In national politics, we’ll just be moving on the next distortion and distraction subject.

I have a suggestion, how about a vote?

Let that new administration, together with that new Congress, make the decision.

How do you fly a US fighter jet in 2020 with fuel that was burned in Gore’s Prius in 2015?

Maybe in 2100, the grandchildren of those who now have young children, would like to have a little of that oil left, hopefully not to burn.

SO, instead of opening everything up (or not):

1) Set a congressional cap [not a floor] on the total amount of new areas leasible, which rises from 10% in 2010 to 100% in 2100 [for approximate example.]

2) Still subject to state rules.

3) Would need rules to arbitrate amongst states, if several states wanted to allow drilling and the total crossed the limit.

4) ANWR can be left as the last piggy bank for the great grandchildren to decide if they want to open or not. By that time, the permafrost wil lbe gone anyway.

===
Since it takes years to lease drill rigs, explore, drill, and then build infrastructure, if one allowed everything at once, we’d get a mini peak oil (of the new leases), probably around 2030-2050. With this scheme, once things got going, we’d get a modest additional increment of oil, but it would tend to stretch out for 100-120 years, and it would be clear that there would be no magic giant jump in oil production.

Note: from an oil company view, this at least has the plus of offering a little more predictability.

[JR: I think it’s very important for any Democrats who agree to this deal to make clear that the offshore drilling is a placebo.]

Democrats are not giving in to Republicans as much as giving in to public opinion. Something that in an election year is obviously very powerful.

What’s gained is that the drilling issue won’t be an issue during the upcoming elections that would hurt the Democrats, and whatever substantive energy independence/climate progress steps are attached by the Democrats in the compromise are also part of the gain. If you don’t get those, don’t do the compromise, and let the public understand why.

Also, isn’t there something of a sense of urgency for solving these problems a bit?

“By giving in to the Republicans, we reinforce the false public perception that expanded drilling is an energy solution.”

Not if the voters understands the compromise, which should be part of the communication strategy.

For full disclosure, I’m not a Democrat, and a lot of supposedly conservative values are important to me - like liberty, low taxes, limited regulation, entrepreneurship, and a balanced budget. However, I’m not a Republican either, and I do think (and even thought in the 90’s during the 4c gas tax debate) energy independence is important (as well as climate progress, but I’ll take energy independence as a priority now) … so take what I say in that context.

Realistically everyone who is not in the pocket of big oil (and maybe them as well …) knows that this move will do nothing for the price of oil.

But wait, there’s more: the Republicans next move will be a cry to remove all those pesky environmental regulations that are needlessly delaying the oil companies from moving the oil rigs in place right now. Anyone want to bet that’s what we will hear next?

red.
The Senate Republican bill contains unprecedented support for plug-in and EV.

[JR: Iraq? No change? Campaign funding? No abandonment of core principles. Drilling? I’d rather have thought you’d like someone who can compromise.]

Obama hasn’t changed his position on drilling, he is just willing to compromise in order to get something a lot more important. This is the sign of someone who could get things done.

There are two problems 1) the ’stop big oil’ rhetoric has been used against energy independence as ‘looney liberals are siphoning your gas, and stealing your freedom’
2) the positioning for the campaign is not the solution for the success of renewal energy and independence longterm.

Tying one’s tail to a candidate’s kite might not be strategically or tactically prudent. McCain actually brought a bill to Congress in 2003 putting a price to emissions and carbon. His comments at the time it was murdered by
“the unholy alliance of oil, auto and coal interests” demonstrated his signature stubbornness to not lie down when he had been shot.

I suggest all future discussions in the political arena be framed as “The right to clean air, energy independence only being achievable through our innovation and ingenuity. The solar industry was created by Do it yourselfers.

Whatever happens during the election, significant solar and alternate energy strategists must give the candidates redemptive ‘outs’ or else.
Big Oil, Big Coal, and Detroit will win if the altenergy group dons their tinhats and starts driving nails into the redwoods.

[JR: Don’t know what planet you are talking about. Show me a link from 2001 for this deal.]

I agree completely. Unfortunately, once again the press has blown the coverage of what Obama said — as they tell it (including NPR) he flipped his position. However, he offered to compromise on limited offshore leasing if it meant the rest of his energy package was accepted.

That’s a bargain, considering the oil guys are after the leases, not the oil. If they wanted oil, they’d be drilling in the OCS leases they have now — there’s more oil there than in ANWR and the new OCS leases they’re after.

What’s not to like?