Doug;

This, I think, is really a case of (as so many have put it) the government wanting a fast short term gain that will make little to no distance even in the mid-term, let alone in the long term.

Even the most optimistic estimates don't give the Alaskan reserve more than a 3-5 year yield without increasing our foreign purchasing. And even (to me) more importantly, by giving the temporary 'security blanket', it merely sets us up for more of a problem later.

I'm a tree hugger, I admit it. Used to work for the Nature Conservancy, etc. etc. However, I'm not opposed to necessary exploitation, as long as it results in a greater good. Currently, the reasoning seems to be that we'll drill in Alaska and SOMETHING will come along and save us. What that something is, noone knows or seems to be willing to invest in to develop (unless it's nuclear or petroleum based energy).

What I find interesting (and yes, this IS a swipe at the way Bush is handling things) is the inconsistent reasoning going on between departments. When it comes to anti-missle defense, it's perfectly OK to sink billions into an admittedly imperfect system, because it'll eventually hopefully provide dividends. However, when it comes to alternative energy systems, it's NOT OK to do the same.

I'd feel a LOT better about Bush Jr's stance on energy if there were an acutal plan for future development beyond "we're doing fine, except for this crisis thing, and we can build more plants to burn more dwindling fuel, and everything will work out". As it stands, I get a sinking feeling he's angling to keep things afloat until the end of his administration and leave the likely Democratic successor to deal with the problem he's forestalled.

Yes, it's a partisan view. But it's the one I got.

M