It was big news when five of the most prominent members of the US Chamber of Commerce, including consumer Lovemarks Apple and Nike, quit the group due to conflicting agendas on climate change.

The USCC had been evolving

into what closely resembles a lobbying group throughout the Bush Administration, collecting corporate donations of $90 million in 2004 alone (this figure was only about $600K in 1997). This new business model brought about by the group’s president Thomas J. Donahue both brought the group out of debt and aligned it with the political Right (having raised money to back Republican candidates and attack Democratic ones in 2008). This year they’ve already spent $17 million to lobby congress. When the cause in question is free enterprise, this type of rallying for a common cause ultimately makes sense for a trade group, with profit as their north star. Fiscal conservatism and “tax relief” are like the USCC’s bread and butter.

Enter Obama. Along with Obama, enter doubt and reservation about the future of capitalism in a nation launching massive social programs, for green jobs, for health care, etc. In response, Donahue launched a multi-year, multi-million dollar campaign

aimed at convincing the country that capitalism is the answer to what’s ailing the economy. Part of this campaign vehemently opposes climate change regulation (cap and trade), a newly vocalized position for a group who has lobbied against the EPA in the past. In opposition earlier this year, three utilities resigned from the group (PG&E, Exelon and PNM). In September, Nike backed out, and this month Apple added itself to the list. Of his critics, quoth Donahue “Bring ‘em on!”

The campaign, which advocates for free enterprise and job building, takes the firm position that its cause and clean energy development are mutually exclusive.

It’s a “devastating” PR problem, reports Newsweek

. But, even further:

Is this a sign climate change has become such a divisive issue that it can ignite the values of corporation to the point that they’ll stick their necks out as environmental policy supporters in order to avoid being seen as climate deniers?

Is it the harbinger of a future in which no traditional marketplace remains to sustain a united front of traditionally-minded blue chip American companies? Otherwise put, when CFO’s are building the price of carbon, or water for that matter, into their financial projections, can anti-climate ideology even continue to exist?

The Yes Men

seem to think not. A hoax they pulled yesterday, posing as spokespeople from the USCC and formally retracting their position on climate change made it all the way to  Fox News before they were called out.

Now Moveon.org

has use the shifting tectonics of the Chamber as a way to call other large companies to the mat on climate change. Some kind of chain reaction has clearly been put into motion.

In this struggle we can see a struggle of much greater proportions taking root. Is the monolith of American growth capitalism splitting? Remember, there are those banks that remained fiscally healthy and want to distance themselves from the crisis. The same might be said now for energy and climate. Which players or industries are far behind? If Obama is ushering in a new economy, maybe even a green economy (with or without Van Jones), which companies will be the paragons of that age. Can restorative capitalism be far behind?