Lobbying For the Enviroment
An excellent opinion piece details the lobbying efforts of General Electric to get policy passed that subsidize many of their ‘green’ technologies.
I think much of the outrage towards lobbyists is centered on large corporations influencing legislators to protect their interest. Along these lines one might argue that lobbyists are used to secure more pro-business positions and for this reason raise the ire of liberals. With this in mind one can not help but think how those that lean left would respond to GE lobbying efforts to get more earth friendly legislation passed. In other words, is lobbying only an issue when the lobbyists are effective at defeating the left’s political interests. When those same lobbying firms are brought in support of left leaning political interests are they more inclined to permit their influence on legislators?
As a side note I find it deplorable that GE lobby’s hard for goverment hand outs in the name of ‘protecting’ the environment. Those that read my blog and take a more pro environment stance must find themselves in a more problematic situation. Demanding regulation and subsidizes to develop ‘green’ technology will inevitably be lead to large corporate handouts to companies that will develop that technology. Your support of such legislation encourages corporate lobbying. One more reason to be against the states monopoly on coercion to force people to live according to your values.
April 26th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Nah, this isn’t really hard; it’s also bad for GE to do it. I’m sure that the technology they get subsidized won’t be as practical or efficient because they don’t have to worry abotu consumers actually wanting it, so I doubt it’s going to help the environment much. Now, yes, I’m more angry about lobbying efforts to do things like indefinitely expand patents on new medications so that they can never become less expensive, but in that case the fact of teh lobbying itself is equally bad, but the added effect of killing sick people makes it worse.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:31 am
I expect our legislators to be intelligent enough to not give subsidies or mandates for technologies that are not economically viable. It does not make sense for the government (taxpayers) to support forms of energy that the marketplace does not want. As long as the price of oil keeps rising, there will be little need for government intervention as economic pressures will make alternative energy much more attractive. Add to that a public opinion that is turning against coal and warming to nuclear, and you’ve got yourself an energy revolution in the making.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:09 am
… which would have happened a few decades ago if the federal government hadn’t been subsidizing oil this whole time, of course.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Sigh… This speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the justification for why the state should subsidize. Subsidization, it is argued, is necessary because the actual incentive structure the market provides does not sustain the development of the technology. According to this analysis, these kind of nascent technologies by their very nature are ‘not economically viable’. Otherwise, the state would not have to get involved since the market demand would pay for the cost of the development.