Redstate

One of these ideas endangers me and my family, intrudes on my freedom, and increases bureaucratic control over American lives.

The other is a practical and sensible use of our natural resources.  

They are not equally desirable.

I'm going on this 2004 report by the U.S. Department of Energy.  

1. DOE predicted that ANWR would take about 9 years to come on-line once drilling begins.  I would suspect that that is already a bit long given steadily improving technology and higher prices;
   
2. By 2025 (assuming ANWR opened for exploration and drilling in 2004) DOE predicted that ANWR would increase U.S. production by roughly 25%, and would reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil by about 5-10%, from 70% of total use to 64-67% of the total. Production anticipated at .6 to 1.6 million barrels per day. Total savings would be $6-15 billion/year in 2002 dollars.  I again suspect, but don't know, that these numbers may be a bit low given rising prices.
   
3. DOE predicts opening ANWR would increase jobs, reduce foreign oil dependence, improve balance of payments, and reduce world oil prices (but not significantly - by about 1 to 2%).  Additionally, it could prolong the economic life of the Alaska Pipeline, but this would not be felt until after 2025, as the north slope is projected to produce enough oil to keep the pipeline economical until a bit beyond 2025.

My own sense, based on what I know of past projections, is that ANWR's impact would probably be larger - it seems that studies always underestimate the future reserves, largely because they do not adequately account for increased prices and improved technology making it feasible to get those reserves.

Whether or not I am right, I think ANWR oil is clearly substantial.  No, ANWR doesn't "solve" the energy problem, but nothing on the horizon does.  To demand the total solution or nothing is to fail to take meaningful action to solve the problem.  ANWR is part of the answer, an important component.  Getting a handle on oil imports is, I think, vital to national security.  We cannot afford to keep sending dollars to unstable, often hostile countries.  This will involve some compromises all around.  For example, conservatives need to consider supporting higher CAFE standards as part of a serious push to energy independence.  But it seems to me that ANWR, for a Republican, is a no-brainer. I know Schwarz's district well, having lived along it's borders for a substantial portion of my life.  It is not a district that would punish Schwarz for supporting ANWR drilling - he won his first term in 2004 with over 58%.  Roll Call and CQ call the district "safe Republican." Cook Political Report calls is "solid Republican."  As it stands, the DCCC has not listed this race as one they think they can win.  In other words, Schwarz doesn't oppose ANWR because his district demands it.

But I'm really really really sick of the ANWR whining.  Raise the standards by 1-2 MPG and drill.

ANWR isn't going to contribute appreciably to our nation's energy supply.

1. You don't know that.  In fact, you are wrong.
   
   
2. If Clinton had not vetoed it that oil would now be flowing and would equal the amount we receive from Saudi Arabia.
   
   
3. Why do you care?  Let the oil companies take the risk.
   
   
4. You complain because it is pushed by hope to profit from the revenue.  That's called CAPITALISM.  Heaven forbid.
   
   
5. Rape of the wilderness is just laughable.
   
   
6. You prefer to send more US petro $ to the middle east.  Good luck telling the voters that.

ANWR isn't going to contribute appreciably to our nation's energy supply (we could save more energy if we raised CAFÉ standards and unlike ANWR it wouldn't be a one-time boost).  This is a largely symbolic issue that's being pushed by people who (a) hope to profit from the revenue or (b) use it in their fundraising letters as "another example of Republicans raping the wilderness."

Also why is it bad that he didn't include ANWR in an unrelated bill?  We've seen these sorts of riders tacked onto legislation before.  They usually pass the House, get taken out in the Senate, and taken out in Conference committee and the final bill doesn't have it.  

Seems to me that Schwarz had the good sense not to waste our time on what amounts to no more than political posturing by both parties in the hopes of "firing up their base."