作者：德馬丁　(美國坦帕市南佛羅里達州大學環境政策博士)

　　伊拉克位在軟質砂岩薄層覆蓋著的油田上，這裡的油礦藏量是世上第2大的，且容易鑽取，這意味著開採伊拉克的石油相當划算。美國是世界上最大的石油消費國：美國人只佔了世界人口的4.5%，卻用掉全球30%的石化燃料。無怪乎美國政府甘願破壞國際法，入侵伊拉克。Michael Kinsley 在華盛頓郵報（2003年3月10日，A21版）質問：「為何在伊拉克的核武值得我們以戰爭來解決，而在北韓的核武卻不需要？」

　　美國官方聲稱，由於伊拉克製造原子彈，必須入侵伊拉克，但是聯合國武檢人員並沒有找到核武工廠。美國官方又宣稱因為伊拉克有生化武器，必須以戰爭方式解決，但是聯合國官員表示伊拉克正在解除武裝。接著美國官員聲稱伊拉克支持蓋達恐怖組織，因此必須發動戰爭。但是美方提出的報告並無法說服聯合國安理會。最後美國官方聲稱伊拉克必須實行民主制度，侵略伊拉克是必要的。這似乎是一個高尚的目標，但是它需要被檢視。

　　也許美國真的不惜犧牲他的子弟兵來成就一個民主的伊拉克，但是相較過去美國在中東的一連串行動，這次的入侵行動顯的很詭異。1991年，美國破壞了伊拉克什葉教派和庫德族的民主起義運動。2001年，當以色列的不民主的政策招到撻伐，美國便退出了聯合國「反種族主義會議」。2002年，美國增加了以色列在巴勒斯坦佔領區的經濟和技術支援。直到2003年3月的今天，美國並未協助過伊拉克的流亡異議份子，雖然他們明顯會是未來伊拉克民主政府官員的候選人。相反地，媒體消息顯示，伊拉克軍政府將可能會在美國陸軍中將John Abizaid的運作下成立。

　　若是從美國當局的「後台」來看，這個問題就更加嚴重。這一任美國總統是挑選出來，而並非民選的。布希能成為總統並不是靠選票數多寡，而是聯邦法院將他推上權力中心的。小布希與石油業有著密切關係早就不是秘密，然而他卻不是唯一的一人，其他人如副總統錢尼（Cheney）、國防部長倫斯斐（Rumsfeld）、阿富汗特使卡裏紮德（Khalilzad）、聯邦貿易代表佐利克（Zoellick）、白宮國家安全及外交顧問萊斯（Rice）等。

　　他們和石油大戶的來往細節也不是秘密了。小布希在1978年時創立了Arbusto石油公司。石油公司Harken Energy於1986年買下Arbusto，小布希擁有Harken股票並成為該公司顧問。副總統錢尼直到2000年都曾是Halliburton 油田設備公司總裁。國防部部長倫斯斐曾為「新美國世紀」運作過政策計劃，該計劃是由錢尼、伍夫維茨、佛羅里達州長及小布希的兄弟-傑伯‧布希在1988年共同推動的，旨在遊說柯林頓政府進軍富藏石油的伊拉克。阿富汗特使卡裏紮德目前掌控了現今阿富汗政權，直到1998年他曾是Unocal 石油公司顧問，當時他就曾遊說塔利班政權建造一條經阿富汗的天然氣管線，卻沒有成功。如今這條管線正在建造中。聯邦貿易代表佐利克也曾經擁有Enron能源公司的股票並為該公司顧問。國家安全及外交顧問萊斯也曾為Chevron石油公司效命。為了表彰她的貢獻，Chevron以她的名字將一艘超大型油輪命名為「康達莉扎．萊斯」（Condoleezza Rice）。

　　有一些民主機制是可以制衡決策階層的，但由於2000年大選疏失，這些機制就被削弱了，911事件後，更加削弱了制衡的力量。基督教的信仰對布希總統是非常重要的。但如同任何一個民主國家，美國的政體是政教分離的。在2000年大選後，兩者間的區隔部分的被消除了。美國司法部長Ashcroft 每天都要求司法部同仁舉行基督教禱告；白宮中也舉行查經班；基督教社福團體現在也接受聯邦政府的錢。筆者並不會介意小布希和他的行政官員們是怎麼樣的基督徒。但是盡其職責，他們必須公私分明。民主國家的領導人以合理的言辭闡述公共政策，以信仰與上帝的語言談論私生活，這兩部分若是顛倒，就是獨裁的象徵了。

　　對領導人其他制衡機制來自於國際公約，但是布希政府卻拒絕了多項國際協議-像是不簽署為抑制全球暖化的京都議定書、不遵守反彈道飛彈條約、不參加國際犯罪法庭等。

　　民主國家允許對爭議性政策有反對的意見，並使人民可以限制領導人的自由，但在911之後，「愛國者行動」立法增加了秘密調查權，如秘密跟監、根據秘密證據進行逮捕。（這意味著：如果你在美國被逮捕，不需要被告知原因）。媒體的言論自由也被腐蝕了。根據「無國界記者」2002年所發表的媒體自由指標，美國的排名下滑至17名，比許多拉丁美洲國家還要落後（如波多黎各第15名）。福斯電視（Fox-TV）、CNN或MSNBC 等新聞頻道都不再對政府政策直言。

　　民主立基於權利的分則。政府各部門是分權，是相互制衡的。由於每一個部門都掌控了另一個部門，所以沒有誰能掌控所有事。這樣的分權機制保護國家免於獨裁者之手。這樣的機制在多黨制的國家最為理想，但是在美國則不然。歐亞的民主國家通常有3、4個政黨，甚至更多；美國卻只有兩黨。2002年民主黨在美國各州的選舉中落敗後，共和黨控制了所有政府部門：掌握行政大權的總統是共和黨籍、掌握立法的參眾議院多數是共和黨籍、掌握司法大權的聯邦法院法官多數是共和黨員。先前行政、立法、司法分權的良善機制已經改觀，所有部門完全被一個政黨所掌控。現今，美國政府可以為所欲為了。

　　一個月之前在南佛羅里達州大學，我的同事和一個研究生被逮捕。警察聲稱他們是恐怖份子。兩位（Al-Arian博士與Hamoudeh先生）都是巴勒斯坦人。教職員和學生們都沒有反對聲音。

　　基於以上種種事件發展，美國入侵伊拉克最終理由-散播民主自由－是非常沒有說服力的。

　　白宮一直以道德說辭強調：海珊是邪惡的、自由是善良的，我們應該為了善良打倒惡魔。這項侵略行動在道德上站的住腳嗎？

　　從任何標準來看，海珊的確是惡魔。在伊拉克沒有言論自由，有許多異議份子仍在獄中。1992年，軍方為了鎮壓反對人士殺了一村子的人。海珊的背景更是有過之而無不及。他成為獨裁者之前，是一位執行濕刑（wet work）的警官。所謂濕刑就是會讓人流汗、流血、嘔吐、排泄的酷刑。他甚至對被指控的人，剝除他們的指甲、頭髮等。他是個拷問者。

　　大多數的政府都反海珊的，這個立場在聯合國安理會中並沒有分歧。分歧的意見並不在於最後的目標-期待一個伊拉克民主政權，而是在於以何種手段來達成，是應該用經濟制裁、國際壓力，或是戰爭武力等等。結局是否能合理化手段？這應該要看善與惡如何去權衡了，也就是說，比較這些方法，哪些是可成功的，道德的代價又是什麼？

　　經濟制裁只有部份成功。12年的禁運綁住了伊拉克，但仍無法使其民主化。在實施制裁之前，伊拉克曾經攻擊鄰國，之後就沒有。由此可知經濟制裁的確奏效，最終減低了威脅，但還是無法建立民主化的伊拉克。直到現今為止，這個國家都一直維持獨裁政權。也許這不能歸因於禁運無效，1991年時，伊拉克曾經在美國承諾支持下有過政變，但當承諾的支援沒有到來，叛軍潰散了。美國寧可要一個穩定的獨裁政權，也不要不安定的的民主政權。歸咎聯合國的制裁的不公平，不如說錯在美國的政策，然而傷害已經造成，戰爭已經開打。

　　戰爭是有其道德代價的。在過去一個世紀以來，每次戰爭所波及的無辜受害者不斷的增加。第一次世界大戰（1914-1918年）其間，死傷的絕大多數都是軍人，平民約少於1/4。二次大戰（1939-1945年）其間，軍人和平民的罹難者各佔一半。越戰（1964-1975年）中，罹難者裡有1/4是軍人，3/4是平民。在上次波灣戰爭中（1990-1991年）1/5是軍人、4/5都是百姓，那一次戰爭中有206,000伊拉克人被殺（109,000男性、23,000名婦女以及74,000孩童）。根據保守估計，戰後另外有10萬人民（不包含軍人）死於因戰鬥和轟炸而直接導致的傷殘和疾病。雖然美國政府一直以精準的轟炸自豪，天真地假設平民一定可以免於波及。但是他們就是無法躲過，他們會如同過去一樣死於戰火之中。

　　由於絕大多數因戰爭而受苦的人都不是應該承受的人，侵略行為絕對是錯的。但這是需要被界定的，當你遭受攻擊時，你有權反抗。如果你有能力幫助被攻擊的弱者時，你有責任去戰鬥。在二次大戰期間，聯軍入侵法國是對納粹侵略行為的正確反應。同樣地，1991年波灣戰爭也毫無疑義。伊拉克首先侵略了科威特，聯軍以入侵伊拉克作為回應，幾乎直搗巴格達。那次是對不正當的侵略做出的適切反應。相反地，這次是主動，不是被動反應；是攻擊，而非防衛；是首先出擊，而不是反擊。首先出擊是錯的。

　　美國政府會反駁-錯在伊拉克，首先攻擊的錯誤是可以因產生的道德利益所正當化的。道德代價是傷害和苦難；道德利益就是自由和平安了。丟一個石頭到池塘中，會引起激濺的水花和向外擴散的水波。伊拉克是池塘的話，美國就是石頭，入侵行動是水花，代價和利益就是水波了。檢視美方反駁的意見需要仔細地比較得與失了。

　　第一波影響到的是伊拉克人民。這不是對海珊一人的戰爭，而是跟他的軍隊。兩軍交戰一定造成平民百姓的死傷，所以不該死亡的居民會因戰爭而大量死傷。

　　第二波影響到的是中東的人民，他們被迫眼睜睜看著外國人為他們決定一切。許多中東居民會覺得再度被殖民了。這會再度催化他們的脆弱，使其蒙羞，並強化他們的反抗情緒。蓋達組織就是賓拉登為了反抗駐紮沙烏地阿拉伯的美軍而應運而生的。賓拉登認為沙烏地阿拉伯是聖地（麥加和麥地那）的所在地，美國軍人不屬於回教徒，他們對聖地欠缺伊斯蘭式的尊重，應該要離開沙烏地。當沙烏地拒絕時，賓拉登成為了恐怖份子。因此，有更多美軍駐紮中東，會導致更多的人支持賓拉登，這樣的假設十分合理。

　　最後影響的是我們所有人。不公不義的情緒滋養了恐怖主義，而入侵伊拉克正好在中東滋養了這樣的情緒反應，也醞釀了各地的恐怖主義。應運而生的恐懼也是一種道德代價。恐懼帶來了擔憂和限制，也摧毀了平安與自由。再者，入侵伊拉克是個挑戰世界秩序的片面行動。國際法禁止主動宣戰，藐視國際法卻沒有懲罰，這會削弱國際法的效力，也減弱了地球村的安定。

　　那什麼又是道德的利益？入侵伊拉克可以伊拉克人民從獨裁者手中解放出來，讓他們有機會過著有希望、更自由、更好的生活。這之前要付出代價（某種程度死亡和破壞），但或許他們會得到他們應有的利益（可能是自由和尊嚴）。我不知道這樣的利益是否就真的超過其代價。

　　中東人民就沒有利益可言了。對他們來說入侵伊拉克並不會帶給他們可以察覺的利益。而這次入侵會帶來的道德代價卻是屈辱、憤怒、紛亂、可能的反叛。

　　世界上其他人也不會正面受益。侵略行為會將油田的掌控權從由伊拉克轉由美國人接手掌控。地球村會持續消費石油，只有美國公司會更為富裕。最後還有一個損失。美國官方希望人民用更多的汽油，而非節省。2002年，小布希削減了大眾運輸和鐵路系統的資金，同時對購買大型轎車、卡車、休旅車的人提供稅賦減免。他鼓勵美國人開車，向來鼓勵消費。

　　全世界將會共同為環境付出代價。國際氣候變遷公約聯合專家調查小組（IPGCC）在2000年發表了他們的調查報告，我們可以知道燃燒石化燃料會造成全球暖化。從美國商業觀點，退出京都議定書和入侵伊拉克都很合理－其他國家付出代價，美國產業受惠。

　　在商業的估算中，還有一個問題。IPGCC 表示：全球暖化會改變全球降雨型態。在赤道和南北半球較高緯度的地區會更為潮濕；溫帶和亞熱帶區域會變的更乾燥。在這些地區的國家，如台灣，將需要因應水荒。這也傷害了農業及全球其他地區。這也會點燃其他層面的資源衝突，不是爭奪石油，而是爭奪水資源。我們可以預見，美國出兵的決定會導致這個世界上更多的暴力、貧窮和污染。渴求石油、愛車的美國人會更富有，但是很難想像，他們要如何在一個怨恨美國人的星球上，享受他們的利潤。

※以上不代表本報立場

版權歸屬 Martin Schonfeld，環境資訊協會（王元才 譯，王茹涵 審校）

Dr. Martin Schonfeld（Philosophy/Environmental Policy University of South Florida, Tampa, USA）

Iraq sits on a lake of oil covered by a thin layer of soft sand. The deposits-the second largest in the world-are easy to access; drilling Iraq's oil is cheap. The United States is the world's largest oil consumer; the American people, 4.5% of the world population, use 30% of the world's fossil fuels. The U.S. government breaks international law in attacking Iraq. Michael Kinsley asked in the Washington Post (10 March 2003, A 21): "How has an attack on the U.S. by a terrorist group in Afghanistan led us to war against Iraq? Why are nuclear weapons in Iraq worth a war but not nuclear weapons in North Korea?"

The U.S. administration claimed that Iraq must be invaded because it builds atom bombs. But UN inspectors did not find nuclear factories. Then the U.S. administration claimed that Iraq must be invaded because it has biological and chemical weapons. But UN officials say that Iraq is disarming. Next the U.S. administration claimed that Iraq must be invaded because it supports Al Qaeda. But the reports did not convince the UN Security Council. Finally, the U.S. administration claimed that Iraq must be invaded because it deserves democracy. This is certainly a noble goal, and it requires examination.

Perhaps America truly wants to sacrifice its soldiers for a democratic Iraq, but it is strange to compare this with its actions in the Middle East. In 1991, the U.S. sabotaged the democratic uprisings of Shi'ites and Kurds in Iraq. In 2001, the U.S. withdrew from the UN Conference Against Racism when Israel was criticized for undemocratic policies. In 2002, the U.S. increased its financial and technical support for the military occupation of Palestine. To date-March 2003-the U.S. does not promote the exiled Iraqi dissidents, although they would be the obvious choice for executive positions in a democratic Iraq. Instead, press releases tell us that a military government will be installed in Iraq, probably run by U.S. Army Lieutenant General John Abizaid.

This becomes all the more serious in light of the background of the U.S. administration. The U.S. president was chosen, not elected. Not the number of voters, but the decision of the Supreme Court put him into power. It is not a secret that President Bush has ties to the oil industry. He is not the only one. Others are Vice-President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Afghanistan Special Envoy Khalilzad, Trade Representative Zoellick, and National Security & Foreign Policy Advisor Rice.

The details of their connections are not a secret either. President Bush founded the oil company Arbusto in 1978; the oil company Harken Energy bought Arbusto in 1986; Bush owned stock in Harken and worked as a company consultant. Vice-President Cheney was CEO of the oil-field equipment firm Halliburton until 2000. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was associated with the policy group Project for the New American Century-as were Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Florida Governor and presidential brother Jeb Bush-which lobbied the Clinton government for an invasion of oil-rich Iraq already in 1998. U.S. Special Envoy Khalilzad, who controls the current Afghanistan government, worked as a consultant for the oil company Unocal until 1998. Then, he failed to persuade the Taliban to construct a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan. Now, the pipeline is being built. U.S. Trade Representative Zoellick owned stock in the oil company Enron and worked as company consultant. Presidential Advisor Rice worked for the oil company Chevron. In honor of her work, Chevron named an oil supertanker "Condoleezza Rice".

There are democratic controls on what leaders can do. But with the 2000 non-election, these controls were weakened, and after the 2001 terrorist attack, they were weakened again. Christian faith is important to President Bush. But the U.S. constitution, as in any democracy, separates church and state. After the election, this separation was partly removed. U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft requires daily Christian prayers from his staff in the Department of Justice; Bible meetings are held in the White House; and Christian welfare organizations now receive federal money. I do not mind how Christian President Bush and his administrators are. But to do their jobs responsibly, their public roles must remain distinct from their private lives. Leaders of democracies use the language of reason for public policy and the language of faith and providence for their private lives. To do the reverse is the hallmark of dictatorship.

Other controls on leaders come through international agreements. But the Bush government rejected international agreements-famous are the withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming, the break of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and the boycott of the International Criminal Court.

Democracies permit popular opposition to controversial policies, and the freedom of the people restricts the freedom of the leaders. But after 9-11, the Patriot Act legalized increased surveillance, secret trials, and arrests on the basis of secret evidence. (If you are imprisoned in America, you are not necessarily permitted to know why.) The freedom of the press eroded, too; on the 2002 Press Freedom Index (by Reporters Without Borders), journalistic freedom in the U.S. has slipped to place 17, below Latin American nations such as Costa Rica (place 15). News channels, such as Fox-TV, CNN, or MSNBC, do not challenge government policy.

A democracy is based on the division of powers. The branches of government are separate and mutually control each other. Because each branch controls the other, no single branch controls everything. The division of powers protects a country against dictatorship. But this works best with a lot of political parties-which the U.S. does not have. Whereas democracies in Asia and Europe have three, four, or even more political parties, America has only two parties. After the 2002 defeat of the Democratic Party in the state elections, the Republican Party controlled all branches of the government: the President is a Republican (executive control); the House and Senate have Republican majorities (legislative control), and the majority of the Supreme Court judges are Republicans (judicative control). The previous mutual control of executive, legislative, and judicative branches has changed into the uniform control of all branches by one party. Now the U.S. administration can do whatever it wants.

A month ago, at the University of South Florida, one of my colleagues and a graduate student were arrested. The police say they are terrorists. Both (Dr. Al-Arian and Mr. Hamoudeh) are Palestinians. There was no opposition among students and faculty.Considering these developments, the final U.S. reason for the invasion of Iraq, to spread democracy, is not very convincing.

Still, the White House uses an emphatically moral rhetoric: Saddam is evil; freedom is good; and we ought to destroy evil for the sake of the good. Is an invasion morally worth it?

By any standard, Saddam Hussein is evil. In Iraq, there is no freedom of press; there are dissidents in jail; in 1992 the army responded to protests by murdering entire village populations. Saddam's background is even worse. Before becoming dictator, he was a police officer specializing in "wet work." He performed interrogations that were "wet", leaving sweat, blood, vomit, excrement, and body parts of the accused behind-he was a torturer.

Most governments oppose Saddam. There is no split on the UN Security Council on this matter. The split on the UN Security Council is not over the end-the desirability of a democratic Iraq-but over the means to achieve it: sanctions and pressure, or invasion and war. Does the end justify the means? This depends on the balance of good and evil; that is, on how means compare to one another-whether they work, and what they ethically cost.

The sanctions only partially succeeded. The 12-year embargo contained Iraq, but it did not create democracy. Before the embargo, Iraq attacked its neighbors; afterwards, it did not. Hence the sanctions worked for the end of a neutralized threat. But they failed to work for the end of a democratic Iraq. The country was a dictatorship then, and it is a dictatorship now. But perhaps the embargo as such is not to blame-in 1991, the Iraqis did revolt, trusting in U.S. assurances of support. When the promised help was not forthcoming, the rebellion collapsed. The U.S. preferred a stable dictatorship to a volatile democracy. Blaming UN sanctions is unfair when U.S. strategy is to blame, but the damage has been done, and now war matters.

Wars have ethical costs. The share of innocent victims increased with each war in the past century. In World War I (1914-18), most of the casualties were soldiers; civilian casualties were less than one quarter. In World War II (1939-45), half of the victims were soldiers, half were civilians. In the Vietnam War (1964-75), one quarter were soldiers; three quarters were civilians. In the Gulf War (1990-91), 20% were soldiers; 80% were civilians. In the Gulf War, 206,000 Iraqis were killed (109,000 men, 23,000 women, and 74,000 children). According to the lowest estimates, an additional 100,000 people-people, not soldiers-died after the war of injuries and illness directly related to the battles and bombing. Although the U.S. government is proud of its precision bombs, it is naive to assume that civilians will be spared. They won't. They will die, as they always do in war.

Because most who suffer in an invasion are not the ones who deserve to suffer, invasions are generally wrong. But this must be qualified. You have the right to fight when attacked, and you have the duty to fight if you can help others who are attacked. In World War II, the Allied invasion of France was an appropriate reaction to the Nazi occupation. Likewise, the Gulf War 1991 was unproblematic. Iraq had first attacked Kuwait, and an international force responded by invading Iraq almost all the way to Baghdad. It was a fair reaction to an unfair attack. By contrast, an invasion now is an action, not a reaction; an attack, not a defense; a first strike, not a second; and first strikes are wrong.

The U.S. government objects-in Iraq, they say, the wrongs of a first strike are justified by the ethical benefits generated. Ethical Costs are damages and suffering; ethical benefits are freedom and comfort. Throw a stone into a pond-there is a splash, then rings of waves. Iraq is the pond; America is the stone; the invasion is the splash; and costs and benefits are the waves. To assess the U.S. objection requires comparing costs and benefits.

The first wave of costs affects the people in Iraq. An invasion is not a fight with Saddam, but with his armies. Battles with armies cause civilian casualties. So a bunch of people will die who don't deserve to die.

The next wave of costs affects the people in the Middle East. They are forced to watch foreigners to make decisions for them. Many people in the Middle East feel they are being colonized-again. This reminder of their weakness is humiliating and feeds rebellion. Al-Qaeda was born from Bin Laden's protest to the American military presence in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden argued that Saudi Arabia is the seat of holy sites-Mecca and Medina-and non-Muslims, American soldiers, should leave, because they lack Islamic respect for the sites. When the Saudis refused, Bin Laden became a terrorist. It is reasonable to assume that more American military in the Middle East will cause more support for Bin Laden.

The final wave of costs is all of us. Terrorism is fueled by feelings of injustice. An invasion fuels the feelings of injustice in the Middle East, nourishing terrorism everywhere else. The produced fear is an ethical cost, causing worries and restrictions, and destroying comforts and freedoms. Moreover, the invasion of Iraq is a unilateral action challenging world order. International law forbids first strikes. To ignore international law without penalties weakens the rule of law and diminishes the stability of the Global Village.

Are there ethical benefits? An invasion will liberate the people in Iraq from a dictator and give them the chance for a hopefully freer and better life. Hence the people in Iraq will pay costs (certain deaths and destruction) but they may also gain benefits (probable freedom and well-being). I do not know whether the benefits outweigh the costs.

The people in the Middle East have no benefits. For them, the invasion of Iraq brings no perceivable advantage over the containment of Iraq. An invasion brings only foreseeable ethical costs to them: humiliation, anger, unrest, and possibly rebellion.

The people in the world will not be positively affected either. The invasion will shift the control of oil from Iraqi to American hands. The Global Village will continue to buy oil, only now it will make U.S. companies richer.

There is a final cost. The U.S. administration wants its citizens to use more oil, not less. In 2002, President Bush cut funding from mass transit and train systems, while creating funding (tax deductions) for the purchase of larger cars, trucks, and SUVs. He wants Americans to drive, and he has encouraged them to consume.

The world community will pay the environmental bill. Since the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Climate Control (IPGCC) reported its research in 2000, we know that the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming. From a U.S. business perspective, both the withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and the Iraq invasion make sense. Other nations will pay, but U.S. business will earn.

There is a problem with the business calculation. The IPGCC concluded that global warming is shifting global rainfall patterns; it will be wetter in the equatorial belt and in the high north and south, and it will be drier in subtropical and temperate latitudes. Thus countries in such latitudes, such as Taiwan, need to prepare for water shortages. This will hurt agriculture, and elsewhere on the planet, this may trigger a new class of resource-driven conflicts-not over oil, but over water. We can expect the U.S. decisions to cause more violence, poverty, and pollution on the globe. Oil-thirsty, car-loving Americans will be rich, but it is difficult to see how they will enjoy their profits on a planet that resents them.

The opinion above does not represent the position of this E-newspaper.