Oil companies aren’t the only ones profiting from record gas prices. There is another group of people cashing in on the situation whose profit is not financial but comes from wider attention and acceptance of their views. Not a day goes by that we don’t hear their ideas expressed in newspaper editorials, talk shows and political speeches. Though it may seem strange that they profit from high gas prices, these new profiteers are the advocates and sympathizers of environmentalism.

Many think of environmentalism simply as the view that it is important to have clean air and water. Others may think of an environmentalist as someone who merely enjoys the outdoors. But a closer look at the movement reveals its much more destructive nature. Looking at its history, we see a group that has opposed nearly all forms of energy production, trampled over the rights of property owners in the name of rare insects or toads, attacked modern agriculture as destructive and polluting and opposed the development of countless projects – including the New Orleans levee improvements – in the name of wetlands preservation.

A movement so consistently opposed to the creation of such benefits to human life as energy, shelter, food and flood control cannot be seriously viewed as having benevolent intentions.

Yet their views are the same ones manifested in the proposed solutions to today’s high energy prices. Commentators urge that the nation switch immediately to alternative energy sources to avoid impending economic misery. They demand we raise fuel taxes to decrease consumption. They scold us to stop wasting resources by driving and take the bus or ride our bikes instead.

There are two main features to these arguments – their insistence that the energy problem is a collective one, and the corresponding undertones of sacrifice and asceticism. Consider this quote from a letter to a newspaper: “Americans should consider it obscene to be seen driving an H2 Hummer in the middle of the city. That is profligate waste and we can’t afford it anymore.”

Who is “we”? In fact, some people certainly can afford it while others can’t, just like any other economic good. Driving an H2 rather than a Prius is no more a “waste” than ordering a foot-long sub instead of a six-inch. Is it “obscene” to be seen munching on a foot-long at Subway?

It is if one views sandwiches in the collective way many people talk about oil today. Under the view that the “nation’s” oil supply is a vast collective resource, it becomes a crime or at least “obscene” to use more than “your fair share.”

Once we are convinced the problem requires a collective solution, we open ourselves up to inevitable calls for sacrifice. This is the true spirit of the constant exhortations to ride the bus, drive a smaller car, or put up solar panels regardless of whether a person prefers to do those things or not. Personal preference be damned.

But if we are all supposed to sacrifice together, who is supposed to benefit? Enter environmentalism. Considering its endorsement of population control and condemnation of modern industrial society, it is easy to imagine the ideal world of the environmentalist – an idyllic society of scattered villages where people in homespun clothing spend their days tending small gardens, in harmony with nature. Nowhere in this pre-industrial society is oil or any of its products found.

Certainly, environmentalist groups differ somewhat in their ideals and goals. But the fundamental aspect uniting the movement is a negative view of modern industry and technology. The only way to spread this view is to portray modern technological society as inherently harmful and non-sustainable. In that quest, high oil prices are a golden opportunity. Hence the claims that “dependence” on oil will bring economic doom, that “alternatives” to it must be used regardless of economic considerations, that it is a sin to drive when you can walk.

Rather than falling for these misleading arguments, we should view the high price of gas for what it really is – a temporary condition of reduced supply created by growing demand, natural disasters and, ironically, decades of lawsuits and legislation by the environmentalists themselves.

– Noah Stahl is a graduate student in electrical and computer engineering from Fort Lupton, Colo.