The power of environmental groups

[Publius]

I have started a new thread in a more appropriate area to address a major question I have been wondering about.

From a lobbying perspective, do environmentalists have more money to spend towards lobbyists and affect public policy, or do energy companies? I would assume the latter would have them outspent by a longshot. How does one explain the disparity in influence of environmental groups then when it comes to drilling for oil?

In another thread, as just one example, I see much power and clout attributed to environmental groups. Just some random statements:

...to the extent that enviros are constraining future supply...

...I'm all for blaming the enviros for making things worse...

...An environmental group called World Wildlife Fund Canada is lobbying to delay the current round of leasing bids...

...American environmental groups have already succeeded in delaying Arctic offshore drilling...

If not lobbying, where does this power come from? If we have a cash and carry government, why can't big business just buy more government influence (not that I'm advocating buying gov't influence)? Like I said, the money clearly has to be on the side of the energy companies.

[DavidOdden]

From a lobbying perspective, do environmentalists have more money to spend towards lobbyists and affect public policy, or do energy companies? I would assume the latter would have them outspent by a longshot.

I wouldn't assume that, since numerically speaking, the viros vastly outnumber the energy companies. All it takes is a handful of radical Stewart Motts to generate as much cash as BP has to combat his type.

How does one explain the disparity in influence of environmental groups then when it comes to drilling for oil?

Because the viros exploit emotion rather than relying on reason. Everybody loves a walk in the park and a fuzzy bunny, so all they have to do is imply that evil energy companies are out to rape the land and kill the bunnies, and all for the love of evil money. In addition, they get vast amounts of free advertising from the media (so-called "news" shows). By government policy, their message becomes part of the curriculum in schools. This has been going on for decades, and I think the problem is that nobody really took seriously the threat of a few nut-job teachers out planting trees with their 6th graders. But the chickens -- vultures, in fact -- have come home to roost.

[softwareNerd]

If not lobbying, where does this power come from? If we have a cash and carry government, why can't big business just buy more government influence...

The thing is we do not have a "cash and carry" government. That only describes one factor. The "power" of environmentalism is also ideological, and ideology is another major factor in governmental action.

In addition, sometimes one business will sometimes lobby to shut down another business. A good example is the coming ban on incandescent bulbs. Philips -- a bulb-maker -- was lobbying for it. Analogously, I would not be surprised if there are some business -- whether tourism-related, fishing-related, or whatever that also lobby against off-shore oil-drilling. Often, businesses will get behind bills that are against their long-term interests, and actually take the initiative to push them through, when they think that not doing so will cede control to more extreme political views. If their lobbyists play it right, they may even end up being compensated in some other way, letting the tax-payers pick up the tab (see U.S. Sugar). Of course, the tax-payers are their owners too, but it is a tangled web!

Nevertheless, the prime driver is ideology, with cash as a major player.

[Publius]

I wouldn't assume that, since numerically speaking, the viros vastly outnumber the energy companies. All it takes is a handful of radical Stewart Motts to generate as much cash as BP has to combat his type.

I took a few minutes to look it up. It seems the Oil and Gas industry spent $83,907,485 last year, compared to the green lobby's $13,567,446. The campaign contribution disparity is even more stark: Oil and Gas in 2006 $20,193,657, enviro organizations $2,939,097

Because the viros exploit emotion rather than relying on reason. Everybody loves a walk in the park and a fuzzy bunny, so all they have to do is imply that evil energy companies are out to rape the land and kill the bunnies, and all for the love of evil money. In addition, they get vast amounts of free advertising from the media (so-called "news" shows). By government policy, their message becomes part of the curriculum in schools. This has been going on for decades, and I think the problem is that nobody really took seriously the threat of a few nut-job teachers out planting trees with their 6th graders. But the chickens -- vultures, in fact -- have come home to roost.

The working assumption here appears to be that policy makers are all mushy-headed bleeding hearts. Maybe so, but I don't find this a compelling argument to say "Well, their judgment is clouded by emotion." This may be true for children or the average working man. But I mean, I can't picture Carl Levin is sitting in his office in Washington fretting about bunnies.

One strategy by environmental groups is to sue the government or individual companies and win judgments. Often these are heard in federal court and heard by a judge or a panel of judges. So emotion is generally not a factor I would say.

Nevertheless, the prime driver is ideology, with cash as a major player.

Not sure what you mean by ideology. Wouldn't this ideology have to be near universal in the public sphere?

Perhaps a better line of inquiry might be, what should the proper view of dealing with environmental concerns given the current political situation? Since we are not living in an Objectivist society, what is the prudent course to take now. Like drilling offshore, for example, there seem to be some genuine risks to the environment, risks that would be potentially devastating for the ecology of the coasts, fishing industry, tourism, etc.

[softwareNerd]

Like drilling offshore, for example, there seem to be some genuine risks to the environment, risks that would be potentially devastating for the ecology of the coasts, fishing industry, tourism, etc.

Really! Can you document similar harm that has been caused by North Sea drilling? If there are real property interests, already established, and if those interests will be provably harmed, then that is a factor the law must take into account. Environmentalism is not about this: it is about man being somehow unnatural.

[Inspector]

The working assumption here appears to be that policy makers are all mushy-headed bleeding hearts. Maybe so, but I don't find this a compelling argument to say "Well, their judgment is clouded by emotion." This may be true for children or the average working man. But I mean, I can't picture Carl Levin is sitting in his office in Washington fretting about bunnies.

Mr. Levin may or may not be a bleeding heart emotionalist. But who do you think votes for Levin? And don't you think he knows it?

On a side note:

This may be true for children or the average working man.

Ah, but you repeat yourself.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Inspector

[DavidOdden]

I took a few minutes to look it up.

Interesting! I'd be curious to find data in the topic from a reputable source.

The working assumption here appears to be that policy makers are all mushy-headed bleeding hearts.

Oh, no, you've made a silly mistake. The policy makers simply respond to the perceived direction that the wind of the voters is blowing (which is in some vague way related to actual voter interests, modulo some steering by folks who comission polls). Policy makers just want to stay in office, and publically opposing fuzzy bunnies is not a good way to keep your job if you are suppose to be appeasing the mob.

This may be true for children or the average working man.

Good, now you get the point!

One strategy by environmental groups is to sue the government or individual companies and win judgments. Often these are heard in federal court and heard by a judge or a panel of judges. So emotion is generally not a factor I would say.

Why would you say that? Or perhaps you are simply unacquainted with the judicial system, and how legal interpretation works. Recall, for instance, that the US Constitution has been found to be a "living document", with no fixed meaning.

[Mammon]

It's not just money it's votes. Policitians live off votes and money, if you can provide one these things, chances are they will do whatever you want. I think that's been said already, in some form, though.

Another thing is that, like it's already been mentioned, businessed find a way to benefit from the environmental movement. There is a lot of marketing going on to convince people to buy there products because they are green. Or they benefit from zoning off land to "protect the environment" because it drives up real estate prices in the area.

[Inspector]

Another thing is that, like it's already been mentioned, businessed find a way to benefit from the environmental movement. There is a lot of marketing going on to convince people to buy there products because they are green. Or they benefit from zoning off land to "protect the environment" because it drives up real estate prices in the area.

Or, like was mentioned earlier, it was a manufacturer of CFL's that lobbied to ban incandescents. Businesses are more than happy to lobby for principles that undermine their very right to exist, if they think they can find some pragmatic, range-of-the-moment gain by which they can club their competition over the head via government action.

This is not new. Look at the history of business regulations - it's pretty much always been like this.

[Publius]

Interesting! I'd be curious to find data in the topic from a reputable source.

You're in luck, I've saved you the trouble. That is a credible source.

Oh, no, you've made a silly mistake. The policy makers simply respond to the perceived direction that the wind of the voters is blowing (which is in some vague way related to actual voter interests, modulo some steering by folks who comission polls). Policy makers just want to stay in office, and publically opposing fuzzy bunnies is not a good way to keep your job if you are suppose to be appeasing the mob.

Great. The Congress is just full of self serving politicians who have no devotion to public service or intellectual honesty. Pretty cynical outlook. I've known many politicians in my time as a journalist. Yes they have to say many things to appease the base, but almost without exception most I have known were truly dedicated to public service and doing what they thought was right. Remember being a member of Congress is not a lucrative job, especially considering the alternatives in the private sector most could have.

As I mentioned earlier:

What should the proper view of dealing with environmental concerns be given the current political situation? Since we are not living in an Objectivist society, what is the prudent course to take now? Are there any legit examples of environmental problems that there should be some concern about?

Edited June 25, 2008 by Publius

[Inspector]

almost without exception most [politicians] I have known were truly dedicated to public service and doing what they thought was right.

...And "what they think is right" is environmentalism, so there you go.

The reason that, despite the money and all other factors you list, companies are unable to defend themselves against the power of environmental groups is that nobody (except Objectivists) is offering a moral counter-argument to environmentalism. Environmentalism is not opposed in principle and its core premises are neither denounced nor even identified. It is caved into slowly and incrementally.

[softwareNerd]

Since we are not living in an Objectivist society, what is the prudent course to take now?

Yes, there are. We should try to start rolling back as much environmnetal regulation as possible.

Are there any legit examples of environmental problems that there should be some concern about?

Possibly. At some point -- say after rolling back 90% of today's regulation -- we might hit a core that is based on legitimate property rights. So, as we go along the path of rolling thigns back, we should be on the lookout for laws that are actually protecting true property rights, and we should express those rights clearly and explicitly -- then roll back the bulk of the fear-mongered stuff.

Truth is, given the wide spread of environmentalism, we'll be successful if we can simply slow the tide. For instance: by slowing any new regulations related to global warming.

[DavidOdden]

What should the proper view of dealing with environmental concerns be given the current political situation?

All environmentalist attempts to limit free enterprise should be vigorously opposed, and all environmentalist legislation should be repealed (thus, campaigns to support repeal of such legislation should be strongly supported). There are no proper concerns which are not already fully addressed by tort law.

[EC]

But I mean, I can't picture Carl Levin is sitting in his office in Washington fretting about bunnies.

I can picture that fat bastard doing something to bunnies in his office. Whoops, did I say that out loud?

[EC]

Mr. Levin may or may not be a bleeding heart emotionalist. But who do you think votes for Levin?

A bunch of UAW workers who think they should be given everything without hard work, because the "deserve a piece of the pie, too" no matter if it destroys Ford, GM, and Chrysler in the process.

And don't you think he knows it?

I don't think this guy thinks so much as he follows the "popular" opinions of others.

[Publius]

All environmentalist attempts to limit free enterprise should be vigorously opposed, and all environmentalist legislation should be repealed (thus, campaigns to support repeal of such legislation should be strongly supported). There are no proper concerns which are not already fully addressed by tort law.

This is the statement I was looking for.

Is there anyone reading this who would disagree with this statement in any way?

[Mammon]

This is not new. Look at the history of business regulations - it's pretty much always been like this.

Yeah, I uhh.... made a thread about it awhile ago.

[Maximus]

This is the statement I was looking for.

Is there anyone reading this who would disagree with this statement in any way?

Don't see how anyone would disagree.

[softwareNerd]

"Rule of Reason's" post on the Galileo craft shows another example where a decision is made based on a philosophy of environmentalism (i.e. with an underlying premise that a human impact on the environment is negative, regardless of whether that impact feeds back to affect man).

[Inspector]

Yeah, I uhh.... made a thread about it awhile ago.

Yes I saw what you did there. Good show.

I don't think this guy thinks so much as he follows the "popular" opinions of others.

Heh. Perhaps "think" is too strong a word.

Is there anyone reading this who would disagree with this statement in any way?

Not I. Repeal the lot.

[aequalsa]

Great. The Congress is just full of self serving politicians who have no devotion to public service or intellectual honesty. Pretty cynical outlook. I've known many politicians in my time as a journalist. Yes they have to say many things to appease the base, but almost without exception most I have known were truly dedicated to public service and doing what they thought was right.

I have to take some issue with this. The present state of the US and it's current direction leave only a few explanations to allow correspondence to your assessment of politician's characters.

One is that you have a misrepresentitive sample.

Two is that they are so good at their job they have convinced you of their sincerity regardless of its actual existence.

Last is that they truly are sincere in their beliefs that a headlong dive into socialism(medicine, healthcare, free daycare, not changing social security, rebuilding other countries for free, etc) is the best course of action for our country. In this case they could not be anything close to a student of history or even a quasi intellectual for that matter or the dismal failure that socialism has been over the last 100 years would make a continued push in that direction as sickeningly repulsive for them as it is for me and everyone I have ever met who is even somewhat familiar with economic history.

Their poor pay is a bit of a canard. The high-payed lobbyist and "consulting" jobs they retire to and $8million dollar, 1 hour speeches make up for the "sacrifices" they make working for a mere $169K/ Year(Nearly 6 times the national medium) This of course is to say nothing of the little tricks(like having rivers rerouted through your property at the governments expense-LBJ) which help alleviate their suffering under the burden of such miserably low wages.

If there is something I missed(if you were referring to a different country for example) please tell me. Otherwise the contradiction between your view and the context leaves me still doubting their sincerity. Especially when it is a given that the primary job skill necessary for election to office is the ability to portray oneself as sincere.

[Inspector]

Aequalsa, I believe this adds nicely to your point.

[Mammon]

In this case they could not be anything close to a student of history or even a quasi intellectual for that matter or the dismal failure that socialism has been over the last 100 years would make a continued push in that direction as sickeningly repulsive for them as it is for me and everyone I have ever met who is even somewhat familiar with economic history.

You'd be suprised at how many students of history still think socialism and related systems are good things.

[aequalsa]

You'd be suprised at how many students of history still think socialism and related systems are good things.

That would depend on how loosely you use the phrase.

Aequalsa, I believe this adds nicely to your point.

I had no idea that taxes were voluntary. I guess I'll just stop paying then....Oh I can't...? I thought they were volunatry...hmmm....

Thanks inspector. It's hard for me to entirely grasp that level of evasion. The mental gymnastics necessary must be amazing. It's an apple, no...an orange...an opple...

[Publius]

One is that you have a misrepresentitive sample.

Do you have a better sample? Perhaps in your travels you have personally encountered such politicians, which would be interesting to hear about.

Two is that they are so good at their job they have convinced you of their sincerity regardless of its actual existence.

You would have to provide evidence that most or all are not sincere, if that is the claim you are making.

Last is that they truly are sincere in their beliefs that a headlong dive into socialism(medicine, healthcare, free daycare, not changing social security, rebuilding other countries for free, etc) is the best course of action for our country. In this case they could not be anything close to a student of history or even a quasi intellectual for that matter or the dismal failure that socialism has been over the last 100 years would make a continued push in that direction as sickeningly repulsive for them as it is for me and everyone I have ever met who is even somewhat familiar with economic history.

Who is the "they" you are referring too? Are you saying you have never met one economist, or someone "somewhat familiar with economic history", that has not been an Objectivist or hard core libertarian? Interesting. Your circle of contacts is either peculiarly limited, or there are a hell of a lot more libertarians and Objectivists out there than I thought.

Their poor pay is a bit of a canard. The high-payed lobbyist and "consulting" jobs they retire to and $8million dollar, 1 hour speeches make up for the "sacrifices" they make working for a mere $169K/ Year(Nearly 6 times the national medium) This of course is to say nothing of the little tricks(like having rivers rerouted through your property at the governments expense-LBJ) which help alleviate their suffering under the burden of such miserably low wages.

You should check the salary for state senate and state house positions. Far more politicians serve in such lesser positions and make not very much money, and don't get big bucks for 1 hour speeches. As for the lobbying jobs, I wonder why more congress people don't cash in sooner then. Why do they keep running for office? Levin, since I mentioned him earlier, has been in the senate since 1979. What is he waiting for?

$169k is not chump change, but it is not a fortune compared to the wealth of lobbyists, businesspeople and special interests folks they deal with. $169k doesn't go as far in Washington as in Topeka, either.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Publius