An Earth Day observation: It is not unusual for news reports to describe conflict between industry and environment. In the typical scenario a business complains of tedious rules, costs and delays while an environmental group reports increasing risks to public health or natural resources. Since stories often seem to fall into this pattern, some readers may believe that environment and industry are inescapably opposed. Not so. Look at real situations and you begin to see the complexity. Some resources must be protected if people are to profit by continued use. Environmental abuses by one business may intrude on the profits of another. A rule that alarms industry today can lead to innovative design of a new product for tomorrow. And industries are oftenc attracted to the region for its environmental quality. I'd like to illustrate from a few Oregon experiences.

Do you recall when we had wigwam burners to burn up wood waste at the mills? I remember when these gigantic burners were one of the major air pollution sources in Oregon. When the Legislature was thinking about banning wigwam burners, there was the hue and cry that this would hurt the wood products industry because there would be no way to get rid of wood waste. Interestingly, the ban of wigwam burners has spawned an entire industry in Oregon producing particle board.

In fact, a tremendous percentage of current profits of the wood products industry directly relate to the fact that the Legislature did something the industry had opposed. All the chip shipments off the Oregon coast to Japanese pulp mills were made possible by our ban on wigwam burners. Industry grew as a result of an environmental regulation.

Another good example is the Toxics Use Reduction Act. The Oregon State Public Interest Research Group pushed through a law requiring a reduction of the amount of toxics used in industrial processing. Although industry opposed it, the legislation resulted ins aving Oregon industry a great deal of money because these toxic substances were very expensive. The law forced them to look for alternatives, which in many cases were less expensive.

Not only did we help the environment, but we did something good for industry in both cases.

Here's a current example of an industry interested in increased environmental protection: Who do you think is most in favor of mandating the recycling of wine bottles and bottles used in packaging grocery items? It's the industry selling competing products. The beer industry wants to regulate the wine industry's bottles because the brewers are competitively disadvantaged while the wine industry is not required to recycle.

Strong public support for recycling has been influential. Rather than diminish their own effort, beer industry leaders are saying: If we have to recycle, then they should recycle too.

In my law practice in Eugene, we see the complexity of environmental problems. We don't ordinarily think of the timber industry as a victim of environmental degradation, but this can occur.

In one case we represented a segment of the wood products industry ­ a nursery that grows thousands of Douglas fir seedlings for replanting in national forests. The nursery was suing a commercial biocide applicator for the railroad. The applicator was not following directions on the pesticide label regarding temperature and wind velocity. On a hot, blustery day, it sprayed biocide on the railroad track that blew onto roughly one half million Douglas fir seedlings, killing them. The applicator then denied all liability. The lawsuit went all the way to the state Supreme Court before damages were recovered.

Commercial interests can be hurt when the resources they rely on are unprotected. This year, on the Oregon coast, we're facing something new ­ a season without commercial salmon fishing. The reason is in large part the destruction of its habitat. We are known throughout the world for this fishery, but it is so damaged that there can be no commercial use of it.

People who move to Oregon have cited the amenities here, whether in the time of the French trappers, the period of settlement over the Oregon Trail, the post World War II growth of the wood products industry, or our most recent population wave from California and the East Coast.

These immigrations occurred in part because of the clean air; beautiful beaches, deserts and forests; clean rivers; proximity to oceans and mountains.

As economist Ed Whitelaw said, Oregonians do derive an economic benefit, known as "the second paycheck" from the environment.

Still, we have a severe problem of underemployment. A lot of people doing valuable things are not valued economically ­ including many environmental advocates.

Meanwhile, the amenities that brought people here are threatened by congestion, air pollution, ground water pollution, increased use of automobiles and loss of access to pristine settings.

There's an assumption on both sides that situations favoring both industry and environment are exceptions. As everyone can realize, we don't need to assume that all the time.

Pete Sorenson, of Eugene, Oregon, is a Lane County commissioner and former Oregon state senator.

Reprinted on this web site with permission.