Misconstruing my remarks as always saying "don't do it, it will take too long" misses the point. Blaming Clinton for not signing on to this boondoggle is a red herring. Back then, there was no urgency to drill for that oil so there was no incentive to do so. The oil from Alaska would represent less than 3% of our current oil usage. Even if that oil was already in the pipeline, it likely wouldn't change the price of gas very much, if at all. The price of oil prior to the invasion and occupation of Iraq was $33-a-barrel. With political upheaval in Nigeria further spiking oil prices past $140-a-barrel this past week, its patently obvious that we have little control over the price any longer. What we need is for everyone to face up to the fact that the 4% of the population that is America can not continue to use %25 of the world's oil production without paying through the nose. It's fantasy to hold on to hope that domestic production will have a measurable effect on prices at the pump by the time it gets there. The last thing we can afford now is to believe we should keep doing what we're doing and things will sort themselves out. Talk of drilling and building new refineries is just whistling past the graveyard. We need to start making changes in our own lives and start acting more like combatants than victims. We're at a tipping point and if we don't make the sacrifices necessary, we're going to get pushed over the edge.

Mark, in one sentence, you advocate drilling for oil that is 10 years out. In another, you ask how many years to retrofit gas stations. Your point escapes me. Your questions about my transportation choices and how I heat my home are just accusatory diversions. Are you making the point that we can get through this without any change in habits or lifestyles? There is as much oil today as there was when it was $33-per-barrel, so I think you miss the point that's its more about supply and demand than shortages. The oil can only be gotten out of the ground just so fast. Because there are many more people in the world who are now demanding oil, the people who sell it can charge more. And as more consumers come on line, charge even more in the future. What people don't realize is that the oil companies already hold leases on 68 million acres of federal lands they are already allowed to drill, but don't. This oil is expensive to get at. Its only profitable for them so long as oil prices stay high. Domestic drilling has already increased by 66% since 2000 while gas prices have risen by %220 percent. I don't know how better to show that there's next to no chance that we'll lower prices by drilling domestically. Insisting that what we need is more of the same is just the kind of thinking that will keep people from seeing the urgent need to begin more quickly deploying the alternative energy technology we already have. A power generating windmill takes less than a quarter of the time to start producing electricity than an oil well takes to start pumping oil. Oil platforms cost hundreds of times more to construct than windmills and hundreds of millions of dollars more to clean up after, eventually. It doesn't make sense to divert attention, financing and energy away from long-term solutions by investing in the attitude that got us to this point. Responsible use of our resources and a concerted effort to reduce our use of energy are ceasing to be choices.

There isn't an energy analyst alive who believes we can ever be independent of foreign oil by domestic drilling alone. We import 49% of our oil from North and South America (Canada - 18%, Mexico - 15%, and 16 % from South America). 19% of our oil comes from the Middle East. We get 22% from Africa. So as far as a security issue, does our security have to mean ensuring the security of whatever government controls the oil fields, regardless? If so, then reducing the overall need for oil, wherever it comes from, is even more important than increasing the domestic supply. Most oil analysts agree that we would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by driving less and by driving more efficient cars far faster and more cheaply than drilling ever would. Is it a fantasy to believe that we could greatly reduce our need for oil through conservation and increased emphasis on technology more quickly than we could bring domestic pumping online? I find it hard to consider that, living in a country that made the difference in World War II, developed a space program that eclipses the rest of the world, and continues to be the leading economic engine on the globe. It took less time to defeat the Germans and Japanese than it will take to bring new oil online. We have to start thinking about this with that same urgency and sense of community and sacrifice. Even if we drill in ANWR and the coasts, and managed to get oil in the pipeline sooner, what then? In this case, 'every little bit' wouldn't help much. 3% of our consumption is all ANWR represents. The most generous estimates I could find were that it would mean a one to four cent drop in the cost of a gallon of gas. But, let's pretend that it would drop gas prices more. Let's say by 50 cents. What then? As soon as gas drops, people will drive more, wait longer to change their habits, continue to drive inefficient cars, and the price will begin to climb again. Meanwhile, we've wasted the money, time and effort invested in drilling instead of developing real long-term technology and habits that could help lower our dependence on oil. And we're right back here again.

BTW, I re-read my comments, and can't find where you got the impression I thought Jack Davis could win by giving away gas or that I think he's got any shot of winning. My blog made the point that if Jack believes this, he's disconnected. And don't you think there's a difference between holding a rally during which you hand out promotional items supporting a candidate (rarely are food and drinks free, or I'm going to all the wrong events) and standing on a street corner paying for people's gas? (If you could point me to those free cookouts, please do. I have two kids, and I swear, you gotta feed those little suckers every damned day!! Sometimes twice!!)

Thanks, Lorie. This article seems to say that the oil companies are selling the oil wherever they can get the highest price, patriotism be damned. Reading further, it says the oil isn't up to American standards and can't even be used in this country, so they sell it to people who don't mind poisoning their citizens. It makes the whole push for domestic drilling seem even less likely to make any difference in the price at the pump. Earlier I made the point that it wouldn't be America, but oil companies drilling and then selling the product back to us. Turns out we're not first on their list unless we're the highest bidder.

John, my response to your original post about Clinton was dead on. We were speaking specifically about drilling in that case. But, yes, this problem has been on the horizon for decades, so I find it disappointing that some people hold the opinion that we've become more conservative in our energy usage. I'd like to see your source regarding oil consumption and general energy conservation. Our own energy department's weekly report on oil usage shows that we use 1/3 more today than we did in 1990. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wrpupus2w.htm In fact, the US consumes more energy now than it ever has before. The transportation department says that only this past November have we shown the first decreases in miles driven since statistics have been kept. http://www.dot.gov/affairs/fhwa1108.htm And these miles were driven in vehicles whose MPG performance is lower now than it was 10 years ago. SUVs and civilian Hummers are recent developments. You missed the post where I said we needed to deploy existing technology. That's different from saying those are new ideas that will take as long or longer than the oil from ANWR. That's simply not the case. And you speak of laws that prevent the construction of windmills. Its not about passing new laws forcing wind power on people. Its about lifting the moratoriums. Two different legal concepts. Nuclear is one of the answers. The technology today is substantially advanced from when Three Mile Island went on-line and nuclear needs to be considered. However, keep in mind that 25% of the world's nuclear reactors are in the United States. They already supply us with nearly 20% of our electricity needs. France gets nearly 75% of its electricity needs from nuclear, yet has a fraction of the number of reactors we have, per capita. This is more because they use far less energy per person than we do than it is because of advanced technology. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_generation/gensum2.html But I take issue with your diametrically held opinions that its about more energy, more energy and then, that we're running lean already. Its either/or and the earlier sources I gave make it plain that its anything but the latter. The single greatest impact that we as Americans can make on this crisis is to conserve. The nearly visceral resistance to that concept is something I just can't understand. Some of the same people who recall the nobility of sacrifice during past national crisis's are now the most vocal advocates of not changing our habits or lifestyles a whit in the face of this one. Instead of doing a little fact finding, people are content to listen to whichever ideas ask for the least from them or fit their preconceived opinions, no matter how illusory the results would be, no matter that its only delaying the inevitable.

What statistics do you cite, John?

When we get to the point of "stop with statistics", I have to stop altogether. I make it a point to read and research to form my opinions, so John and Mark, you have me at a disadvantage.