Walcher: Paying for what ought to be free

By Greg Walcher | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice

If I offered you a thousand dollars not to steal my car, would you be any less likely to steal it? What if I offered you a million? If you’re like most people, you would answer that you weren’t planning to steal it anyway. You’re not a thief so the discussion is pointless. Although if I were serious, you might take the money anyway.

That isn’t much different than some of the revelations of government grants we are learning about through recent DOGE discoveries, controversial though they are. I’m just looking at grants related to natural resources and the environment, but can’t help wondering why the government has been paying so much to so many organizations and companies – to do what they were doing anyway.

For example, should taxpayers give money to global oil companies to develop profitable operations they were developing anyway? If they believe profits are enhanced by reducing oil production, should we have to pay them to do that? I know lots of people, including me, do not think reducing oil production is a good idea. But there are at least three people who do think that: the CEOs of Exxon Mobile, BP, and Chevron, three of the six largest oil companies in the world.

BP’s CEO, Murray Auchincloss, boasts that “We also set the ambition to be a net zero company by 2050 or sooner and to help the rest of world get to net zero.” The Department of Energy paid BP $32 million to develop a storage hub in Texas and a carbon dioxide sequestration complex in Indiana that BP (annual revenue of $249 billion) could easily have developed anyway as part of its commitment to greenhouse gas reduction.

Chevron (annual revenue $246 billion), is the world’s sixth largest oil company, and its website firmly asserts, “As the world works toward achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, we set targets to lower our carbon emissions intensities by 2028.” So, did Chevron USA need $3 million from the Energy Department to “assess the technical and commercial viability of a direct air capture hub concept?” Wouldn’t Chevron want to know anyway?

ExxonMobile is the world’s largest private-sector oil company, with revenues approaching half a trillion annually. CEO/Chairman Darren Woods says, “We understand the tremendous challenge represented by climate change and have fully supported the Paris Agreement since its inception… We are advancing plans for large-scale emission reductions with new carbon capture and storage opportunities around the world…” Apparently, one such “opportunity” is public funding, such as U.S. taxpayers paying ExxonMobile $332 million to develop its Baytown Olefins plant, the first large-scale commercial facility for low emission hydrogen combustion. Did Exxon really need tax money to do that?

We fully expected to see, as we did, hundreds of millions in such grants awarded to over half the states, and dozens of cities, counties, tribes, and universities. But I was surprised to see massive climate and greenhouse gas reduction grants given to giant corporations like Cargill ($25 million), and Tyson ($150 million). One expected such massive funding channeled to major environmental industry organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited ($374 million), Trout Unlimited ($7.8 million), EcoTrust ($2.6 million), World Wildlife Fund ($116 million), Nature Conservancy ($567 million), Sustainable Northwest ($35 million), Student Conservation Association ($10 million), and the Coalition for Responsible Community Development ($20 million).

We shouldn’t be surprised that taxpayer-funded grants paid school districts in California and Chicago over $30 million for new “clean” school buses. But $2 billion to “Power Forward Communities,” a Maryland-based coalition of housing, climate, and community investment groups, to “decarbonize American homes” – they haven’t offered anything for my home.

Giant private companies that also received federal grants last year included Generac Power Systems ($49 million), Land O’Lakes ($15 million), Cleveland Cliffs Steel ($500 million), Johnson Controls ($33 million), BASF ($75 million), and scores of others. Grants went to the lobbying arms of cotton, sorghum, rice, citrus, and fresh produce associations, and to banks, credit unions, apartment complexes, and even foreign countries. One website alone lists hundreds of such grants, just in 2024, totaling over $25 billion.

People can debate for years about whether such spending is wasteful and abusive, or justified and well-spent. But for me, one point is that all these groups are being paid for what they do anyway. Environmental groups and universities are already working to mitigate climate change and reduce fossil fuels. So, we’re paying some to do what they were doing anyway, and paying others not to do what they weren’t doing anyway. Please don’t steal my car, too.