Hypocrisy?

by on August 13, 2006 · 4 comments

Dan Gillmor calls out libertarian exec TJ Rodgers for his “hypocrisy” in entering the solar power business, a business that’s heavily subsidized by the government. Supposedly it’s “phony libertarianism” to rail against big government while participating in an industry that benefits from government largess. That doesn’t seem right to me. As the article puts it:

The solar-cell industry is reliant upon government subsidies, to the consternation of Mr. Rodgers, an outspoken libertarian. “The culture that got built is what I call a grant culture,” he said. “They’re all pitching to the U.S. government, looking for funding.” Such criticism aside, the subsidies are in place, both in the United States and Europe, and Mr. Rodgers is ideally positioned to capitalize on the government support he has long railed against. “I can make a good profit for my shareholders,” he said, “and provide a lot of good eco-stuff to the world as well.” The paradox is that Mr. Rodgers, 58, who has long been a free-market iconoclast, even by the tough-guy standards of the valley’s chip industry, may end up striking pay dirt by moving from the cutthroat world of computer processing power to the more sensitive realm of solar power.

It doesn’t mention whether his company is getting subsidies directly from the government, or whether the adoption of solar power is merely being driven by subsidies to his customers. If it’s the latter, I don’t really see how that’s hypocrisy. Solar power is a perfectly legitimate business, which would exist (albeit in somewhat smaller form) in the absence of government subsidies. As long as Rodgers isn’t himself actively pursuing government handouts, I don’t see why he should be expected to avoid the sector entirely merely because some of his customers are getting them.

More to the point, the long-run success of the solar power industry will be driven by the underlying economics of the energy market, not government handouts. If the cost of solar panels drop to the point where they become an economical alternative to the grid, (or the price of other energy sources continues to rise), there will suddenly be a huge market for solar panels. The government handouts obviously don’t hurt, but they won’t be what makes or breaks the effort. Libertarians have as much right to compete for that market as anyone else.

  • enigma_foundry

    If his company did not take advantage of the subsidies, his would be at a disadvantage. He has a responsibility to his shareholders to maximize profits.

    However, recall that the oil and gas industries get giant subsidies, so comparatively speaking, he gets (probably) less than his non green competitors. And of course these big oil and gas companies are the same ones espousing the libertarian dogma, which includes apparently the denial of global warming.

    I work with companies and institutions all the time that are trying very hard to get their building LEED(TM) certified, and often there is no subsidy for doing so. They do so because of: market pressure, and because the publicity obtained, and in the case of scientific entities, there is a certain amount of social pressure, or if you like they are doing it for the esteem of their peers. But they actually are doing it.

    By the way it is a big mistake to think it always costs extra to go green. It’s not always more, but is always different.

    Sometimes, putting a little extra up front can save much in terms of energy bills later on. Smart companies see the writing on the wall: most believe that someday carbon outputs will be priced, and they want to be prepared…

  • fishbane

    How much indirection is needed to wash government money sufficiently to be libertarian?

    From your argument, I assume that, for instance, KBR would be ideologically impure for a no-bid contract. But is it OK for a subcontractor of KBR to take money that, quite obviously, is a government payout?

    Just trying to find the bounds of your argument.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    If his company did not take advantage of the subsidies, his would be at a disadvantage. He has a responsibility to his shareholders to maximize profits.


    However, recall that the oil and gas industries get giant subsidies, so comparatively speaking, he gets (probably) less than his non green competitors. And of course these big oil and gas companies are the same ones espousing the libertarian dogma, which includes apparently the denial of global warming.


    I work with companies and institutions all the time that are trying very hard to get their building LEED(TM) certified, and often there is no subsidy for doing so. They do so because of: market pressure, and because the publicity obtained, and in the case of scientific entities, there is a certain amount of social pressure, or if you like they are doing it for the esteem of their peers. But they actually are doing it.


    By the way it is a big mistake to think it always costs extra to go green. It’s not always more, but is always different.


    Sometimes, putting a little extra up front can save much in terms of energy bills later on. Smart companies see the writing on the wall: most believe that someday carbon outputs will be priced, and they want to be prepared…

  • fishbane

    How much indirection is needed to wash government money sufficiently to be libertarian?

    From your argument, I assume that, for instance, KBR would be ideologically impure for a no-bid contract. But is it OK for a subcontractor of KBR to take money that, quite obviously, is a government payout?

    Just trying to find the bounds of your argument.

Previous post:

Next post: