I have often written about the reasons for why one would embrace a lunatic movement like climate catastrophism.  I have given explanations that vary a bit. In A Short Political History of Climate Change, I asserted that the modern environmental movement and its precursor, the socialist movement, had adherents that derived life’s meaning from being part of something larger than themselves. In an earlier religious era, those people would have found their calling with the Jesuits or Jihadists.

Another explanation that I have postulated is that people regard themselves as intelligent if they go along with beliefs which “experts” hold with certainty. The fear of being regarded as ignorant stifles critical thinking on their part and leaves them vulnerable to false narratives.

A third reason is that people may go along with a movement to be agreeable and do not readily perceive the economic pain that usually accompanies the policies put forth by those in a movement. The last reason is that people may believe themselves to be wealthy enough to withstand any fallout and clever enough to benefit from it.

It’s the “clever enough to benefit from it” set that I want to write about in this article. Although many individuals fall into this category, it is corporations with this type of mindset on which I want to focus. To start, the reader needs to become acquainted with the phrase “Baptists and Bootleggers” which refers to a concept popularized by economist Bruce Yandle in the 1980s. It describes a situation where two seemingly opposing groups — one with a moral or ethical agenda (the Baptists) and the other with a financial or self-interested motive (the Bootleggers) — both support the same regulation or policy.

In Yandle’s original example, Baptists represent religious groups who advocate for prohibition, citing moral reasons to ban alcohol consumption. Bootleggers, on the other hand, are people who profit from illegal activities, in this case, from the underground sale of alcohol. The Bootleggers benefit from prohibition because it creates a black market for alcohol, while the Baptists support the same policy for its moral or religious reasons.

The concept highlights how different interest groups can join forces and support the same policy, even though they have very different motivations. This dynamic is often seen in regulations that benefit one group financially (like creating barriers to competition or fostering illegal markets) while another group pushes for those same policies based on moral or ethical arguments.

The concept is useful in understanding why a regulatory framework would benefit both environmental activists (the Baptists) and corporations (the Bootleggers). Environmental activists call for regulations on industries for supposedly moral reasons, while corporations only mildly object, if at all, because they see that the cost associated with regulatory compliance raises the barrier to entry and keeps out potential competitors and might encourage existing ones to exit.

Other rent-seeking corporations (the Bootleggers) benefit directly from regulatory incentives. The wind and solar power industry is a perfect example. Without the mandates, subsidies, and tax breaks, those industries would not even exist.

All this might explain why large corporations are often the least critical of environmental activism, even that which targets their own industry. It is not a strategy based on keeping a low profile, so they won’t notice. It is not a strategy of pretending to be a conscientious corporate entity, so they will go after the other guy. It is a strategy where if you play your cards right, you might profit.

Image: Free image, Pixabay license.