...to say "bring on $5/gallon gasoline?" Or even $10/gallon?

By my way of thinking, yes, that will have a profound impact on the American way of life, and a substantial impact (in the short term) on the American economy.

But it will also serve as a major driver to move us from our deeply entrenched habits and inefficient and wasteful purchasing choices. The SUV's demise is already at hand (and not a moment too soon if you ask me!), many manufacturers are rushing to market with hybrids, plug-in hybrids, etc.

Then there are the consumer-oriented products like CFLs (and soon LEDs) for lighting, and there's increased research into wind, solar, and geothermal energy generation.

Given that the products of increased oil exploration will take as long (or longer) than simply bringing some of these new emerging technologies to market quickly, shouldn't the choice be obvious? Especially when you factor in the obvious consequences of drilling offshore and in ANWR?

I worked for three and a half years in the Safety, Health, Environment and Security department of an offshore oil drilling company. We had rigs all over the world. Well control and enviromental management is critical in offshore drilling. I don't think that there would be much environmental impact at all if the US offshore was opened to drilling.

I agree with everything you said in your article except the part about the fouled beaches caused by oil spills. That may happen, but it is by no means a foregone conclusion. I think you will find that oil spills are more closely associated with oil transportation than offshore drilling.

It is important to remember that oil is not the "bad" guy when it comes to global warming, that honor goes to coal. Oil is a henchman at best. I think there are compelling economic arguments for adjusting to oil scarcity now, but as a solution to climate change the priority should be increased energy efficiency no new coal plants.

It certainly isn't an either-or situation, and every little bit helps. However, the planet could stop using oil tomorrow, and would still face the same dire environmental consequences if the developing world continues to rely on coal to power its growth.

Republicans have made hay for decades by portraying Democrats as spend-thrift, reckless liberals. Their side is supposedly "conservative" -- sober-minded, prudent, level-headed -- while their opponents are "radical" -- dangerous, risky, foolish.

But what is the truly "conservative" position on offshore drilling, or energy policy in general? Recklessly exhausting all available resources now, and letting the future take care of itself -- or conserving those resources, investing carefully for the future, and thinking about the long term?

I can't remember what they called it, the thesis-antithesis-synthesis theory of history, but it sure has hung around a long time. Even though central planning a la the dictatorship of the proletariat has long since been discredited, the supposed dichotomy that supposedly would lead up to it -- conservative vs. liberal class struggle -- is still assumed to be valid. For me, it is not so much that the Republicans are two faced. Both they and Democrats have been (for the Democratic version, read Glenn Greenwood's current work on Hoyer) for a long time. What these incidents show, in my humble opinion, is that the whole conservative vs. liberal dichotomy exists mostly in our heads. The only effect this supposed dichotomy really has is that resulting from the fact not that it is true, but that people believe in it.

I am for establishing a new dichotomy; between the patrons and their clients (the rich and their politicians) on one side and the rest of us on the other side. Obama defines this as the Washington insiders versus the rest of us. He implies (rightfully, I think) that the red versus blue is just something they use to keep us occupied while they rob us of our present and our future. The success of his strategy of hope lies in the fact that most of us understand this in at least some unarticulated way. This is one reason why I, a Clintonite, will support Obama. I have some doubts about his ability to pull it off, but if he can, he may go down as one of the truly great presidents. What he is going to have to do is a lot and real fast, before the forces of power and patronage cant tempt the new congress in the ways that have ALWAYS worked before. Let us pray.

According to the article, the total recoverable oil from both ANWR and offshore is 30 billion barrels. Sounds like a lot, until you do the math.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, in 2006 the US consumed 20.7 million barrels of oil per day.

(See http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html)

In round figures, that means that the 30 billion barrels waiting to be extracted would feed our habit for ~ 1,500 days -- just a little over 4 years at present consumption rates.

The solution to solving our energy needs is to be found in expanding the role of renewable energy and reducing our consumption. Nothing else has a chance of penciling out.

The REAL argument is NOT whether drilling offshore and in ANWR will free us from dependence on foreign oil (it won't). Nor is it whether drilling in those locations will wreak environmental havoc (it probably would). It's that aggressively exploiting those resources will create an illusion that will only exacerbate our current energy death spiral.

We were taught, but clearly failed to heed, this same lesson once before, after the oil shock of the mid-1970s. After that, government policy focused on forcing oil prices down and keeping them low. Did people by then realize the wisdom of smaller vehicles, energy-efficient homes, and mass transit?

FUCK NO! In accordance with the Reagan-era cult of shameless extravagance, they went out and bought the street equivalent of the Death Star, built 10,000 sq. ft. McMansions, and voted down light rail because the additional tax bite would preclude being able to afford fender skirts and curb feelers on their new Hummers.

Ideally, we should be true to our inner tree huggers and leave those resources lie. The sad truth, though, is that we may well eventually NEED to tap some of that oil. The purpose, however, WON'T be to make this country "energy independent." The available resouce is now simply too scarce to achieve that end. Prudently exploited, these resources MIGHT at some point buy us the time to keep our economy from tanking, our bodies warm in winter, and our (hopefully fuel-efficient) vehicles from becoming so many scattered monuments to gluttonous human folly.

The problem we have now that we didn't have in 1975 is that now there are 2.5 billion Asians whose appetite is not only just as ravenous as ours for that precious crude, their bank accounts (and accounts receivable ledgers, as well) are also FLUSH with American dollars to buy it with. And make no mistake: If Li Wong or Rajiv Sanjpie offer so much as a nickel more for a barrel of oil, I don't care whether it's pumped from ANWR, the Everglades, off Malibu, or from directly under the White House, Exxon-Mobil will be more than happy to sell it to THEM instead of YOU!

The only real way to ultimately render the price of oil irrelevant to this country is to use less of it - a LOT less! And the time to begin that project is - WAS - 1975.