Environmental groups keep picking bad times to fight the nation's attempts to develop more energy sources. But now Americans absolutely must resolve to send them packing and make more use of the energy resources right under our feet.

Meanwhile, here in Utah, as across the nation, environmentalist groups continue their efforts to hamstring any move to develop energy resources.

In one case, three groups are suing over the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's approval of a company's request to drill 25 more natural gas wells on West Tavaputs Plateau. The trucks hauling gas from wells on the plateau traverse unpaved roads along Nine Mile Canyon, which is lined with ancient Indian rock art. The Nine Mile Canyon Coalition, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and the Wilderness Society in their lawsuit say the agency failed to properly assess how dust stirred up by the trucks might damage the rock art.

Any grade-schooler, of course, could observe that the rock art has withstood centuries of heat, rain, snow and dust, so it's not clear how a little more dust will be much worse. Besides, genuine development of those resources would provide a windfall to the local government, which could then afford to pave the road and eliminate dust altogether.

In another case, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is protesting an Aug. 19 BLM lease sale of 86,000 acres of land, much of it in Iron County. The group says the BLM failed to do enough planning to ensure that gas and oil drilling won't disturb the habitat of mule deer and elk, in turn threatening the hunting industry. It is not clear that a few gas and oil wells, scattered across vast spaces of the Utah landscape, will harm these otherwise hardy creatures. It's true that there have been observed changes in migration routes and animal population centers in areas of the West with gas development, and the conservation group is right to raise the question.

But the answer must come down to "reasonable effect," not "any effect." We'd like to see our herds preserved, too, but we look askance at the "hunting industry" argument. How much money actually comes into the Utah economy as a result of people hunting deer and elk in the affected areas? We think not much, and certainly not enough to forestall energy development that has the potential to save the American economy.

Most federal laws are a morass of convoluted language created by timid compromises and bureaucratic nit-picking. So it's fair to ask whether any study will be immune from attack. Environmentalists can always question the results and continue to obstruct. That's their track record.

Note two more factors in these cases: The environmentalists demand federal agencies to prove a negative and then prove it about the future. It is a truism that one cannot prove a negative, and the future is unpredictable. It is impossible to prove that Nine Mile Canyon's rock art will be perfectly fine in 2058 or 2108, or that elk and deer will flourish then in Iron County, whether drilling is allowed or not.

The environmental movement in general has shredded its credibility. It never compromises. Never do we hear of a development plan that is blessed by the greens. Any project, even one essential for the economy or our national security, brings opposition. Forget NIMBY, "not in my backyard." For some environmentalists, it's NOPE -- not on planet Earth. They reflexively oppose any way of fruitfully developing natural resources.

This may have seemed tolerable not too long ago. Now, however, energy prices have soared, racking the economy. Russian tanks and planes in Georgia are a wake-up call (as if we needed another one), while Iran works toward making nuclear weapons and Chavez plots on destabilizing the Americas.

And, by the way, do you know how Russia pulled itself back into a position as a world power after Reagan? By developing its energy resources.

Let's take a lesson from our friend Vlad.