by: F.R. Duplantier

"Businesses routinely lobby to avoid heavy burdens from government regulations," observes Johnathan Adler of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "But some businesses lobby in favor of regulations that give them a market edge. Environmental regulations," he points out, "are riddled with provisions that are less about saving the planet than about helping a particular industry or special interest."

Writing in a recent issue of PERC Reports, published by the Political Economy Research Center, Adler cites the Business Council for Sustainable Energy and its support for the Global Warming Treaty as an example of self-interested environmentalism. "The council is a coalition of wind, solar, natural gas, and geothermal power producers," he explains. "These companies have a clear economic stake in global warming policy. They would benefit from restrictions on fossil fuels," Adler asserts. "The loss to coal and oil companies could well be the council members' gain."

Adler offers several more examples of lobbyists who are green with environmentalism and green with envy. He cites corn growers, for instance, and their seemingly altruistic support for the Clean Air Act -- which just happens to include provisions favoring ethanol production. Adler notes that "the Clinton Administration issued a regulation explicitly guaranteeing that ethanol and ethanol derivatives would receive a 30 percent share of the market for oxygenate additives used in [a formula for a new gasoline to be sold in the nation's smoggiest cities]. The Environmental Protection Agency issued the rule even though lower-cost additives existed that were just as clean, if not cleaner. The rule," he concludes, "was designed to boost farm income and help corn growers, not help the environment." Eastern coal companies also supported the Clean Air Act, because of provisions hamstringing western coal companies.

Adler pinpoints a crass commercial interest even in the promotion of energy-saving light bulbs. "The federal government promotes the use of fluorescent bulbs," he reports. "In many cases, switching to fluorescents saves companies money, but for some companies the savings are more than offset by environmental regulations. Unlike incandescent bulbs, fluorescents must be treated as hazardous waste when large companies dispose of them," Adler explains. "Recognizing this problem, the EPA is considering reclassifying fluorescent bulbs so that more companies will use them. But hazardous waste treatment companies are alarmed because they may lose business."

Adler concedes that "not all environmental rules are the result of special interest pleading. Some are the result of genuine environmental concern," he affirms; "others start out that way, only to be manipulated behind closed doors during the legislative or rule-making process. In some cases," Adler notes, "industries have been virtually created by environmental regulations, and their continued existence depends on tough regulations, whether they help the environment or not. In any case," he concludes, "the proliferation of exceedingly complex environmental rules and statutes is an open invitation for companies seeking an advantage over their competitors. This," says Adler, "is an invitation that few profit-seeking companies will pass up."