What nonsense -- the idea that we need to conserve the earth's resources for a sustainable future. First of all, there is so much carbon fuel in the ground that we would be hard pressed to exhaust even the easiest to extract portion in a thousand years. There is a 50 year proven reserve of oil with more being discovered every day -- the problem is that environmental activists have convinced lawmakers to put much of it off limits.

Our consumer econiomy, most notably since the 1950's, is what has given us our high standard of living and an education system that is leading us to advanced energy technologies, such as fusion reactors -- which will be available long before we use up even the most easily obtained oil and gas.

Indeed, it is the rich energy-consuming countries that lead in every category of advancing the interests of people and the environment. It is simply reckless and irrespopnsible to suggest that we should become poorer to become more responsible

The United States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day, according to the Energy Information Administration. If we're going with Andrew's best case scenario here, the reserves we're talking about tapping represent 1,000 days' worth of consumption at current levels.

In reality, of course, it would take years and billions upon billions of dollars to bring that oil to market. Let's spend those billions on solar and wind and leave that oil where it is. Why are we even seriously discussing this?

This could be fun. First we take Mr. Leonard's wealth (retirement plan, real estate, other investments) and distribute the funds to low income individuals living in rural areas. These people have a difficult time paying for fuel, much less affording a hybrid vehicle. Next we could institute a windfall profits tax on the television and movie industries and distribute the money to people living in areas without mass transit so they can purchase more fuel efficient vehicles. Added to that could be a 70% tax on profits of companies selling carbon credits. We could distribute the tax revenues to low and moderate income families whose cost of living has increased with higher energy prices. Better than all these, we could pull a Hugo Chavez and nationalize the oil and gas industry in the U.S. We could hire the experts from PEMEX to come to our country and show us the proper way to operate a national oil company. While you are at it, tell us all how long it will be before alternative energy sources are developed and put into use so that we can end the production of oil and gas.

the "something"s being proposed are the same-old same-old feed the rich solutions that have been rolled out every time gas prices have bumped in the last 20 years ... same-old same-old ... plain old opportunism, hoping to translate taxpayer "desperation" into a free pass.

"The Shock Doctrine" is due out in paperback in 06/20....

main thesis is that governments (and multinationals) use crises to shove through "proposals" and special interest/sweetheart deals that would be unacceptable and bitterly fought any other time.

I would hope Andrew Leonard could give it a better shot than this. He, like most of the far left, phrase the issue on drilling offshore as a zero sum game, as if the minute we start drilling offshore we stop investing in alternative fuel sources? For that to happen, the price of oil would have to come down significantly, and the far left is already telling us this will not happen - so why worry? This is a similar tactic used with regard to drilling and the fuzzy Polar Bear, as if drilling meant imminent doom for the Bear, instead of both being able to thrive side by side. Take Brazil for instance, they are held up as one of the standard bearers of alternative energy sources, and yet the minute they discovered 55 Billion barrels of crude off their coast, they didn't fret about ruining their beautiful beaches and tourism, they planned to stick a giant vacuum in that deposit and pump away, regardless of their success with biofuels. So why is it the likes of Mr. Leonard think the U.S. is the only country who would be smart not to tap their own resources? Why is he comfortable to let China drill 50 miles off the coast of Florida, providing good jobs to Chinese and Cuban workers, but not the U.S.? Does he believe the Chinese will be better at protecting our environment? What about Canada and Europe, who drill everytime they find a source, in addition to looking for alternative sources? Why is it Mr. Leonard thinks the U.S. should be the ONLY country in the world who shouldn't develop a short term (more drilling & exploration), and a long term solution (nuclear and alternatives)concurrently? What is he afraid of and not saying?

Let me get this straight: this guy advocates paying for a policy of intentionally maintaining artificially high oil prices through redistribution of wealth and in the next sentence accuses Republicans of fomenting class warfare?

Now that's just dishonest.

... is to peel off blue-collar workers and union members from the Democratic party's coalition and undermine the environmentalists who stand in the way of unrestrained corporate profit-taking. Drilling in ANWR is not going to make much of a dent in current oil prices because it will take years for those fields to come online and there isn't enough oil there to make a long-term difference in supply.

...then perhaps Obama should swallow hard and choose the VP candidate that most Democrats want and who is most likely to win us the Presidency instead of floating options that would take the Democratic Party far to the right.

I enjoyed readin your article very much and will confess to you that I am a conservative.

1. There are hundreds of oil derrecks on the ocean, there have been no that I have heard of from drilling there, not even when the rigs were hit by hurricane Katrina. I know this because it would have been front page news if it happened.

2. The rest of the world is drilling for the same oil we have allowed no drilling for. So we pay them for our oil. Do you pay your employer for the articles you write? Of course not. Neither should we purchase oil drilled and tapped by another country that is within our reach.

3. I would argue that no real change (an obamaism) will occur while oil supplies exist and the oil reserves we hold are massive. They should be used to the benefit our the U.S. and not sqandered by letting others have the oil. Again, you have gas in your tank and oil in your engine. Do you let others have it or do you use it, there is no difference.

Thanks for listening, this is a complicated arguement and entertaining to discuss.

TUCMAN