Much changed when suicidal murderers crashed airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11. But much did not.
Something that did not change was need by the US for convenient and affordable energy. The oil and gas industry should resist the temptation to amplify its political arguments on changes that didn't occur.
Others have yielded. In a Sept. 19 message to "Earth Activists," Natural Resources Defense Council Pres. John H. Adams declared that responding to terrorism means "advocating policies that will immediately begin reducing our nation's dependence on oil, whether imported or domestic." He added: "Don't be surprised in the days ahead to hear some in Washington call for a massive increase in domestic oil drilling in order to achieve national security."
Prophecy fulfilled
Congressional Republicans fulfilled the prophecy during a press conference Sept. 25 promoting the Securing America's Future Energy Act (SAFE).
"We suffered a terrible attack," observed House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). "Our military is ready to respond. The airlines are struggling. Economic growth is slowing. American families can't afford spiraling energy costs. America needs the energy security our bipartisan coalition invested in the SAFE act. We need energy security now."
The House acted properly when it passed its version of the legislation, which contains overdue incentives for oil and gas development. DeLay and his comrades were right to encourage the Senate to do the same. But the compulsion is not significantly greater now than it was before Sept. 11. Arguing otherwise, which is perhaps necessary in the coarse realm of politics, raises problems that companies and industry groups should avoid.
One problem is that energy arguments leveraged on overwrought security fears too easily backfire. The NRDC president's statement shows how. From the same security assertions Repub- licans make, Adams draws an opposite conclusion. Because of heightened concern over security, he argues, the US should produce and use less oil.
Adams's proposal is just an opportunistic variation on a standard environmentalist theme, of course. And it's ludicrous. That it flows from the same premise Republicans use to advance their contrary agenda, however, throws doubt on the premise.
Is it really more important now than it was before Sept. 11 for the US to encourage domestic production of oil and gas? No-not in any way with immediate bearing on policy-making.
The terrorist attack doesn't change the fact that Congress should have approved leasing of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain long ago. It doesn't change the fact that US taxation discourages drilling and production in ways Congress should have fixed long ago. It doesn't change the fact that land-use restrictions based on unfounded environmental fears severely limit the country's potential to produce oil and gas. It doesn't change the importance of domestic production to national interests, especially those related to the economy.
Republicans are probably correct to assume that Congress might never remove production impediments without the public urgency generated by crisis. To be sure, Congress would not have ap- proved construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System without the Arab oil embargo of 1973. But the current crisis is different, and the industry should avoid political frays that mine it for sound bites.
Congress should approve leasing of the ANWR coastal plain and take other constructive steps on domestic production because doing so serves long-term national interests, crisis or no-not because of mass murder. The industry that might someday produce oil and gas from ANWR shouldn't want that legacy. The industry that even sooner might have to defend freshly issued ANWR leases against environmentalist flanking movements shouldn't want it either.
Avoiding panic
In times of elevated tension, panic is inevitable but dangerous. In this period of tension, panic over oil isn't justified. Crude oil and products are flowing freely in trade. Exporters are behaving responsibly-in international relations as well as the oil market. The risk of shortage, always elevated in time of military action, nevertheless remains low.
Congress needs to act wisely on energy, of course. But it doesn't need to act out of panic on the subject. What's urgent is the need to nullify an evil threat to which terrorists have cruelly alerted the world. Politics should serve that goal. The goal should not serve politics.
