A comedian recently joked that he'd favor drilling in the skulls of polar bears if it meant cheaper gasoline for his car. While being facetious (I hope), it illustrates the fundamental problem for environmental protection: Its priority level falls among politicians in direct relation to a fall in the economy.

The ultimate problem for all environmentalists is that they can fight winning battles for decades; lose once, and the game is over. For developers the exact opposite is true. Wetlands can be preserved for as long as their is political support to preserve them. Once a development project succeeds in getting approval the wetland disappears forever. This applies to just about all forms of environmental protection. Once offshore drilling resumes it will be around until the next major spill causes a re-evaluation. Whale species can recover for the entire duration a hunting ban is enforced. Once that enforcement falls away the species becomes just as threatened as if there was never a ban in place.

There has always been a competition between preserving the environment and wildlife versus economic growth. Repeated public polls show that a majority of Americans and the world population favor protecting the environment for future generations. However; this support dips when the economy dips. Five years ago a majority opposed offshore oil drilling. Following a tripling of oil prices polls now show a majority in favor of drilling. The reasons for the prohibitions get lost when car owners face $4.00/gallon gasoline prices. It really doesn't matter that offshore oil drilling is neither a short term, nor long term solution to the nation's energy problems. When there is a change in the political winds developers make every attempt to capitalize on the change and the politicians that enjoy the support of these developers are equally willing to take advantage of the political winds.

The latest environmental law to come under threat is the Environmental Species Act. The Bush Administration wants to change who can make the decisions about development projects, taking it out of the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency and putting it in the hands of the agencies overseeing development projects. This is the equivalent of allowing prosecuting attorneys to choose who the defense council will be. The good news is that this is one of those changes made by a lame duck president that can be quickly reversed by an incoming president inclined to reverse it. Because these are policy enforcement changes rather than legislative changes their reversibility is possible if the next president actually wants to reverse them. The bad news is that they highlight a bigger problem for the environmental movement.

The overall American economy faces a level of problems it has never faced before. In a global economy the United States is not well positioned for future growth. It faces the tremendous hurdle of energy. Whether oil supplies are peaking now or will peak in a decade or two; it will certainly peak at some point. The United States political system is not structured to deal smoothly with these issues so political and economic upheaval will surely occur if they are not already. Furthermore; the economy has been pushed away from production and toward finance. This means the economy will grow only as long as the United States continues to be a recipient of FDI (foreign direct investment) and international lending. This cash inflow has been maintained by selling assets and rising property values, making mortgage loans profitable for property owners and buyers. As we have seen in the past year, any hiccup in the lending system can change dramatically the entire financial structure. If the world's lenders determine that other regions, such as Asia, are better investment zones, the investment capital will flow there leaving the United States' finance based economy without sufficient financing. Pile on to this the tremendous government debt, rising health costs, and an aging population, and the United States' economy faces a tremendous number of problems.

This is where the environmental issues figure in. Environmental protection laws are likely to lose a large portion of their support if the economy goes into in a long period of decline. Just as slash and burn farmers in the rainforest put economic survival over environmental survival, so will people in the west. The biggest threat to the environment is from economic pressures that change political priorities. The difficulty facing facing the environment is the one mentioned above. Years of environmental protection can amount to zero if the political winds shift just a bit.

The unfortunate nature of environmental politics is that it is only really popular when the economy is successful. The other unfortunate aspect is that environmental losses can easily become permanent losses. When business-oriented conservative point to the "fair weather nature" of the environmental movement they are highlighting an important truth. The political strength of the environmental lobby is severely weakened when the fair weathered economy turns stormy.