You might have missed the news, but last week the U.S. Geological Service said it has discovered the largest supply of oil in the lower 48 states. With gasoline flirting with $3.50 a gallon, there should be dancing in the streets.

There isn't -- because oil and coal have become politically incorrect energy sources, an injustice that will soon present political and environmental leaders with the most serious moral dilemma in the green movement's history.

But first, a little about the oil find. It's in the shale rock of the Bakken Formation, which stretches across North Dakota and Montana and kisses a part of South Dakota. In 1995 the USGS estimated that the formation held about 151 million barrels of recoverable oil. On Thursday the agency upped the estimate to 4 billion barrels, or about 25 times the estimate of a little more than a decade ago. If the USGS proves correct, the Bakken could increase U.S petroleum reserves by about 20 percent.

Technology and money are responsible for the higher estimate. Oil that isn't economically recoverable at $40 a barrel is wildly profitable at $100 a barrel. Even more significant are advances in both extraction and in surveying technology.

It's the combination of these three factors that's responsible for the increased estimate of the Bakken Formation's potential.

Even though the new total doesn't measure up to the 7 billion barrels believed to be under Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Bakken reserves are far more accessible. That's due to their lower 48 location and because those 4 billon barrels are in one area, relatively speaking. By comparison, ANWR has about 35 oil deposits spread over 19 million acres.

More important, there are no federal restrictions prohibiting environmentally responsible drilling in the Bakken Formation. And Democratic U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota plans to keep it that way.

That's in spite of Dorgan's staunch opposition to oil extraction in ANWR. North Dakota has been a slow-growth state for decades, and the economic shot in the arm that a vibrant oil industry can provide should easily trump environmental concerns that are mostly theoretical. Dorgan could end up being the first modern-day Democrat to openly pit the real-world economic needs of people alive today against unproven and perceived environmental threats in the future.

Even if he doesn't, the environmental movement is quickly being confronted with a moral dilemma that until now it has been able to avoid. It's been easy to rail against increased energy exploration when the targets are Americans' gas-guzzling SUVs or McMansions that start out at 3,000 square feet.

The no-energy-growth position is going to be a much tougher sell globally. Despite some of the pictures we see on television, the world is getting richer -- not Paris Hilton richer, but escaping-poverty richer. Families all across the underdeveloped world are just now owning their first vehicles, and their first homes with central heating and cooling.

To support the increased growth of emerging economies in China, Asia and Africa, oil production is going to have to double by 2050. Failure to provide that oil will result in denial of roads, electricity and other basic infrastructure to these populations. Like it or not, oil is a major anti-poverty tool -- an inconvenient truth that environmentalists will have to face up to sooner or later.

That truth will eventually force the movement to admit that to alleviate poverty, oil will have to be extracted in both an environmentally sensitive and economically practical manner.

Environmentalists and others will also have to realize that it's more compassionate to put corn in people's bellies than in biofuels. Ultimately, they will also have to recognize that the rights of a person should be at least equal to those bequeathed to animals and plants.

To support a global population that could reach 9 billion people by 2050, the world is going need every bit of energy that can be responsibly developed. Significant energy discoveries, such as the Bakken Formation, shouldn't be feared for their supposed environmental damage. They should be cheered for their humanitarian potential.