Sorry but for the party of the working man to countenance _any_ scheme that would dramatically increase the already-substantial economic burden of fuel costs on this country's working class is the opposite of progressivism. Do that and you'll hand this election to the GOP. Not to mention erase all the gains our party has made in the past several years.

If anything we should be easing the burden by increasing domestic supply. Samuelson's right: start drilling.

Before drifting too far from shore on a melting ice floe about global endangerment, could we instead simply stick the more immediate about-face -- flip-flop, if you prefer -- by the commandante-in-chief, his erstwhile successor and al the other free marketeers. They have turned about, unable to face their constituents who they have lectured incessantly about the merits of demand pricing and its supposed flipside, supply. Now that the simpleton economics they advocate and try to practice is biting too large a crowd to severely, they are offering up balms to soothe angered feelings.

Balmy, isn't it? To flip-flop while the Democrats hold a steadier course.

Two issues, energy self sufficiency and global warming, are getting confused. I think it is safe to say that just about everybody, oil companies included, agrees that we need to do something about CO2 emissions, even if some are still inconvinced that a crisis is close at hand. We finally are back on track with gasoline mileage mandates, that substantially reduce  CO2 emissions while and reduce crude oil imports as well, as much as 3.5 million barrels per day.

That being said, we should not create a disincentive for domestic exploration. A few years back, TNR endorsed opening ANWR to development and mandating higher gasoline mileage, also. I think that this would still be good policy, in line with decreasing our dependence on middle east oil. This is not "fiddling while the planet burns". It is sound geopolitical policy.  

ANWR would only give us about 1 million barrels a day. This is very literally a "drop in the bucket" of America's consumption of fossil fuels. Add on the extraordinary expense of establishing wells and transport system to get the crude to market from that particular location, and you can include taxpayer "subsidies" to reduce the extraordinary overhead of setting up operations. The net result is, at best, a bad idea.

1 million barrels per day is over 10% of our crude oil imports and over 30% of our middle east imports. At $100 per barrel it would save $36.5 billion per year in balance of payments and create many high paid jobs. Hardly a drop in the bucket.

ANWR's only part of the huge potential here. Drill off the coasts, too.

This should be part of a grand bargain with environmentalists and the alt-fuels lob- er markets. But it has to be two-way. Do not crucify the US working class on a cross of green....

Mr. Plumer,

Here is actual data from Oil & Gas Journal, millions of barrels per day

Total Supply 21.6

Domestic Production 7.6

Crude Imports           9.8

Product Imports        3.2

Other                        1.0

Product imports are from Europe and the Carribean. Crude imports include Mexico, Canada and Venezuela. Only about 3 million barrels per day come from the middle east.

I am not arguing that opening ANWR will have a significant effect on price. Only that it is the correct economic and strategic thing to do. Particularly, as tep so ably puts it, if used as a bargaining chip to develop sensible long term solutions to energy and environmental concerns. And, yes. Allowing more offshore drilling would also be significantly helpful.

I agree with your comments, Mr. Plumer. Forget Bush. That's the past, even if McCain is next Pres. This seems to me a reasonable compromise that could get bipartisan support if extremists on both sides are not allowed to carry the day.

I'm about to shift my vote to Obama on account of this. He showed some true courage and understanding of the stakes involved. Not pandering like McCain and Clinton.