Karpinski praises Hill's energy legislation

Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, wrote in today's (Jeff/NA) News-Tribune to praise Rep. Hill and his House colleagues for passing recent legislation on energy.

It's no surprise that an environmentalist would support corporate subsidies (as long as the right corporations are being subsidized) and tax breaks for the wealthy (as long as they're spending their money on the right things). But it's certainly odd for a Democratic politician like Baron Hill to do so.

And Karpinski is as confused as Hill about the impact of regulation. In an email from his office, Hill apparently thinks that higher CAFE standards will "ensure consumer choice". Karpinski claims that mandates to use higher-priced energy alternatives will help the economy and consumers-- as well as the environment. But if it's really a "win-win-win", then why are we settling for a 15% mandate? Apparently, Hill and Karpinski should support legislation that requires 50 MPG and the use of 100% energy alternatives.

Support for the environment is fine. And at times, regulation may be an improvement. But quit trying to convince us that regulation will be all good news instead of a cost-benefit trade-off.

My response appeared in the News-Tribune on Wednesday...