The US government will encounter next month a strong but little-remarked reason to enact sound energy policy. The World Trade Organization convenes Nov. 9 in Doha, Qatar. Constructive action on energy would strengthen US arguments in support of international trade. Energy mistakes-including inaction by Congress on energy policy-would have the opposite effect.
Progress on international trade has seldom been more important than it is in the confused aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania. The attacks aggravated a worldwide economic slowdown. Evidence builds that the world is in recession. In response to the attacks, the US, the UK, and other allies have begun what promises to be a long and expensive war. Prompt economic recovery is crucial to that effort.
At this moment, nothing would be better for the US and worldwide economies than strong international action on behalf of trade. The war on terrorism thus should give economic priorities new urgency and dissipate the fog that surrounded trade issues before Sept. 11.
Progress slowing
Until the terrorist attacks, sometimes-violent activism by antiglobalization groups was slowing progress on international trade and winning unwholesome sympathy in the industrialized world, notably in Europe. But one of the activists' core arguments has weakened under growing evidence, such as that reported by the World Bank in June, that globalization improves conditions of poor countries willing to accommodate trade. And the terrorist massacres have raised concern about all forms of extremism.
Some antiglobalist groups recognize these hazards to their dissonant cause and say they'll refrain from the hooliganism that has so far characterized their politics. Others promise to press on with no change. With a war under way and economies deteriorating, sensible negotiators at Doha should have little trouble finding higher priorities.
The overarching goal, given new focus by the war against a demonstrated global threat, must be restoration of economic health. The arguments shouldn't be about whether trade should increase; they should be about how to make the increase occur. And the US, as the leader of the war on terrorism, should invigorate its leadership of the discussion.
Action on energy can strengthen or weaken US leverage in that crucial role. US energy policy demonstrates US commitment to economic growth. It's that simple. If the US government wants governments of other countries to behave responsibly on trade in support of global economic health, it should behave responsibly on energy in support of the US economy.
In US energy politics, of course, the central issue is leasing of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain. The policy reality is that Congress can do much to improve US energy conditions without approving ANWR leasing. For starters, it can and should fix taxation and other impediments to domestic production of oil and gas.
It should also, however, approve oil and gas leasing of the ANWR coastal plain-and not just because of the potential energy supply. Beyond its great geologic promise, ANWR symbolizes the US approach to development of natural resources. Until now, the federal government has allowed environmentalism increasingly to block development-not just in ANWR and not just of hydro- carbon resources. Too often, the obstructionism grounds itself in environmentalist exaggeration-and in ANWR's case outright lies. It dominates policy-making nevertheless. And by limiting development of natural resources, it limits economic growth.
Environmental agenda
With ANWR, there is no sound environmental case against leasing and drilling of the relatively tiny area of industry interest. That area is not pristine, as leasing opponents claim. The industry can drill and produce there without causing significant or lasting damage. Yet the resource lies unevaluated, the tremendous economic potential thought to exist there unrealized in deference to an environmental agenda that measures success in terms of the economic activity it prevents.
Well, it is time to ask the question: Is the US serious enough about economic growth to adjust this self-sacrificial political formula, or is it not?
To this question, action by Congress on energy policy is supremely relevant. Governments pressured in Doha to act seriously on international trade will no doubt be eager to learn the answer.
