I guess the debate is over the meaning of "thoughtful solution". I am in complete agreement that we need alternative fuel sources, and long range strategies. However, we need to address the supply side too. Those gasoline-powered engines just aren't going away overnight. I'm not just talking about cars. I'm also including lawn equipment, generators, etc. And don't forget petroleum-based plastics. Again, alternatives are needed, and soon. But we still need an infusion on the supply side today. Offshore drilling is not the answer, but it still should be part of the overall plan.

Why are we so often reacting instead of planning?

Because conservatives have completely abdicated responsibility. They don't give a damn about plans or solutions; they just deny problems exist and ridicule those who care. They are not part of any solution, just an obstacle. They take harsh stances on moral issues (which are not the provenance of government) to mask their intellectual void. They are vandals in the halls of government.

How else can you explain the Department of Homeland Security?

What is the criteria used to distinguish between those areas where the ban might be lifted, and those areas where it would remain?

If it is OK (i.e., "safe") to drill off Virginia or Louisiana, why is it not OK to drill off California?

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

People what we need is more refineries, without the capacity to refine oil into gas the availability of gas will still be critically short in supply.

It would be more moral and more cheap to institute conservation measures that would save the amount the extra drilling and pumping would get us.

Or we could just preach about more drilling and keep driving our SUVs, figuring something else will give before it hits us too badly.

It is moral to force conservation measures?

Oh brother. Here we go again. How about taking the lead in promoting and "incentivizing" conservation measures? No one need be forced, except it would benefit everyone's own pocketbook if they participated. If they want to pollute our world, make 'em pay to do it, hell yes! Just within the commercial sector, though, businesses would respond to conserving when they see green. They're already doing that, per Friedman's rule; no need for or thanks to getting the SUV-hugging freepers to pitch in individually. The rest of us will do it.

That is where this is going. That freedom of choice thing is destroying the planet so I guess it has to go?

The discussion? That's where you always take these things. Illogical extreme. If you're referring to the removal of freedom of choice, you're being ridiculous again. But, I guess if the choice were between the end of the planet and living in--God forbid--a Francophile world, then yeah, I guess I'd pick the latter. Even one of your spokes-heroes, Ann Coulter, is not too fond of freedom. At least the 1st Amendment, which pretty much sums it up.

Freedom of choice guarantees gas priced less than $4/gal? I don't think so.

Yep. Been there, doin' that.

By the way, if we could lower gas prices by producing more, it would increase demand enough to offset the extra supply. The invisible hand would keep us at $4/gal.

Such is life on the downside of peak oil.

In the completely free and unregulated market dreamworld, gas would be $10 to $20 per gallon. If you complained about it, the oil companies would laugh in your face and tell you to go drill your own oil and refine your own gas if you don't like it.

Excerpt:

Who thinks adding under 100,000 barrels a day in supply sometime after 2020 — some one-thousandth of total supply — would be more than the proverbial drop in the ocean? Remember the Saudis couldn’t stop prices from rising now by announcing that they will add 500,000 barrels of oil a day by the end of this year!

And more:

...two years ago, we opened most of the Gulf of Mexico — with its estimated 41 billion barrels of oil — and oil prices then doubled. The remaining prohibited coastal areas have only 18 billion barrels, of which 10 billion is off of California and likely to be blocked by the state.

In the completely free and unregulated market dreamworld, gas would be $10 to $20 per gallon.

We might already be paying that through our defense budget to protect assets not ours.

Does anybody have any idea what a repeal of the offshore drilling bans would do to/for oil stocks, oil futures, and other financial aspects of the oil world? I suspect that the current push for removing offshore drilling bans has more to do with making money now than addressing questions of supply/demand and prices.

Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!

SteveMule

The Republican push for offshore drilling and oil shale exploitation has nothing to do with reducing gas prices. It's about giving their buddies and campaign contributors yet another lease on future profits.

Liberty and justice for all.

My home

Then it had to be a really stupid question?
or

Then the question was "What will make oil companies even wealthier?"
or

The question was "How can we destroy the earth ever faster?"
or

The question was "What to suggest when you have no new ideas?"

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson