[chuckm]

One of the problems I've seen thus far in the discussion of ANWR is that we are tending to be US-centric. The assumption is that "Cheaper oil = Bad" since it leads to increased consumption has limitations.

When it comes down to it, why do we currently use fossil energy sources? Basically, it is the cheapest available and most thoroughly developed technology. Correct? But are coal and oil the most "evil" energy source? Not even close. I'd argue that the worst offender is cow dung. In sub-Saharan Africa, many of the poorest families heat their homes and cook over dung-burning fires. Such practices, being the only economic solution for those in such abject poverty, produce prodigious amounts of CO2, soot, and carcinogens per BTU (a problem further compounded by low efficiencies). Lower energy prices could potentially make electrifying such homes more possible. Until some "green" tech comes along and produces energy at a cheaper price, I'll err on the side of humanitarianism and oil.

Energy prices in third-world countries also greatly impacts their economic prosperity. When gas shot up to $4/gal here in the states, countries like Honduras faced $5-8/gal... a much tougher problem when the per capita income is less than $2000 a year. Economic development in such conditions is a hard sell.

If ANWR did increase world consumption, I'd believe that a good chunk of that increase would happen in countries that actually need cheaper energy. Americans didn't cut their driving in half when gas prices doubled.

I'm not pro-oil specifically. I am for improving living conditions for those outside the US.