Public Policy Problems in the Environment

Public policy is defined by Webster’s as the “The basic policy or set of policies forming the foundation of public laws, especially such policy not yet formally enunciated.” The United States Government has many policies in the area of the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 to help identify environmental problems in our nation, and to set policy on how to deal with those problems. Yet, with so much money spent by the government to deal with problems with the environment, it must be noted that problems still exist, even within the bureaucracy that was meant to help in the first place.

During the presidential campaign of the last election, an issue arose concerning the “energy crisis” that was driving gasoline and oil prices up throughout our country. Vice President Al Gore supported President Clinton’s ideology of waiting for the proper legislative initiatives to pass through Congress, and when the situation merited, provide some limited releases of oil from the national oil reserve. Candidate George W. Bush, on the other had, favored drilling in the government protected lands of Alaska to find future oil reserves so that America would no longer be so dependent on foreign oil. The problem with Bush’s plan, according to Gore, was that this could be devastating to the environment of the scarcely populated Alaskan wilderness. Regardless of the political, legal or moral implications of such drilling, there are problems dealing with multiple types of rationality in this issue.

In his book “Reason in Society,” Paul Diesing describes six major types of rationality. These include technical, economic, social, legal, political and ecological rational. It is easy to comprehend that this environmental issue involves each one of these types of rationality.

First of all, the technical rationality is demonstrated through the question of whether or not oil can be found in Alaska, and if it could, would there be enough present to really make a dramatic difference for the consumer? It must also be considered as to how this drilling may effect the environment of this area. Technical rationality also questions whether or not there are ways to drill that can possibly leave the natural resources of this area with as little human interference as possible. Engineers and scientists can try to come up with ways to create a process with which the area will not be devastated by the involvement with man in those areas. For instance, as of the end of this winter, snowmobiles will no longer be allowed in Yellowstone National Park due to the problems that their presence has created. Technical rationality showed that, although they were useful, the disadvantages of these vehicles far outweighed the advantages.

Economic rationality is demonstrated in this issue quite clearly: the need for more domestic oil to drive down the prices to the American consumer. Economic rational may ask whether or not the consumer would feel the results of such drilling.

Social rationality is seen through the effects that such a change in policy may have on the American conscious. If policy can be changed for the sake of monetary relief, maybe other ecological laws can be changed for other reasons. Some may ask why there should be laws that ban CFC’s, if the cost to the consumer is so high.

There are definite legal issues, since laws protect the area in question. Therefore, legal rationality is used to debate as to whether there should be laws protecting the area from drilling. And if the laws are repealed, what laws should be written and enforced to safeguard the area from the destruction of its natural beauty?

Political rationality is used when considering the issues in view of government policy. When it comes to the environment, traditionally, conservatives have had very bad records in protecting the environment, leaning more on economic rationality rather than ecological. Liberals, on the other hand, have had a more “environmental friendly” position. It will be interesting to see what happens with this issue, since President Bush appointed Christine Todd Whitman to the position of secretary of the EPA (which has now become a cabinet position). Secretary Whitman is a moderate from a New England state, and she is likely to stand apart from mainstream republicans with environmental issues.

Ecological rationality is the most obvious type of rational used in this issue. To the ecologist (and many Americans), the environment is extremely important. The idea of such a remarkably untouched part of this continent being populated and polluted by drilling, all for the sake of monetary relief, angers many citizens of this nation. The ecological rational questions the need for disturbing one of America’s last frontiers for the hope of relieving American dependence on foreign oil.

These types of rationality often conflict with one another when it comes to such controversial issues as this. But, when one considers all these types of rationality, as defined by Diesing, it helps make the “big picture” clearer and the consequences of such actions more understood.