America’s $800B climate splurge is feeding a new lobbying ecosystem

https://www.economist.com/business/2023/04/10/americas-800bn-climate-splurge-is-feeding-a-new-lobbying-ecosystem

by lxm • 3 years ago

93 85 3 years ago

rob742• 3 years ago

So? Anywhere where there are economic interests, there will be lobbying for those interests too, that's unfortunately a fact of life. Still, I would take the renewable energy lobbyists above the gun lobbyists anytime!

conk• 3 years ago

Evil lobbyists accidentally creating a cleaner world is something I can live with.

ggm• 3 years ago

If the outcome is demonstrably beneficial yes. But there's greenwashing, and huge amounts of it. So.. if Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) proposals get significant funding, thats a giant black hole of fugitive methane gas coming back to haunt us: It doesn't work except to push MORE extraction from tired wells. (ie, fracking)

quickthrower2• 3 years ago

Let's pay down the climate tech debt, before the lobbying tech debt.

up2isomorphism• 3 years ago

Believing evil lobbyists can possibly “accidentally” create a cleaner world, or anything useful, shows how screwed up our educational system is.

hnlmorg2• 3 years ago

Creating a cleaner world is more expensive than pretending to clean the world by using loopholes such as “offsetting” carbon (which doesn’t actually mean anything in practical terms).

My point is this: if a business is going to invest substantial sums on what is effectively legalised bribery, then you can bet their motives are not for the betterment of humanity.

This “capitalism at all costs” approach is what got us into our current state. What we really need is governments to step up and impose sensible regulations without having businesses whispering in their ear. Which I know is an unpopular opinion to voice among the libertarians on here but we’re all entitled to our own opinion.

devjab2• 3 years ago

It’s not accidentally though, it’s entirely on purpose. I work in climate tech, or sort of, because what I really work for is an investment bank owned by a hedgefund, and the sole product we sell to investors is good returns.

You can do that in a lot of ways, however, but our way is to use their investments to build green energy plants, ride them to a profit and then sell them. Which creates a better world, but it’s very much intentionally. The increasing climate awareness, especially among the generation of wealthy 60+ year olds who want to leave their grandchildren a better world is simply a good business case. It’s much easier to sell that group of people a green investment in 2023 than it was in 1993, in fact it’s hard to sell them an investment that is not green. That last part is why you see the corporate world turning eco-friendly. But I think it’s wrong to say that’s it’s accidental, because it comes after five decades of climate science and politics turning the hearts and minds of society, and now that they’ve been successful, and there is a lot of money to be made off green energy, the corporate interest follows.

I’m not a fan of the way lobbying impacts our democracies, but it’s primary function isn’t to be evil (at least not in general terms), no, it’s primary function is to influence society in a way that allows businesses to make money. If society wants cheap gas in their cars, or if big sugar/tobacco wants to keep their massive market shares then lobbying does evil, but if the best way to make money is to generate a profitable green energy market, then lobbying will likely do good. At least as far as capitalism is concerned. You can think about that what you will, I would personally prefer if my own government had not sold off much of our energy sector as a citizen, but I both work and invest in the sector so it also benefits me immensely as an individual.

That being said. By 2030 we’ll have build more than ten thousand solar plants of different sizes, and while we couldn’t have done that without climate science and climate NGOs (and corporate lobbyists) creating a political climate to drive green energy forward, climate science and climate NGOs couldn’t have build those plants without private money. So while it’s fine to have ideals, it’s the realism and the compromises that actually change the world.

refurb5• 3 years ago

Whoa, whoa, whoa there.

Who said anything about a cleaner world? To get the money they only have to promise a cleaner world. Or do something that the government thinks will result in a cleaner world.

ars• 3 years ago

Most environmentalists are incapable of actually identifying things that would cause a cleaner world.

For example they actually think recycling plastic is better than incinerating it (it's not - incineration uses less energy in total because you need to pump less oil from the ground and produces less pollution because you don't need to work so hard to clean and separate the plastic).

adave2• 3 years ago

You think they will do that, just another way to get money for them.

prepend5• 3 years ago

Do you think they are interested in creating a cleaner world? Or just bill rates and collecting fees?

It’s not just an opportunity cost of what we could do with $100 investment in climate change remediation vs $50 investment and $50 lobbyist. I think it’s that the $50 lobbyist don’t really result in $50 investment in climate change, but $50 investment in things that lead to more lobbying.

trabant00• 3 years ago

It's not the field they are lobbying in that matters, it's exactly what and who they are lobbying for. If you can't come up with theoretical scenarios in your head in which a gun lobbyist can do go good and a renewable energy lobbyist can do harm than you can't judge things beyond their name.

I'm lobbying for women rights. That is undeniably good. The exact details: their right to come serve as my sexual slaves. But don't mind the details, focus on "women rights", that's what matters.

dx034• 3 years ago

Honestly I think lobbyists are fine as long as their influence on politicians is tightly controlled. A politician needs to know the interests of companies and people in their constituency. Lobby groups are an effective way to provide that view point. They just shouldn't be allowed to write laws or bribe politicians.

prepend5• 3 years ago

I feel the same about lobbying as enterprise sales. I don’t want a salesperson trying to get time on my calendar. Make the information available, I will find it.

Politicians have substantial numbers of staffers (in 2021 9,034 staffers for 535 congresspersons [0]) so they have the ability to educate themselves on important topics. They can also summon SMEs on any topic they like and get the world’s best experts on any topic.

No one needs a fat lobbyist to fly them to a golf retreat and take them to lunch to learn about the efficacy of different climate projects.

[0] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43947

runeks2• 3 years ago

Still, I would take the renewable energy lobbyists above the gun lobbyists anytime!

You get both.

prepend5• 3 years ago

Still, I would take the renewable energy lobbyists above the gun lobbyists anytime!

Gun lobbying in 2022: $13M [0]

There’s no category for climate, so here’s a few (tldr gun lobbying sucks but it’s a drop on the bucket of the billions spent on lobbying). Sugar kills way more than guns every year (for example 88k deaths in 2019 [6] vs 40k gun deaths in 2019 [7] and sugar causes more than just diabetes) so the effect of lobbying is more than just hurting people with guns, it’s hurting people with physical and mental health issues.

Single issue/ ideological: $194M [1]

Energy: $359M [2]

Cattle ranchers: $5M [3]

Agribusiness: $166M [4]

Timber: $5M [5]

[0] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summ... [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary... [2] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary... [3] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summ... [4] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary... [5] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summ... [6] https://diabetes.org/about-us/statistics/about-diabetes [7] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2023/04/06/gun-deaths-...

dsfyu404ed• 3 years ago

You realize that these people are the gun lobbyists, right?

It's a revolving door. The organizations and individuals involved don't care. They've seen it all. Everyone's cause is the end of the world. Everyone's cause is going to bring about utopia. They'll peddle anything if you pay them.

aaronbrethorst• 3 years ago

“When he ran for office he promised to drain the swamp, but he turned out to be the biggest crocodile of them all.”

This sounds like a 'too good to be true' quote.

A long-time advocate of upgrading the power grid reports gleefully that he is suddenly very popular as electrifying industries struggle to work out how to get transmission lines and other power infrastructure built.

'A long time advocate for not poisoning our children reports gleefully that he is suddenly very popular as de-toxifying industries struggle to work out how to stop poisoning our children.' — The Economist could've chosen a number of ways to frame this totally anonymous not-even-a-quote, and shockingly chose the one that makes the supposed speaker sound maximally venal.

lifeisstillgood• 3 years ago

So the obvious question is "how do I get some?" - or rather this can't just be subsidies to existing energy companies. What starts ups will be created out of this 800bn?

HPsquared• 3 years ago

Instead of marketing, you need lobbyists and legal experts.

hackeraccount• 3 years ago

You don't want to be the guy panning for gold. Most of those people will get nothing and tiny minority will get a lot. You want to be the guy selling pans. It might have a lower ceiling but it's definitely got a lower floor.

rvense3• 3 years ago

My company applied for an EU innovation grant last year. The way you do it, apparently, is you contact one of a handful of companies who specialize in helping with these applications and you promise them a cut of what you might get.

It's growth, Jim, but not as we (thought we) knew it...

paganel• 3 years ago

Unfortunately that has always been the case when it comes to applying for EU funds, unless you're a very big company and you have a dedicated department for that (and even then I'd say in some cases it makes more sense to outsource this process to companies which do that for a living).

japanuspus• 3 years ago

Nevertheless tenured academics are expected to handle this themselves in parallel with teaching and research...

dimitar• 3 years ago

These companies are not doing any lobbying though, they are helping with the huge amount of paperwork and compliance work that needs to be done.

LilBytes• 3 years ago

They're helping you navigate regulation capture.

We're not talking about stopping water contamination here, we're talking about funding. It's balmy.

andromeduck4• 3 years ago

Who do you think lobbies for the compliance and paperwork?

blitzar4• 3 years ago

I applied for planning permission; The way you do it, apparently, is you contact one of a handful of companies who specialize in architecting things and you promise to pay them.

I needed a contract for employees; The way you do it, apparently, is you contact one of a handful of companies who specialize in doing these legal things and you promise to pay them.

I needed a set up an IT system; The way you do it, apparently, is you contact one of a handful of companies who specialize in doing IT systems and you promise to pay them.

It's doing shit, Jim, but the exact same way it has always been.

rvense3• 3 years ago

I see the point you're trying to make, but we've applied for many other grants without requiring help.

andromeduck4• 3 years ago

In some places like San Francisco, it's effectively impossible to get a permit without making several "donations" to the local "nonprofits" & electeds office. You'll hear about how they know the problem is so hard and how much they hate the beauracracy and that's why they set up a small office to help small business or homeowners just like you but we're so busy and it's so hard to keep something like that staffed...

jokethrowaway2• 3 years ago

You're missing the point.

Unlike the case you mention, you need to pay someone to get public money or you won't get any.

How do you think that happens?

saiya-jin• 3 years ago

Do you pay % of the house you will sell it for to each handyman, architect, supplier etc? Or do they have fair fixed fees that you can check, choose the best for you and if you are not happy go next door.

What OP describes is pure corruption, eastern more fucked up parts of EU have this ecosystem for 3 decades. It takes easily 70-80% of the budget to get anything done (say play park for children). If company wants some grant to ie improve their processes, the cut may be more like 30-50% percent.

That's how mafia runs things, and ie in quite a few places mafia is very deeply ingrained into state and processes that manage those grants. If its not outright italian mafia, then some self-brewed oligarchs connected to mobsters and politicians capture the drip. I come from such a state and literally everybody knows this, nothing secretive there. My cousin worked for state department responsible for EU grants, and it was a corrupt shitshow where processes were often bypassed every single effin' day. The only positive thing is, our country is so small and economically weak that even if all money end up stolen EU doesn't bat an eye since its pocket money for them.

pipes2• 3 years ago

Except in none of your examples does the government handout money.

rcme• 3 years ago

Architects are licensed. Anyone can become one provided they meet the requirements.

version_five• 3 years ago

That was unnecessarily condescending, and also it's a false equivalence to pretend that lawyers or IT people are all rent seeking middlemen (or that grant application consultants aren't, I don't know which you meant). These kind of handouts encourage a shift from useful work to rent seeking, and cause consultancies that specialize in rent seeking to flourish.

TheChaplain• 3 years ago

Would you say I am pessimistic if I believe that a tiny fraction of those actually care about the environment while the rest is in for the easy money?

refurb5• 3 years ago

I'm not sure it matters?

If you're going to leverage capitalism to clean up the environment, you'll get exactly that as long as the incentives align (you don't get money unless you deliver a cleaner environment).

If someone gets filthy rich improving the planet, then they win and we win.

DharmaPolice• 3 years ago

But that's the problem. If everyone is only doing this for the money then as soon as incentives shift and they have an opportunity to make more money by pouring toxic waste into the ocean then they'll do it.

It's like companies who are "passionate about customer service" (both in rhetoric and reality). We understand that they're still motivated by profit but if they have this additional almost ideological commitment to good customer service (or product quality or whatever) then there is at least a chance that they will at least think twice in screwing over their customers for a small profit increase.

_gmax0• 3 years ago

No, I'd respond with, you should reserve moral sentimentalism for people on an individual-basis, not collectively as a system.

refurb5• 3 years ago

I don't think anyone is surprised? If the government promises to spend $800B, you're going to have people advocating on how it's spent.

jillesvangurp• 3 years ago

Good, lobbies are a constant. So, it's nicer to have lobbies obsessing about renewable tech and solutions to climate change rather than actively working to promote the burning of oil and coal. Nothing good has ever come out of that.

PartiallyTyped• 3 years ago

As long as it is not just performative and achieves results, I am all for it.

runeks2• 3 years ago

Good, lobbies are a constant.

What? Are you suggesting that whenever one company hires a lobbyist a lobbyist from another company magically disappears?

namdnay• 3 years ago

not a constant quantity, a constant phenomenon

alecco• 3 years ago

The injected anti-Trump rant at the beginning of the article is weird. Was this added as an olive branch to appease the mob?

throwaway22032• 3 years ago

Aligning capitalism with green policies is exactly what we need to do in order to succeed.

The idea that everyone should just eat grubs and ride a bike and if they don't we deserved it is completely ridiculous. It doesn't and cannot work to have a system in which anyone who "cheats" gets orders of magnitude of advantage over the others.

When the car I want to buy with my £3-5k budget is electric we'll be there. Whilst I have to "decide" to spend £30k more in order to get anything even reasonably equivalent, we're not.

quantum_state• 3 years ago

The lobbying ecosystem is a form of corruption and a cancer of the system…

ZeroGravitas2• 3 years ago

I'll add "lobbying" to my long list of things that the media suddenly discover is bad when it hurts fossil fuel interests.

Glench• 3 years ago

A small point but is it really a “splurge” to spend money on ensuring the planet’s climate isn’t terrible? Splurge usually means impulsive greed, but in this case that money is “desperate attempt to ensure survival.”

Yizahi• 3 years ago

"Lobbying ecosystem" is nice term to describe a corrupt economy. Next time IMF asks for some meaningful reforms in my country, we can reply to them that we have a lobbying ecosystem, duh.

osigurdson• 3 years ago

The public should demand high quality models for any CCS project. Also, comprehensive MMV (measurement, monitoring and verification) needs to be included. The technology can work but the potential for corruption is pretty high imo.

America’s $800B climate splurge is feeding a new lobbying ecosystem

Related Stories