In recent times, the government has compelled expanding industries to file Environmental Impact Statements. What should be included and what the government should do with that information is debated because of an underlying disagreement over the government's role in environmental matters. To resolve this disagreement, common ground must be established.

The principles our government was founded upon serve as the framework for the debate. Remember, our government was founded "Of the people, by the people, and for the people," and it is tyranny for it to serve another master than its citizens. The government's concern for the environment, then, should go no further than the environment's impact on the people. As far as the bureaucrats should be concerned, an

Environmental Impact Statement should be read like a Human Impact Statement.

This criterion allows for quite a bit of latitude in policy. The government should crack down on acid rain, soil erosion, fertilizer run-off, and ozone build-up where possible because all of these things are harmful to the citizens. But the government must not forget the reason for trying to avoid pollution. At the point environmental regulations hurt the people more than the pollution would, the government has gone too far. It is nearly impossible to determine where this point is, but it is important to know that it exists nonetheless.

Disagreement can still be held over environmental policy, but it will lack the venom of a moral debate. For example, politicians can honestly disagree about whether a new factory's jobs will help a town more than its pollution will hurt it, but once they agree that their highest priority is human happiness, than morals no longer play a part in their argument. The only argument left is whether the factory adds to human happiness of takes away from it. Policy disagreements from that point can only be based on data discrepancies or misevaluations. It makes no sense for such opponents to call each other bad. Misinformed and misguided perhaps, but not bad.

The issue becomes more complex when we start talking about quality of life. A good government is one that protects our ability to choose and pursue our means of happiness. For most people, that "means of happiness" is much more than mere survival. For starters, we desire plenty of free time. Free evenings, weekends, holidays, and 30 days annually have become standard in America. We also desire material prosperity so we can enjoy music, literature, art, comfortable clothes, and large homes for greater privacy. Additionally, we crave options.

We want cars so we can opt to go home for weekends and planes so we can see other countries. All of these things are wonderful because they allow people to be happy in their own way, but they all come at a cost to the environment. The reason America is not a nation of subsistence farmers with no free time is because we allow our farmers to damage the environment. The fertilizers, pesticides & herbicides, genetically engineered crops & cattle, and diesel machinery make it possible for one farmer to feed 530 people with time to spare. Those 530 people, in turn, can start producing the goods and services we enjoy, but also at a cost. In order for 260,000,000 people to be able to enjoy houses, hot showers, CDs, and a diet of more than millet and rice, we have had to build mines, factories, lumber mills and highways. Even writers and artists indirectly pollute. If they are any good, they cause people to want to buy their work. Where does the buyer get the money? He probably builds houses, or drives a truck, or designs dams, or some other environmentally damaging work, but if no one did these jobs, who would employ the writers and artists? We must come to grips with the fact that all of our routes to happiness cause at least some environmental damage, and our government must allow for that fact.

So in our disagreements, let us not forget our mutual ground: we all want the greatest good for mankind, we realize that this good comes at a cost to the natural world, and we recognize that it is wrong to deny others the chance at the prosperity we ourselves enjoy. If we keep in mind these joint beliefs, our debate on the environment shall be greatly simplified.