ANWR NOT JUST AN ENERGY ISSUE

In the still young era of environmental politics, the U.S. has, at all levels of government, amassed an impressive record of costly overreaction. The country has committed itself to billions of dollars' worth of expenditure to do without chemical food additives suspected of raising cancer risks, to rip carcinogenic asbestos from buildings, and-in perhaps the most dramatic episode of all-to evacuate an entire community in Missouri polluted by a set of suspected toxic substa

Oct. 28, 1991

3 min read

Chemical food additives turn out to be much less carcinogenic than many additive-free vegetables and fruits. Scientists in growing numbers assert that asbestos securely in place poses no significant cancer threat to building occupants and certainly less than asbestos stripped in a careless rush. And dioxin now looks less risky than a week in the sun. Billions spent reacting to these environmental scares could have been spent more healthfully on cancer research, on education, even-perhaps-on the endeavors of less heavily taxed people to subsist and enjoy life, whatever its risks.

EFFECTS ON PEOPLE

Hindsight is hindsight, of course. Science evolves. Where the common welfare is concerned, it's better to be safe than sorry.

But what about orchard owners devastated by an environmentalist public relations campaign against an apple growth retardant called Alar? What about school districts forced to spend scarce funds on unnecessary asbestos removal programs instead of on books and teachers? What about 2,239 people needlessly displaced from their Times Beach, Mo., homes in 1982-83? What about a sputtering U.S. economy subjected to costs with no end each time people can be scared senseless by something in their surroundings?

Sometimes, environmentalism is wrong. Too often, its errors hurt people. Congress soon will have a chance to demonstrate overdue recognition of these realities in an issue known best by its acronym: ANWR.

It happens that, without leasing of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain, energy policy legislation will have little point. If the U.S. will not accommodate exploration and development of its best prospects for the sake of significant additions to domestic petroleum supply, energy policy cannot mean much. But more than energy policy is involved. ANWR leasing reincarnates the now-familiar confrontation between environmental fear-mongering and development interests, which in this case tie with matters of national economic consequence. In the ANWR issue, however, there's no question about what retrospective science might show.

ANOTHER SCARE STORY

The bleak ANWR Coastal Plain is not the pristine natural treasure that leasing opponents say it is. Drilling and production activities would not spoil it. The case against leasing is political rubbish. It's another environmentalist scare story, lacking even the benefit of alarming findings from preliminary science. The ANWR issue boils down to environmental tokenism. And on that basis-aside from the energy policy implications-it's extremely important.

In the ANWR issue, Congress has a chance to make some crucial distinctions between the helpful and the reckless in environmental policy-making. It has a chance to lead in an area where it so far has blindly followed.

Is the U.S. ready to take this essential next step toward environmental maturity? Participants in a jeopardized economy will want to know. So, it would seem, will distressed apple growers and former residents of Times Beach.