Environment

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Environment Archives page.

Environment v. Industry: Lifelong Enemies?

We need the environment; we need industry. We need natural resources for industry. When do we protect resources and when do we use them?

Can we declare a tie between environment and industry, or must there be a winner?

Centrists root for environment

Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) have proposed an amendment to the Energy Bill, which is up for debate in the Senate.

McCain and Lieberman admit that their amendment is a political maneuver. They acknowledge that their proposal is not likely to be adopted, but say it will be a valuable record of each Senator’s attitude towards the environment. They hope the amendment will be a testimony that will reverberate through Congress and out into the American public. Each Senator’s vote will be like a public declaration of where they stand on global warming.

Going back to 1990 a radical suggestion

The amendment aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from various industries. If it were to be adopted and implemented, emissions levels would slowly drop over the next 13 years, returning to where they were 13 years ago, or to the emissions levels of 1990.

The energy industry is opposed to this amendment because emissions have increased dramatically in the last decade; it would take considerable funds and effort to return to the emissions levels of the 90s.

The Bush administration is opposed to the amendment and to the regulation of carbon dioxide in general. Opponents claim that these types of environmental regulations are unfair because they disproportionately affect the energy industry. The industry says that there is not clear, conclusive evidence that links emissions with global warming.

Common enemies

Environment and industry are often pitted against each other. For example, there is a flurry of court activity over the water levels of the Missouri River. Right now, the waters are kept at a high level so that barges may make shipments along the river. Nature conservation groups claim that the river must be allowed to rise and fall naturally so that sturgeon will spawn and birds will nest.

The Army Corps of Engineers has been issued conflicting court orders. One demands that the Corps reduce the river’s water level to protect these birds and fish. The other requires the Corps to provide a high water level for barges. There does not seem to be a compromise that will allow both barges and birds to survive and thrive. Conservation groups want the river to be dropped to eight feet, which is too shallow for barges.

Here, The Endangered Species Act is in direct conflict with industry, specifically, the shipment of grain and cargo down the Mississippi river. The puzzle will be considered by a judicial panel, which will have to take both industry and environment into consideration.

Environment, an economic enemy?

Since the post 9 -11 economic downturn, the environment has taken a beating. Is there a connection? Are we striking the environment to boost the economy?

The Conservation Trust Fund has been cut drastically (drastically = over a billion dollars) by the House of Representatives. This fund was created by President Clinton to buy open space, restore damaged coastline, and protect endangered species.

Those who voted to cut the trust fund, like Representative Charles Taylor (R-NC), claim that government owns too much land and that precious funds should not be used to purchase more.

The concern for industry is not unfounded in today’s economic climate, but what are we willing to sacrifice for a stronger economy?

Clean Air Act

Responding to pressure from environmental groups, the EPA has decided to reconsider its revisions to the Clean Air Act, which requires new industrial plants to install pollution-control technology. The Act also forces older plants to install anti-pollution equipment when they upgrade and expand.

The Bush administration had revised the Act to allow industrial plants and utilities to increase their facilities without pollution technology. This change would help industry, but would increase air pollution significantly.

Do we have to choose one over the other?

Are the environment and jobs at odds? Environmentalists claim that the ocean is being stripped of its resources; fishing and shellfish harvesting are causing the extinction of certain fish and plants and, in some cases, causing entire biospheres to disappear. But can we order fishermen (and women) to just stop fishing?

Some say we don’t have to choose the environment over jobs. Right now, the United States offers $150 million a year in tax rebates to fishing fleets. If we were use this money to buy boats and retrain crews for ocean cleanup, neither jobs nor ocean species would be lost.

Our lawmakers can also set stricter harvest limits or quotas on the number of fish caught per individual. Fishermen can then buy or sell their fishing rights, which encourages some to sell and leave the business. This solution may benefit fishermen and, of course, the fish.

Lawmaking is a powerful way to protect the environment. It is often difficult for legislators to balance environment and industry in a single vote, but creative solutions can create jobs and promote the planet and our heath. Legislators, particularly in the House of Representatives, are under pressure from their constituents to pay attention to the specific issues in their district.

To discuss this topic with other WomenMatter readers, [click here]. To find out how your representative voted [click here]. To contact your representative and let her or him know how you feel about the priorities of environment and industry, [click here].

Posted on: 8/1/2003

click here to go to next section

return to top