piketty and Saez seems to suggest that the incomes of the wealthy are disproportionately affected by crises, because they destroy so much asset value.  This effect may show up in the 2009 numbers, when the full effect of the carnage in the markets will be seen in high-end incomes.

My guess is that the destruction of asset values disproportionately affects only the very rich.  The top 10% are mostly just like the rest of us, but with a little more money, while the top 1% are quite different, relying for a lot of their income on capital gains and bonuses tied to asset values.  (And demonstrating a lot more income volatility, too.)  When Piketty and Saez produce their numbers for 2008, I wouldn't be surprised if income inequality has increased a bit if you look at 90/10 comparisons, but decreased a bit if you look at 99/10 or 99.9/10 comparisons.

Politics and Art

The NEA conference call nano-scandal has probably gotten all the attention it deserves already, but Conor Friedersdorf brings up an issue I'm curious about.  Ben Davis says the whole thing was a tempest in a teapot, "essentially a pitch for artists to make glorified PSAs about volunteer work," and Conor responds:

That sounds about right to me — the call wasn’t about furthering controversial elements of President Obama’s agenda, but it was about deliberately politicizing art — that is to say, encouraging artists to advance particular public policy goals rather than enabling them to spend their time and energy creating works of truth or beauty to the best of their ability....It is that effort that I find objectionable, as should anyone who values art or the autonomy or creative people.

So if this conference call had been with, say, a bunch of educator types, urging them to promote public service among schoolkids, would that have been OK?  Or how about law enforcement groups?  Or veterans groups?

Because I don't quite see the difference.  Artists don't exist on some kind of pristine plane of their own and they don't do their work in a vacuum.  They're all part of the same culture as the rest of us, and they react to it and try to influence it just like everyone else.  In fact, artists themselves probably view their work as more explicitly political, in the broad sense of the term, than practically any group of people outside of politicians themselves and the professional pundit/lobbyist/think tank industry that hovers around them.  The whole idea of "politicizing" art is as redundant as the idea of militarizing the Pentagon.

It seems to me that trying to persuade people to promote public service is either a good idea or it's not.  If it's too heavy handed, it's not.  If there are overtones of political payoff, it's not.  If there are insinuations that people who play along will get more grant money, it's not.  But I have a hard time buying the idea that it's affected one way or another by the allegedly delicate artistic sensibilities of the people involved.

The US Chamber of Commerce now wants you to know that they really do support climate legislation—just not any legislation they've ever seen. The group issued a statement on Tuesday arguing that their views on climate change "are mainstream, commonsense views" that "are shared by a broad majority of the American people, the business community, and a growing number of Democrat and Republican legislators."

"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce continues to support strong federal legislation and a binding international agreement to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change," said Chamber president and CEO Thomas J. Donohue in the statement. He also posted a new op-ed on the Chamber's site that was notably toned down from the "Let's Put a Lid On Cap-and-Tax" piece he penned in July.

They are the best friends of the health insurance industry. They are fiercest foes of the health insurance industry.

I'm talking about Senate Democrats. On Tuesday afternoon, five Democratic members of the Senate finance committee—Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Blanche Lincoln, Bill Nelson, and Tom Carper—voted with all ten Republicans on the panel to defeat Sen. Jay Rockefeller's amendment, which would set up a public health insurance plan to compete with private plans. These Democrats provided the winning margin in the 15-8 vote to kill a measure much dreaded by the health insurance companies. Such firms had plenty of reasons—billions, you might say—to celebrate what this band of Democrats did. On a subsequent vote for a weaker public option amendment offered by Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, Nelson and Carper returned to the Democratic fold and supported it, but Baucus, Conrad and Lincoln again sided with GOPers and defeated it.

At the same time Democratic senators were undermining a key Democratic initiative and helping out the insurance industry, the communications center for the Senate Democrats was zapping out a long email—headlined, "Insurance Companies: Profits Over People"—detailing the evils perpetuated by private health insurance companies:
 

The climate bill that Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) will officially unveil tomorrow will include tougher near-term emissions targets than its House counterpart, according to a leaked draft now circulating around the Hill. It's likely not the final version, as sources close to the bill's authors say that last minute details are still being worked out.

The bill aims to cut emissions 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, up from a 17 percent cut outlined in the bill that the House passed in June. The bill also notably preserves the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate emission of greenhouse gases from large sources like coal-fired power plants, a provision that environmental activists were pushing for.

There were multiple leaked drafts on Tuesday. The latest—weighing in at 801 pages—is expected to be close to the final draft, and it includes four titles: a cap-and-trade title, an energy research title, a transition and adaptation title, and a title outlining emissions reductions in other areas. Outside of a few changes, the Boxer-Kerry bill largely mirrors the House effort. It aims to reduce carbon dioxide 42 percent by 2030 and aims to reduce emissions 83 percent by mid-century.

The bill leaves the portions on credit allocation and how the money derived from the sale or permits would be spent largely blank, however, portions expected to be among the most contentious. Those portions are expected to be filled in when Boxer releases her chairman's mark sometime in mid-October, following initial hearings on the bill in her committee, Environment and Public Works.