REACTING TO ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

It's too early to call environmental extremism an endangered species. Nevertheless, voters did turn down the economy-busting environmentalist initiative called Big Green in California. And voters did reject lower-order environmental wackiness in Oregon, Washington, and New York.

Does it mean Americans have grown weary of saving the planet? Not if last week's action by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors is any indication. The board again rejected Chevron Corp.'s proposal to start up Point Arguello oil field with a production scheme involving tanker transportation to Los Angeles until economic pipeline transportation becomes available.

Nevertheless, defeat of the state environmentalist measures must mean something. And the oil industry should carefully sift through the wreckage of the defeated environmentalist initiatives for every shred and shade of meaning it can find. In a political climate that has been increasingly hostile to economic development, something has changed.

ECONOMIC CONCERNS

The change probably relates more to voters' economic concerns than to their environmental sensitivities. A recession threatens. People are beginning to worry as much about their economic well being as about air and water.

They have not, however, quit worrying about air and water. At the American Petroleum Institute annual meeting last week, officials of Chevron Corp. warned against reading too much into the Big Green defeat. The proposal tried to cover everything on the environmentalist agenda. It contained demonstrable potential costs for everyone. As a one-shot cure-all, it self-destructed. If it had been proposed and debated a piece at a time, most of Big Green might eventually have been enacted. It may yet happen that way.

Still, any popular attention to the cost of environmental policy making is welcome. For years, Americans have told pollsters how eager they are to pay for clean air and water. And Congress has obliged with costly measures of dubious environmental value, such as the extravagant Clean Air Act reauthorization enacted last month. Now facing recession, Americans may be beginning to wonder how much of this they can afford.

The Big Green and related environmentalist setbacks probably don't mean U.S. voters care less now than they did before about the environment. But it may mean that in environmental choices they've become more careful shoppers. For radical, blank-check environmentalism, it's a severe and overdue blow.

A HEALTHY TURN

Industry should relate this healthy turn to another message obvious in the state votes: Extreme environmentalist pressures can be resisted and defeated. Early polls showed more than 70% support for Big Green. The margin daunted some industry officials, who feared that individuals and companies opposing the measure could only hurt themselves. But stouter hearts prevailed and seem no worse for the struggle. California's economy remains intact. And the U.S. has escaped a ruinous idea from a state that sets national trends.

So Americans will, to some degree, heed costs of environmental policies. And industry can resist popular currents to fight environmental nonsense without hurting itself. Both lessons should improve the political climate. The U.S. can no more afford to ignore costs of environmental policies than it can afford to ignore costs of environmental neglect. Economic values deserve attention in the environmental debate. If recent developments do nothing more than make this point to politicians, the oil industry has something to cheer.