Presumably, it's to provide Americans a safe, secure, plentiful supply of energy at affordable prices. Energy brings growth; growth brings economic vitality, and economic vitality brings a higher standard of living.
The author identifies the goal for only one side of the debate.
The other side has a quite different goal: to protect the muskeg, mosquitos and tundra from the depredations of American energy companies, thereby wounding capitalism and bringing us closer to a socialist society.
Accordingly, Congressional negotiators don't have a whole helluva lot of common ground to find...
BTTT!
Thanks for the post, JH2. And, thanks for the pings, TG and mad.