I I
he Hush administration has shot msight in its vision of a new W ~ I order and has demonstrated coml tence in handling the diplomatic a military aspects ofthe Iraqi crisis. II surprising, however. how shortsight the administration has been in faili., to mcognize the links between energy and envimnmental policv in pursuing such a new world order. These gaps will become even more apparent in the future. The concept of a new world order arose fmm the disintegration of the Soviet empire and the presupposition of an.era of cooperation between the superpowers. Current tension over Soviet actions in the Baltic states and rising nationalism throughout the Soviet Union and eastern European countries has cast something of a pall ovor the euphoria experienced in recent years. But the long-term trend toward military reductions and the civil, i f not warm, relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union appears likely to continue. A new world order. however, must rest on more than our political relationship with the Soviet Union. Because oil availability and price are so critical to the economies of the industrialized nations, potential disruption of oil supplies poses a security threat in the Persian Gulf. Since 1967, four major wars have been fought in the Middle East. two between the Arabs and Israel and two between Iraq and its neighbors. l h e Iranian revolution caused disruptions in oil supply and serious tension between the United States and Iran. Two of these disiocations caused major oil shocks that pushed the Western world into double digit inflation and economic recession.
production when the oil market had limited excess production capacitv, prices could temporarily spiral out ofcontrol. Prices increased five-fold after the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo and 180% after the Iranian revolution. causing worldwide inflation and economic downturns. 'These potentially severe economic disrup tions arising from supply interrup tions will force the llnited States to resume its role as policeman of the Middle East, a role it played when it strongly supported the Shah of Iran. The production, transportation. and use of energy alsii pose serious environmental threats. The large toxic emissions from refineries, oil spills in Alaska and the Persian Gulf, acid rain, and the Chernobyl incident represent the tip of the iceberg. The most pervasive. long-term environmental problem facing the world is global climate change. More than half of greenhouse gases that cause global warming result from carbon dioxide emissions, principally from energy production. The United States has recently recognized that global warming is a problem, but the Bush administration's solution to reducing greenhouse gases does not depend heavily on reducing CO, emissions from energy consumption. In essence, the United States has shown leadership in employing military power to create a new world order to prevent domination of the Persian Gulf by Iraq, and presumably by other powers at a later date. But the United States is not a leader in reducing the suurce of the tension-the vulnerability of the oil supply-or in dealing with environmental implications of energy use. The new national energy strategy failed to present serious initiatives to curb energy use, despite strong mmendati from outside
in energy efficiency- could b j achieved at net cost savings. Tbes, cost savings do not take-into ac count further benefits resultin! from reducing the vulnerability d the energy supply and environmen tal damage. In other words, it is pos sibie to achieve higher GNP, reduce oil vulnerability, and protect the environment at the same time. It has been reported that the administration turned down energy efficiency initiatives because of its view that the market should determine the pattern of production and consumption. But if paying obeisance to themarket iscritical-and should add, I personally prefer mar ket incentives to detailed regulations-then energy s h o u l d be priced at its true social cost, reflecting the cost of oil supply vulnerability and environmental damage. Presumably, the administration fear: that higher energy prices would bt unacceptable politically and find: regulatory measures distasteful. 11 essence. the administration's ener gy policy is a Catr:h-22. In pursuing a new world order the president cannot ignore the roll of energy and global environmenta policies. The United States shoulc not assume large new internationa commitments without making a ma jor effort to reduce some of the un derlying causes of regional and in ternational tension. Reduction o energy demand must play a majoi strategic role in reducing regiona conflicts and in giving credibility tc 1J.S. leadership. ~~~
~~~
Ahin L. Alm is director ond senio. vice-p~sidenfforrnergyondfheenvi mnment for Science Applications In, ternofionul Corp., o supplier of high technology products ond service: reloled to the environment. energy hmlth. andnotionalsecurit]
