Environmentalists can find plenty of common ground with libertarians and conservatives if they are just willing to drop, for a moment, their affinity for Big Government.
Yesterday I went on MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan show, and on one segment, an environmental lobbyist for the Union of Concerned Scientists (formerly he worked for the Sierra Club) came on to laud federal fuel economy mandates. He made it sound like people wanted fuel economy cars before, and now, thanks to government, we can all get those cars.
This is absurd, of course – no law was keeping people from buying more fuel-efficient cars. These regulations, regardless of whether you like the or not, reduce consumer choice.
The government, however, does subsidize driving and oil consumption through ethanol subsidies, Middle East wars, highway paving, and plenty more. If you want folks to use less gasoline, why not repeal these subsidies? I asked.
Watch the clip below, in which the lobbyist, Brendan Bell, claims that ending oil and driving subsidies is not on the table, but expanding government control over automakers is.
I think this reflects an unfortunate disposition of many liberals as well as a destructive incentive for most lobbyists. A lobbyist doesn’t want to tell a politician that his program – an infrastructure bank, ethanol tax credits, the stimulus, or car subsidies – should be ended. So the lobbyist proposes new rules on top of the old ones.
