It is not actually a flow rate problem if all the oil is to be burned. If we are going to take the flow rate to zero before all the oil is burned, then yes, you can cast it as a flow rate problem. But, the modeling that has been going on, where the finiteness of the oil resource is considered, does not look like BAU.

CO₂ persists in the atmosphere for quite a while so it does not really matter if you spread out fossil fuel use to leave some for the future (Carter's idea way back) or if you blow right through it. The amount of warming depends on the total amount used. Right now, we've already used too much to avoid dangerous climate change if the most recent climate sensitivity estimates are accepted. So, we are already at the point where we must intervene to put carbon back in the ground. It thus make sense to leave as much carbon as we can in place in the ground. We won't have to clean that bit up. One could even consider the SPR as a form of sequestration and never burn it. But, I doubt we'll do that with the SPR.

We do need to cut our emissions. If we are not discussing cutting them to zero, we are wasting our breath. This is the reason that the SPR and its effect on price is unimportant. Price does not eliminate emissions, it only reduces them for the present and actually makes more carbon available in the long run because we'll go do stupid things like tarsands if the price is high.

I agree about cutting consumption by a significant amount right now to bring the price down. This also frees up funds for a speedier transition to zero oil use and zero emissions.

Chris