COLUMN: Environmental protection is beneficial to everyone

---

by Jeffrey Zinsmeister

---

Texas, the land of oil, red meat, ranching, the ungovernable individual. Texas, land of big, sprawling cities, highways and, of course, the automobile. Texas, land of growth and unbridled development. No wonder such issues as land protection, developmental regulations, public transit, species protection and clean air laws strike such resentment in many Texans, and, indeed, in many Americans as well.

That the government should step into the arena of growth and development to limit profits in the name of birds and trees is repugnant to many. This is understandable, given this nation's (and region's) history of the unregulated market.

The idea is that increased governmental power in such areas unnecessarily increases bureaucracy and diminishes profits without any measurable return.

Undocumented details of environmental doom and gloom do not justify the cutting of profits through increased regulation and protection. Unfortunately, such lines of thought are at best misguided and at worst outright false. Why?

I contend that the cost of virtually all environmental issues can be measured in environmental, as well as economic and political terms, and can cause problems which require governmental intervention on a wide scale.

Take a specific case -- legislating decreases in petroleum use through gasoline and other taxes, moratoriums and restrictions on roadbuilding, strict mileage requirements for automakers and increased industrial power efficiency. There are the environmental impacts most often cited by supporters: decreases in greenhouse gas emissions, decreases in airborne pollutants that cause acid rain, protection of natural areas containing oil and conservation of existing natural oil deposits.

These, of course, are the most readily assailable. Critics say, "You want to raise taxes for unprovable phenomena such as the greenhouse effect, or protection of seemingly "useless" species or conservation of something that it would seem like we have enough of forever? No thanks."

But these opponents fail to see the parallel economic, political and social consequences, as they are often ignored in the more heated debates on environment.

Increased oil use in America, especially in the last 80 years or so, has created an ever-increasing dependence on foreign oil, mostly from the Middle East.

First, the economic impacts. As American oil consumption has risen explosively in this century, the percentage of oil imported into the United States has steadily increased to the point where today the majority of oil consumed here comes from abroad.

More specifically, this oil comes from the Middle East and Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries members. Such a situation is most certainly not economically favorable for the U.S., especially in times of crisis. Virtually all of American businesses at home or abroad are at the mercy of OPEC should it decide to fix prices; thus an unfriendly OPEC would mean financial disaster for both private and public sectors.

Note that the Gulf War was responsible for the mild yet noticeable increase in gasoline prices, and that OPEC's intervention during the 1970s brought the U.S. into the worst energy crisis seen to date.

Now, as consumption surpasses pre-1970 levels, the nation faces the prospect of increased foreign oil dependency and expenditure, further imperiling U.S. business should disaster strike the Middle East.

Secondly, this economic dependence on foreign oil puts the U.S. in an increasingly difficult political situation in the Middle East. Stability and U.S. influence in that region has been a dominant part of U.S. foreign policy since World War II, especially through close relations with Israel. America has always seen Israel as the one friendly body in such an important region and has armed it well to deter renegade Arab states from affecting oil supplies.

The CIA has been used to great lengths to manipulate Middle Eastern politics since they backed the 1956 Iranian revolution.

These efforts cost money, and U.S. expenditures in the Gulf region have been extraordinary. Military aid to Israel alone totals over $1.8 billion per annum, and civil aid costs Washington more than $1.2 billion per year.

Such meddling, however, has not been well received, and backlash is increasing.

The 1979 revolution in Iran was staged almost entirely with anti-American forces frustrated with U.S. support of a dictator there.

Currently, anti-American sentiment runs so deep in Syria, Iraq and Iran that it is unsafe for Americans to travel in these countries.

Many Arab states see the U.S. and its arms as the only reason that Israel continues to play power politics with Syria and Iran, and also view the U.S.'s current dealings with Iraq as imperialistic policies used to protect oil in the region.

These arguments, unfortunately, are mostly true. Oil interest pulled the U.S. into the Gulf War, and is responsible for such strong-arm tactics with the Iraqis today.

As a result of these past 50 years, militant Islamic groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah are openly anti-American and attack Americans in the region; they are responsible for the massacre of U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1982 as well as the recent bombing in Saudi Arabia.

Our ever-rising dependence on petroleum not only increases government expenditures and threatens U.S. business, but also imperils U.S. citizens and soldiers abroad.

Ironically, the reduced government at home has meant more government action and spending in international areas.

In short, energy conservation affects not only environmental conditions at home, but also influences political and economic situations abroad.

Those who are busy attacking conservation legislation as intrusive fail to see that the absence of such policy has resulted in increased government activity and interventionist policy in other arenas, especially on the international level.

As a nation, we need to understand that when we act to protect the environment we can alleviate other problems as well. We need to look beyond the obvious and examine how wastefulness and consumption jeopardize us on political and economic levels as well.

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the September 27, 1996 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.