This is a huge issue for me. Re-opening the ANWR had transcended a "mere" Energy Policy debate. There was never any serious debate about what was at the center of Dem oposition to the reopening of this area for exploration and production in a throrough and responsible fashion. of reality: environmental fantasy bordering on cult, urbanite snobbery and disdain for the ex-urban working class, and the reliance on junk science (for worst case scenarios) at the expense of common sense (I always thought pictures of the actual "shrine" spoke volumes to the fantasy of the argument).

It took the 1973 OPEC oil embargo following the Yom Kippur war to finally get Congress to pass the legislation authorizing drilling on the Alaskan North Slope, and I find it amanzing that no one has gone back and dragged out the arguments environmentalists and the Democrats were making at that time against the project.

To those people, it was obvious that the oil pipeline would leak and foul the tundra for hundreds of thousands of miles, or if not, it would block the migration routes of the caribou and destroy the habitats of other native animals. Fast-forward 31 years, and the arguments are almost the exact same, even though none of the ones being made in the early 70s have come true (the best they have is Capt. Hazlewood and the Exxon Valdez spill). While I'm not wild about paying $3 a gallon for premium while on vacation this spring, it make take that kind of shock to the system to finally get the ANWR project going, just as gas prices going up to 80 cents a gallon in late 1973 changed Congress' view on drilling up there in the first place.

"It's a bogus argument, but good political cover."

Its a better argument than all of the vaporization about the prisiine arctic wildneress, which none of those people nor any of their decendants will ever set foot in, and for aught they know, does not even exist.

ANWR is more valuable as an issue than as a source of oil. A lot of smart people don't expect to find much oil there. Meanwhile, the groups will raise over $10 million again this year to "fight" drilling in ANWR -- an innocuous way to dispose of Blue State discretionary income.

Should be "pristine." Sorry.

Curt: If they don't find much oil, there won't be much enviromental damage, now will there?

Robert -

The point I sought to make is that so long as the groups are fighting to preserve ANWR, they are not raising and spending money on other, more potentially harmful, crusades. The ANWR fight is a very expensive one for them, because they are arrayed against both industry and labor, and virtually unanimous public opinion in Alaska. I would like to see the fight go on indefinitely, even as the price of gas climbs ever higher.

Anyway, your point, while perfectly reasonable, reflects an imperfect grasp of the theology. Once man leaves his mark on the land, the damage is irreversible. People of good faith can only attempt to mitigate the harm.

Robert -

The point I sought to make is that so long as the groups are fighting to preserve ANWR, they are not raising and spending money on other, more potentially harmful, crusades. The ANWR fight is a very expensive one for them, because they are arrayed against both industry and labor, and virtually unanimous public opinion in Alaska. I would like to see the fight go on indefinitely, even as the price of gas climbs ever higher.

Anyway, your point, while perfectly reasonable, reflects an imperfect grasp of the theology. Once man leaves his mark on the land, the damage is irreversible. People of good faith can only attempt to mitigate the harm.

Bush is on a roll. I predict we'll find tons more oil than we thought and the sheiks of Araby can start drinking their oil. No money = no terrorists.

Allah Akbar.

Of course they're going to find billions of barrels, near 10 if not 15.