politicalcivility.com Blog

Mention the word ExxonMobile and global warming and the response is pretty predictable.  “Oh those guys that are making billions and funding all the global warming deniers.”  The fact is that statement is pretty true.  Exxon has made billions and they have spent several million over the past 15 years making research grants to a few (but hardly all) university professors and think tanks.  Problem is they may have been wasting their money.  Maybe they should change their strategy and just copy “green” GE. 

The WSJ recently released a list of top spenders in Washington DC, and right behind the US Chamber of Commerce and the American Medical Association (makes you wonder about why we are having problems refoming the medical system) was not ExxonMobile but eco-friendly GE rounding out the top 3.  From 1998-2007 GE spent in excess of $160 million in lobbying efforts.  Exxon didn’t even make the top 10.

Why would GE spend so much money?  Answer: they are heavily invested in green technology (wind, solar, and those nice expensive light bulbs that are now mandated by the federal government in 2012).  GE isn’t the only one benefitting from green policy, but they sure haven’t taken any chances on not cashing in on their green investment.

So maybe Exxon should stop trying to fund science and just go straight for the golden goose: the beltway goose that is.  GE is green alright (just check out their website: www.ge.com) but the green might not have anything to do with the environment.

This post is primarily an answer to a comment from Misty Fowler on this blog.  Her comment:

“I give up, I don’t think people that are set against the idea of global warming are just being blind and don’t want to hear the truth. I’m really truly not sure what people like you have against the idea of taking care of our planet.”

My first response to this question is a question.  How does my opposition to those pushing the global warming movement immediately make me someone who opposes the idea of taking care of the earth?  This is a plain and simple logical falacy in that it assumes that I can only take care of or that I only care for the planet if I buy into a particular worldview on global warming. 

I have already highlighted some of the bungled attempts to legislate “earth” sensitive products (GE fluorescent bulbs and ethanol), which especially in the case of ethanol are actually more destructive to the earth than the ‘dirty’ products they were supposed to replace.  Given the track record of these ecologically friendly products, I believe I have the right and responsibility to be skeptical of the fixes many of the advocate propose regardless of my feelings about the science.

I think what Misty mistakes as lack of care for the earth really is based perhaps (I can’t speak directly for Misty, so I am generalizing here) in a fundamental philosophy difference in how we see the world.  I am a conservationist, meaning that I believe in personal (not government mandated) stewardship and wise use, and that I have what Peter Borrelli calls a anthropocentric world view.  This view starts with viewing man as the measure of creation. 

This view [conservationalism] is opposed to the preservationist philosophy, which fundamentally has a biocentric view of man and nature, meaning that man is just another creation and so is of no more value than a dog, cat or house fly.  The preservationist advocates a position of nature lock out because humans have no right to disturb the flight patterns or mating habitat of an animal, reptile, bug or whatever.  It also centers on a scarcity versus abundance mentality or zero sum world view–i.e., if man’s population grows xyz animal loses. It is this view that allows preservationalists to make man the problem because he is the great annoyer of nature. It is this view that allows environmentalist to ignore the human costs of their actions/policy initiatives (i.e., DDT and 40 million children [who have died since DDT’s ban– thanks Ed for the correction here. WHO puts the number at 1 Million+/year, 90% of which are in Africa] around the world from malaria or the increased burden the poor and low-income families in America are carrying) because their suffering is equal to or in some cases not as significant as the bird that has the minor risk of dying from DDT exposure.

As a conservationalist, I am and will forever be opposed to prohibitionist and mandate policies regarding the earth, because they a) increase the size and scope of government and b) lead to a huge loss in freedom and liberty.  With respect to the first point, I lived in Russia and saw first hand the effects of a state run everything.  This form of centralized government ultimately leads to unwise use of resources and the destroying of the environment.  It also destroys the average citizen’s desire to be a good steward. 

My idea of good principle grounded environmental policy is based on incenting behavior not mandating or punishing behavior.  This incentive based policy is one of the primary reasons that the polar bear population is growing as noted in a recent USA TODAY article. This policy approach limits the role of government, frees humans to make good choices and fosters freedom and liberty.  So do I favor tax breaks for enviro-friendly cars; yes.  Would I favor mandating that by 2012 every American should run a enviro-friendly car; absolutely not.  Should I be rewarded for paying extra for energy efficient windows and appliances; yes. Should the government mandate my choice in appliance or windows; no. 

You may remember how GE and other fluorescent bulb makers lobbied successfully to force consumers to switch to their earth-saving bulbs.  Well, now the EPA has come out revising their recommendations for where homeowners should use the bulbs, because mercury levels in the bulbs could put your little ones at risk if they break the bulb and are exposed to the mercury in the bulb.  (There’s a story about this report on www.thebostonchannel.com)

I don’t know about you, but I get the sick feeling that energy saving bulbs, ethanol and the rest of the long list of earth saving technologies are actually going to do more damage than produce any carbon offset.  It’s what we deserve when we allow bad science and a big government approach to helping us be good stewards over our private property and natural resources.

If I had any lingering thoughts that government should be involved with health care, they went right out the window today.  You might say what does a tow job and government run health care have in common.  Well let’s take a look at why what normally would be a $55 tow job on the regular free market, becomes a $200 tow job under state regulation.

I live in Lehi and last night was one of the most amazing wind storms and drifting I’ve ever seen.  Frankly to watch how powerful mother nature is was pretty awesome notwithstanding the danger it posed on the roadways.  Anyway I got stuck in a drift, like hundreds of others, on my way home and had to abandon my car or else spend a cold night in the old accord.  I choose to walk the mile or so home.  When I went with some neighbors to dig out my car early this morning, we found it had been towed.  I called Vern’s Tow Shop (which is about two miles from where I was towed), and was informed that my towing fee would be $198.  I was blown away, so I had my wife call in and get a quote for our other car from the same place.  We were told it would cost $55.  For those keeping track that is a $143 difference in cost for the same work.

How does this happen?  Well the state legislature thought it would be a good idea to “regulate” towers by setting standard baseline fees for towing companies anytime they towed an abondoned car.  Now either they didn’t care to take a look at market prices or the towing lobby worked some smoke and mirrors, because the base fee to tow a car you have to abadon in a snow storm is $121 plus a fuel surcharge, plus a milage fee, plus a housing fee, etc., etc.

Now let’s look at what this looks like in a government run health care system.  Let’s say for example, that I have a common cold and need to go to the doctor.  With the current market, it probably costs $75-100 depending on if they give you a test or not.  In the government run “price” controlled system, based just on a simple towing example, I (the taxpayers, because government run health care is NOT FREE) would be paying between $270-$360 for the same visit.  So much for “affordable” government health care!

Don’t believe me…may I recommend the book “A Taxpayer Survey of the Grace Commission.”  This book outlines how a Home Depot hammer costs the military several hundred dollars and many more examples of how when government gets involved affordable goes out the window