Nice try!

This article reflects the modern zero sum, winner take all political climate. Why can't each side ever acknowlwdge ANY valid point from the other?

The whole sarcastic exercise of this article falls apart at "We will have sacrificed precious decades in which we could have gotten a leg up in figuring out how to maintain prosperity in a carbon-constrained future."

Why? Are we truly not capable if pumping and developing replacement sources at the same time? If there are viable alternatives, as I suspect there are, why not ease the near term economic strain while working on other sources?

Note that if the bill to drill in Alaska had not been vetoed, in part because it would take "too long" to have any affect, we would have have that source today. And if have having more crude does't affect price, why are we asking the Saudis to incease their output?

The truth is, like it or not, we need to do EVERYTHING that we can. It will help in the short and long term. I do not care who get the credit -just get on with it and quit bickering.

More drilling will have no effect on the price of oil, except years from now, maybe, in a far-out scenario. This McCain/W. Bush talk is a cynical silly lie.

Everybody knows this, even (especially) McCain and Bush, except for some simple-minded American voters. You posters who go on and on about theoretical details know it.

So please stop. You are embarrassing yourselves. You make Americans seem extremely stupid. Think about what actually is true, and then calmly go in that direction, please.

P.S. Nuclear plants create eternal poison. We do not need to go that way. Let's use our expertise in extreme construction (nuclear plants, oil rigs et al.) to build tidal platforms, current generators, durable solar plants...

This article is exactly what I was getting at in my Keillor letter this morning. Bravo Mikes Pace. Thanks Andrew for treating these readers to a nice dose of reality. We really appreciate it.

In fifteen years, we still can have our natural beauty, plus a good alternative energy setup, plus even our oil reserves! Let other countries drill and nuke. This is the post-filthy world, starting now.

P.S. Andrew Leonard, at times such as this, you get responses from people who usually do not read you, responses from knee-jerk cliche folks. Pay no attention. And, to you knee-jerks, take a look at Andrew's previous post, from yesterday. Then maybe look at some of his prior trans-political stuff Realize that you are dealing with a pretty smart guy, not just some gotta-meeta-deadline blogger.

Too bad Conservatives and Conservation don't go together. It's ironic that those who consider themselves conservative are not that way about resources. Yet people who are liberal are conservative about resources. I sense a change though as more and more people are starting to realize that the natural resources we use are finite. We have to conserve and reuse what we have in order for future generations to have a chance. If not, we will be dooming them - and they will hate us for it.

Was a national policy that prevented us from replacing diminishing domestic production due to aging oil fields, and instead funnel currency to banana republics.

What's really reckless is not producing more oil--which will lead inevitably to the use of more coal with all of its accompanying environmental problems.

Our policy has been no new drilling for the past 25 years. Each year, the Dems say, "Well, it won't come online for at least 10 years, so it can't be part of the solution." That's what was really reckless...

One question for all y'all who are getting so upset at the idea of NOT immediately drilling offshore for oil:

Is oil an infinite resource?

If you answered, "It's not," how in hell can you justify NOT starting immediately on a campaign of conservation and conversion of our economy to renewable energy resources?

I love how he gives the liberal, “We’ll destroy the planet!” argument as much weight as the conservative “increasing supply will lower costs” argument. It’s like giving equal weight to the stork in a conversation on reproduction.

Hundreds of oil platforms were lost during Katarina and no major oil spills.

Absolutely no proof to support the statement “Unrestrained burning of fossil fuels will continue to raise global temperatures and contribute to rising sea levels and devastating extreme weather events.” Not only is it a Marxist lie, it is impossible for man is not God and he cannot change the Heavens.

Since, we cut off German’s oil supplies during WWII mankind has been looking for “development of alternative energy technologies.” They said this during Carter in the 1970’s, during Clinton in the 1990’s, and now. So why don’t we have any yet, and what makes anyone think that they will be developed in the next 70 years? This is the thinking of someone who wants something for nothing. Free energy Man, that is what I want! Yet the same environ-Marxist resist or try to eliminate clean renewable energy, LIKE HYDROELECTRIC, because they have prevented the building of more dams and want to tear down those already up.

The ONLY way a Marxist Liberal can make a point is to LIE or ignore the truth. They believe it’s OK to tell a lie to prove a greater truth. How sick.

I agree with Mr. Leonard in most of his article. At the end of it however he speaks of two car companies and their respective markets. This particular saga occurred in past times and perhaps Mr. Leonard is not as old as I in remembering a car company that built s small vehicle that got reletively decent gas milage (for the year of the car) and that company went out of business because they did not provide what the American public wanted to purchase. Anyone else remember the "Rambler". Good luck selling this analogy to someone that has already seen the demise of good cars because they did not meet the needs of the times. Perhaps that is the way GM goes, but there you have the world market at it's best. We taught the rest of the world everything we know and they can do it cheaper.