We have some 30 year-old data using 30 year-old technology, but 30 years ago we did not know how to find shale gas either, and in just the last few years we have found more than a century’s worth.

Let me just ask this question: If we knew that we could supply 100% of our energy needs domestically using oil and gas (big jobs improvement, hundreds of billions of dollars staying home rather than going to foreign countries), and we had a CAFE standard that required true vehicle efficiency (40+ mpg), and a good portion of the revenues from offshore drilling were earmarked for home energy efficiency and energy assistance for low-income homes, should be just say no?

I am proud to say that we live in a LEED-certified home (45% less energy consumption than my prior home), We walk to do most of our shopping, and I drive, on average, 23 miles per week. We recycle everything, get hand-me-downs for our kids, filter our own water, and compost. We’re not perfect, by any stretch. But we try to do our part.

And part of doing our part is our belief that we have a responsibility to look out for those who don’t have the advantages that we do. It used to be that Democrats were for people first. Good people who don’t have my advantages cannot afford $4 gasoline or $0.15 electricity. They can’t afford LEED-certified homes and they largely can’t afford homes near their work. A $20 window kit or a $75 tune-up for their car may mean the difference between meals for the week or day care for the kids.

For those folks, energy is about 15% of their pre-tax income. Cheap is good. Let’s fix the consumption end and the domestic supply equation. Starving off supply will only drive up costs and hurt good people.

I am lucky enough to have stumbled upon a free WiFi tonight. Early yesterday when I purposefully stopped where I knew there was free WiFi I was amazed that you had not yet posted something like this.

I will note that I have heard Barack Obama does not have any second thoughts on approving the offshore drilling he is allowing due to this incident.

I also already had thought about what I myself was going to say to your post. First, while the incident itself in should in no ways can be described as humorous, I did chuckle in anticipation of what I was going to hear from you about it. It is almost a fortuitous coincidence that it happened so shortly after the decision was made by our President for you and for others who share your viewpoint. It is tragic that it happened, but if the tragedy was ever going to happen the timing was perfect for you.

In my opinion, the timing serves me well also. It points out that everyone should be forced to realize the consequences of their continuing consumption of products, including automotive fuel, that comes from crude oil. The citizens of our nation should be forced to look the consequences of their addiction to crude oil in the face. These consequences should not be fostered off on the citizens of nations with far off shores alone.

At times I suspect that the real agenda of those opposed to offshore drilling is to drive the price up. It almost seems that way. Let me give a comparison. Some Republicans are opposed to tax increases because they oppose big government. They do not mind huge deficits because if the national debt becomes large enough they will get what they want because the costs of the interest on the debt alone will force smaller government on the American People. In some ways some environmentalists seem to be almost as shrewd. If they can drive the price of crude oil products up, there will be less consumption because of the costs alone. Yeah, the wealthy will still be able to afford unlimited consumption and the middle class might be able to afford some, although reduced consumption rates, but think of all the reduced consumption by the lower class that is completely priced out of the market.

Please do not think I am trying to paint you as being a hypocrite in this paragraph. Let me first state that if everyone followed your example our nation and our planet would be better off. But let me attempt to make the point that your leadership is not enough. If every American citizen consumed only as much products that come from crude oil as you did, we would still be importing crude oil from foreign sources. We are already staring peak oil in the face and we do not need to artificially and prematurely accelerate the challenge peak oil will present our economy. We can strive to change and break our addiction, but we do not need to subject our economy to shock treatment while we do so.

Now, if you do not want to live with the environmental risks of offshore oil drilling, I suggest you lead by example. While you have made it apparent that you are facing struggles in the current economy, you would be the perfect example of others can help further reduce our dependence on crude oil if we just did it like you did. While you are struggling, I think I can say that you are still more fortunate then many. Even during the best of times, some struggle even more.

Until America comes up with a solution that protects the interests of the poorest of the poor while we break addiction, I am going to insist that consideration of these people’s needs be included.

I’m getting windy. My point is that I am hoping that current experimentation into fusion power bears fruit. Fusion power will solve most problems although even this will not satisfy everyone. However even the most optimistic will admit it is going to take time for fusion power to be realized – for decades have they been saying fusion is only a decade away. In the meantime we need to switch to alternative energy sources (which I insist includes nuclear) to bridge the gap.

My hope is that in order for people like you, Eileen, to continue to provide the leadership we need you do not think you need to become Amish to lead by example.

Of course not. Which is why you have nothing to fear, because you know how much oil is out there and no company is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars — if not billions — for so little return. That math only works in this Congress.