Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
“The cap-and-trade climate program these 10 jolly green giants are now calling for is a regulatory device designed to financially reward companies that reduce CO2 emissions, and punish those that don’t…. DuPont has been plunging into biofuels, the use of which would soar under a cap. Somebody has to cobble together all these complex trading deals, so say hello to Lehman Brothers. Caterpillar has invested heavily in new engines that generate ‘clean energy.’ British Petroleum is mostly doing public penance for its dirty oil habit, but also gets a plug for its own biofuels venture…. What makes this lobby worse than the usual K-Street crowd is that it offers no upside. At least when Big Pharma self-interestedly asks for fewer regulations, the economy benefits.“
Strassel appears to be criticizing what economists, using 18th-century verbiage, call “rent seeking,” which is trying to make money by influencing legislation rather than by making better products. An honest argument from this point of view would propose that all lobbying and political contributions by for-profit entities be universally banned. But Strassel isn’t making an honest economic argument. She’s OK with some companies’ rent seeking and not others, because she assumes — without even attempting to provide any evidence — that deregulating Big Pharma has no downside and cutting CO2 emissions has no upside.
