Lobbyists

As I’ve already stated that I won’t discuss politics, I’ll admit that this comes close to the edge. I’ll keep my comments as neutral and generic as possible. As I am not espousing a particular position, I offer no evidence supporting any of the following statements. (Note: flames will be ignored.)

On my way to work this morning, I caught a bit of an NPR story about fuel efficiency in automobiles. Why is it, I wondered, that legislation to improve automobile fuel efficiency never seems to get passed? Surely, it’s a bill that would benefit us all.

First, automobiles would use less fuel. That would both extend the potential lifespan of petroleum reserves and save drivers’ money. Second, technology already exists to create new fuel mixes, to improve engines, and to make cars lighter, all means implemented in the past to improve fuel efficiency. Third, pollution probably would decrease. Automobile drivers and voters would embrace this bill; why won’t enough legislators support it?

Let’s look at who might be against it. Auto manufacturers have claimed that it would cost too much and drive up the prices of automobiles. They made the same claims for seat belts, catalytic converters, and air bags. Plus, inflation consistently raises prices, but people haven’t stopped buying cars. Maybe I’m simplifying the issue, but wouldn’t marketing cars, pickup trucks, and SUV’s as more fuel efficient make them more attractive to potential buyers?

Who else: oil/gas suppliers? Sure, less of their product would be consumed per capita per day, but wouldn’t that ensure the supply lasts longer, thus keeping them in business, making money, for more years?

In the interest of fair play, let me offer up that extreme environmentalists might be against it. After all, wouldn’t alternative fuels or carpooling be less appealing if traditional petroleum became cleaner and more efficient? That would take the spotlight away from those causes. There might even be a plot to make the oil and auto industries such large sources of controversy that they go bankrupt and disappear almost overnight, thus allowing the greens to come to the fore and save the day. Unlikely, yes, but possible.

Somebody, then, is hiring lobbyists to argue against a cause that seems logical and worthwhile. What could make a Representative or Senator vote against something good for their constituents? What could a lobbyist offer that sways a person away from something that, at least the way I have presented it, makes sense? (I certainly hope I’m not implying that legislators are greedy, don’t care about their populace, nor suddenly turn stupid once elected.) How about another extreme possibility: the lobbyists themselves are stirring up controversy? As long as they can argue one side against the other, they have jobs.

As I said, I am not promoting a position about this topic. I just wonder why this issue never gets settled.