One of the most frustrating aspects of Alaska’s decades-long debate over a North Slope gasline isn’t just the delay—it’s the contradictory positions some policymakers and commentators have taken over time.

In a recent opinion piece, Dan Saddler points to several statements that deserve a closer look.

Today, some lawmakers argue that Alaska can afford to wait another six months—or even until a new governor takes office—before taking up Alaska LNG legislation.

Senate President Gary Stevens has suggested the Senate remain in a “holding pattern,” while others have proposed postponing negotiations until next year. Larry Persily recently wrote that after waiting 60 years for a gas pipeline, Alaska can wait six more months.

Yet many of these same voices have previously acknowledged that time is exactly what Alaska doesn’t have.

In 2012, Sen. Bill Wielechowski sponsored legislation recognizing that Alaska’s property tax structure made a gas pipeline less competitive. He argued that providing tax relief during construction would improve project economics, attract investment, and ultimately generate greater revenues for the state.

Larry Persily agreed.

Testifying before the Legislature in support of that effort, Persily stated that lawmakers “must look at all options to improve the odds of getting a natural gas pipeline” and acknowledged that property tax relief was “one piece of a fiscal structure for a price competitive project.”

Those statements recognized an important reality: competing for billions of dollars in global energy investment requires Alaska to address barriers before investors walk away—not after.

Today, however, the message has shifted from urgency to patience.

The contradiction is difficult to ignore. If Alaska’s tax structure has long been understood as an obstacle to investment, and if Cook Inlet’s natural gas supplies continue to decline, how does waiting another six months—or longer—improve the state’s position?

Delay is not a neutral decision. Every month without action increases uncertainty for investors, prolongs Alaska’s energy challenges, and narrows the window for securing a long-term solution.

Alaskans deserve consistency. If the economic barriers identified years ago were real then, they remain real today. The state cannot continue acknowledging the problem while postponing the solution.

At some point, waiting becomes a decision in itself—and one Alaska can no longer afford.