It is easy to tell angry consumers that are being gouged that we should “drill more, drill now, drill here” to win political points, but if Exxon-Mobil stands to earn record profits by sitting on its hands, that’s precisely what they’ll do. They’re a for-profit corporation, it’s what they should do in the interest of their shareholders.

Any thoughts?

To speak of oil, domestic or otherwise, as part of a long-term solution to the energy crisis makes no sense. Whether or not we drill (more) in the U.S., the world will be out of recoverable oil soon — likely in Didion’s lifetime. (Though there is much debate on the timing.) Even if there was plenty of oil available, drilling it and burning it is not advisable; i.e., consider what we are doing to the planet. Those billions of dollars of investment you allude to need to go toward researching and building the infrastructure to support and provide alternative energy: A.S.A.P. And I am talking about solar and wind power. (I happen to disagree with Obama’s heavy emphasis on the expansion of biofuels.)

Besides, with oil demand growing rapidly in the developing world, especially in China and India, any small increase in domestic production will have a negligible impact on worldwide supply and, therefore, price. Oil is a commodity. It doesn’t matter who drills it.

Incidentally, Canada and Mexico account for 34% of crude oil imports to the U.S. so far in 2008. (The three Middle Eastern countries among the top 15 oil exporters to the U.S. only account for 26% of crude-oil imports.) Canada’s and Mexico’s contributions to all petroleum imports to the U.S. are even higher. I think it is worthwhile to consider who our suppliers are when discussing our dependence on foreign oil. Specifically, the focus on the Middle East is somewhat disingenuous in this context.

Here’s a link to DOE stats on imports:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

And here are a few articles from several news sources discussing McCain’s June 17 speech announcing his energy plan and his support for overturning the moratorium:

The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/19/energy.uselections2008

The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602731.html

Newsweek
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142343

(Note the rationalization problems McCain is going to run into considering how generously W supported the ban on offshore drilling to protect Florida’s coast.)

And here is an article and an excerpt from a recent WSJ article (July 28):

The Republican presidential candidate did not mention that the most promising spots for quick offshore production are off the coast of California, where state and local officials oppose the drilling. McCain wants to lift the federal ban and leave the decision to the states.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/28/mccain-offshore-drilling-is-something-we-have-to-do/

Sounds pretty opportunistic and “feel good” to me.

By the way, no infrastructure is needed for hybrid cars. Go to a Toyota dealership, buy a Prius. That’s it. Infrastructure is needed if hydrogen-fuel cells are going to be viable, and here is where an expansion of solar and wind energy (to produce the hydrogen) can very much come into play.

Oh, and if you want to know what a Republican administration can do towards expanding hybrid technology, check out the paltry $30 million the Bush Administration earmarked for same:

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/06/feds-scrape-tog.html

I don’t see the disconnect between his stated policy and his actual policy. Please elaborate.

P.S. – I like our post-back-and-forth replies

What would John McCain think about these?