History will look back in astonishment at how, last week, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Rob Bishop had to plead the case for more oil shale development.

The Republicans appeared in front of the state Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment Interim Committee to talk about a moratorium on leasing federal land for shale development that keeps the United States from using at least 800 billion barrels of recoverable fuel in shale under portions of Utah, Wyoming and Colorado.

Hatch said that since 2000, environmentalist protests over oil shale development are up 700 percent, even as the price of oil has skyrocketed and as the technology for extracting the fuel has rapidly evolved to feasible levels.

"A common argument used by extremists against oil shale production is that it would take 10 to 15 years to get to commercial production, so we should not allow it to start," Hatch said. "Another argument has been that oil shale development is probably not economic, so we should never let companies even have a go at it. Both arguments are based on fallacious circular logic, but the media continues to print them as though they make perfect sense."

There's an old saying that captures Hatch's sentiment: The best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago; the second-best time is now. The same goes for energy development. It should have been started long ago, but it wasn't. So now is the time.

Hatch also pointed out that lifting the federal moratorium would still leave states with the power to block development. For example, many Colorado officials oppose developing oil shale lands. If they want to pass on the billions of dollars such projects would produce, that's their business.

That's the genius of our federal system: It allows different states to experiment with different approaches. But if Utah wants to go ahead with this potentially valuable work, it should be able to do so.

Hatch and Bishop raised other valuable issues. The fact that they had to rehash arguments that were persuasive long ago is an indictment of liberal and environmental obstructionists.

Energy costs have torpedoed the U.S. economy. Russia has just demonstrated that its control of oil and gas supplies has Europe at its mercy. The same holds true for the hostile or unstable states of the Mideast. Castro-wannabe Hugo Chavez uses Venezuela's oil revenue to fuel his ambitions.

Meanwhile, far-sighted legislators have to plead for the United States to develop its own energy resources. It's a sad testament, and perhaps an ominous one.

How high does oil have to go before people of this nation wake up and shake the obstructionists off their backs?

Do you agree?