Dear Mr. Jacob,

Your piece on the bogus promises of the election season is precisely what most readers at Townhall like - not the rah, rah, rah for a policy or candidate, but stabs at real truth. Since the focus of the article is on the promises of politicians and what they are able actually todeliver, I assume you agree that market forces can resolve both education and health care issues if the market is actually allowed to work.
Regarding energy (specifically oil) you seem to be arguing that the US cannot meet its own needs, at least in the foreseeable future. You don't offer a timeframe, but I would guess you'd be willing to extend your prediction out at least a generation.


Two things should be stipulated going forward. First, oil is part of the energy mix, and an indespensible part. But the bulk of it is still consumed for transport, so in spite of its unique characteristics, it is to some degree replaceable. We may never be able to distill the highly explosive fuels needed for jets and other powerful engines from anything but oil. But most or all of the oil that goes into consumer gastanks can be done away with if we can find another way to turn the wheels. Second, it shouldn't require government action to insure that oil and gas produced in the US stay in the US. Oil is fungible, Europeans don't need US crude when Africa, the Middle East, and Russia are close at hand. Why pay to transport it around the world when everyone pays the same market price? Use it where it is drilled.

The basic problem is clear: We consume 20 million barrels/day (closer now, apparently, to 19 million due to conservation and the slowing economy). Demand is expected to rise to 30 million barrels/day in the next several decades. Presently, we produce 6 million barrels/day in the US. If we cannot significantly increase supply and/or significantly reduce demand, we will continue to be reliant upon overseas supplies.
But energy independence is in fact where we want to be. This issue isn't about free trade. We've been reminded of late that oil is fundamental to our economic health; we don't want to depend upon others for our lifeblood if we don't have to do so. And the longer the supply line, the greater the chance of disruption. The ideal is to buy no oil for American consumption that doesn't flow through a pipe to get here.
Pipelines are hard enough to protect; a future where oil tankers will require attack sub escorts is not inconceivable, and tankers may be obsolete if terrorists are able to secure the kind of laser guided bombs America has used against them with such success. The world is indeed becoming more interdependant, but we want to limit our interdependence on some levels, and this is one. It's fine if we eventually become a massive energy exporter, but importation of energy ought to be avoided if at all possible - it's too important to ourtsource.

Here are some options - a combination of these and others can get us where we need to be:

1. I believe McCain's approach of offering prizes for new developments makes sense. Subsidies can hinder innovation by steering work in a certain direction, or insuring that a greater percentage of research funds are used on worthless projects. A full plate of prizes ought to be offered for energy advances, for everything from maximizing ethanol/acre (hemp is a good bet) to significant advances in nuclear fusion.
Energy is the earthly holy grail - with enough power, anything is possible. Consider the extent of man's advance since combining technology with energy; if energy is abundant and cheap, human beings can continue to advance and enjoy a better way of life. That's not so clear if we are paying more and more just to stay comfortable and to get from point A to point B, and paying ever more for goods produced and transported with energy. So the value of significant advances in some areas is literally incalculable; the prizes ought to be large enough to encourage risk taking - in the billions in many cases.

2. Drill everywhere there is oil and gas. National parks, shopping malls, 1600 PA Ave. Wherever it makes sense to haul, float, or fly in the equipment, get it there and drill. America has vast natural reserves of oil and gas, and we also have vast areas that are pristine, and have no oil and gas beneath them. If drilling everywhere is too much for the country to swallow on its face, it can be done in an ecologically sensitive way. In addition to reclamation, for every square mile where drilling occurs or where drilling operations seriously upset things, a square mile can be set aside as part of a new reserve somewhere else. If the concerns of environmentalists are truly about the environment, they must realize that we inhabit it too, and wealthy countries take much better care of their environments than do poor ones. When rumbling bellies start filling, people are less concerned about smokestacks than they are that the food keep flowing - witness China and India with virtually no pollution controls and no groundswell for them. Part of drilling everywhere includes clearing the cobwebs of regulations and legal entanglements that can hold up projects.
Presently, the left is effectively hoarding American energy reserves.  We all know that all of these places will eventually be drilled, the oil value to America far exceeds the value of keeping the land above them pristine. The environmentalist fetish is making the entire world poorer by putting much of America's demand into the world marketplace. This won't stand; McCain, or Palin in 2012, will green light production on all levels.

3. The natural progression of technological advancement seems to be toward miniaturization and condensing of functions - one small machine does what many large ones used to do, and the most modern and efficient production of energy is also a case of smaller being better. With nuclear power, a tiny amount of fuel produces immense energy, and limited pollution. The fact that this country hasn't built a new nuclear power plant in a generation is testament to the power of media sabotage and environmentalist fear-mongering.
Somehow, other countries are routinely pulling off things we're assumed to be too stupid to do here. Chile has a splendid privatized social security system (thanks to Gen. Pinochet) which has produced a wealthy society - Chileans have a higher average net worth than Americans, thanks to a savings rate of 27% of GDP (ours is zero) That's with Zero payroll tax. And France produces 70% of its electricity in nuclear plants. But America is too clumsy to do either. I think not - as usual, the left stands in the way of progress.

4. Lift the prohibitions on shale-oil production. The mountain west is loaded with it, and technologies for extraction are improving. If producers know they have a green light for decades into the future, this oil will soon be flowing because they will know their investments will pay off.

5. Let T. Boone build his windmills with his own money; if it's a good idea he'll do great. If the government is going to subsidize new energy production, it ought to be on a per-megawatt basis, regardless how it is produced.

6. If Obama wins, pray, then bend over and











inflate your tires.


As in the past, it is possible that a presently unforeseen technology will make a significant difference. But even then, an energy infrastructure that can actually bring new sources to market takes some time to develop. Our best bet in the meantime is to encourage more and more of the tried and true, and investigate other options in earnest.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world will continue to advance, and more people will move out of huts and into apartments. They will trade in their bikes for a Ford, and everyone will want energy. Scientists the world over will be working the problem to death, consumers the world over will be part of a new ethic of conservation and restraint, and energy efficiency will continue to be key watchwords.

North America is and will remain an energy superpower, even if we are only able to drive our own massive economy from what we produce here. Mr. Jacob insists this won't happen, that we will always be dependent on overseas sources. But this continent is energy rich compared to the average acreage elsewhere on the planet. Canada has vast resources, much greater than its economy demands. Throw in vast and empty Alaska and our abundant shores, and we've got a fair chance of producing the energy we need, right here in North America.
If not, here's the nitty-gritty: If we can't do it with our reserves, technology, and science, then no significant fraction of the world's population can ever enjoy anything approaching an American style standard of living: There just isn't enough power to go around, no matter how fervently we pursue it. That is the inescapable conclusion that logically flows from Mr. Jacobs' argument, and it has implications for the future of all people. It insures that we will always be somewhat divided economically between the northern and southern hemispheres, and also along energy lines. And since there's literally not enough energy to go around, we will fight over it. And some portion of humanity will remain in the dark. That doesn't have to be the world's future.

And it won't be. American energy independence will in fact happen. It will be in no small part because we are laying the template down now - the next president will largely shape how we proceed from here. You can bet that McCain will produce a constitutional crisis by acting with far-reaching executive orders before he will allow the left to derail his energy plans. And in short order, the growing consensus about imminent global cooling will quash the only weak part of his plan. If for no other reason than energy policy, McCain will be our next president. Energy is a legacy-making issue, and also a majority building issue. McCain/Palin will pursue it with all ardor.
If we can eventually take America's appetite for energy out of the international equation, the future of the entire planet looks brighter, and literally will be brighter, as more and more people light their own piece of the world each night.

Kind regards,

TOTA
(please see my other blogs for thoughts on the monumental shortcomings of Obama and the 'movement left' in this election).

I used to coach high school debate for a very competitive school in Texas. We had kids in the dramatic speech events that spoke as well as Obama, and we had freshman debaters who could beat him like a drum, even taking the weak side of any argument. His speaking skill is nothing compared to the likes of Alan Keyes, who is a great orator, unlike the merely 'good' - but liberal and black - Obama. Were he white, at best he'd be hoping to be Hillary's VP choice - that's a truth as clear and hard as diamond.

If you don't believe this next statement, please consider reading Obama's autobiography:   For Barrack Obama, almost everything is about race.  Generally, race is wholly irrelevant.  If whites see "black guy" when they look at a black man, rather than "guy", it's largely because the mouthpieces for the 'black community' won't shut up about race. If we handed out massive reparations, they'd complain that it wasn't enough, then complain that some people were swindled out of their booty by greedy white capitalists.  But it the case of the presidential race, it turns out that it _is_ ultimately all about race.

If Obama wins, it will clearly be because he is black - millions will vote for him for that reason alone, and were he any other color, he would not be running this year - his lack of experience betrays a dangerously massive ego. Before going to the IL state house, where his seminal accomplishment appears to have been voting to allow doctors to kill babies that survive abortions, he was a 'community organizer'. This means he was the guy who really got south Chicago to band together to clean up their communitie, demand that schools institute discipline and fire bad teachers, and tear up the gangs that make the residents fearful. Say what? None of that happened, and the residents of south Chicago are as bad off or worse than they were when they first heard the name, Barack Obama? My mistake. I see upon some further researching that his years of 'community organizing' amounted to precisely diddly squat. He touts no accomplishments from this part of his life. He does confess to lots of pot smoking prior to these years. Perhaps his new chores as community organizer left time for - or even included - similar 'recreational activities'. How else do we explain that this brilliant and oh-so capable man, dropped into the midst of people he cares about so deeply, did so little for so long? Anyway, were he white, he'd rightly be laughed off the stage. So if he wins, it will be due to his skin color. We all know it; it's manifestly obvious to a low-grade moron.

If Obama loses, it will also all be about race. A great number of his supporters will say - perhaps vehemently or even violently -
that he lost because of white racism. In fact, if any of a number of talented conservative blacks were to run for president, the vast bulk of conservatives.would be unflinching in our support for them. But that doesn't fit the narrative that every failure of blacks is due to either overt white racism, or the inherent unfairness of a system set up to benefit whites at the expense of blacks. We can expect: 'The GOP played the race card over and over', 'whites just aren't ready to accept the notion of racial equality', 'The republicans cheated', 'the election appeared rigged', and worse. It will be a deluge because this election won't be close. Obama owns at least half a dozen serious flaws that make him unelectable. Already, the more the country sees and hears of him the less they seem to like him. He's had constant orgasmic coverage in the media and he's slipping in the polls. His idiot energy plan alone will sink him. And as he slips further, expect more and more radical statements and policy ideas as desperation sinks in. By election time, only blacks, hardcore leftists and government clients will be voting for him, to the rest of the country he will be seen alternately as a clown, a demon bent on ruining the country, or a tragic, broken figure.

But although we will have something to celebrate in 96 days - keeping the country out of the hands of a political lunatic - it will be a mixed blessing. Be ready for an earful about how racist you are.

TOTA

Some scientists are pretty sure that the universe is teeming with intelligent life. Others are not so sure. One of the reasons they are doubtful relates directly to energy. Here's how the argument goes:
 
 - All species colonize and spread to the extent of their ability, filling every ecological niche they can. For an extremely advanced intelligent species, we can also expect that they will have an insatiable appetite for mass and energy, if only to build and run faster and better computers.

 - The evidence of such colonization and expansion will be obvious from very far away because these advanced societies will be involved with stellar engineering. This would include relatively simple projects such as "Dyson Spheres", where a massive number of solar energy satellites are built close around a star in order to tap all of its power. More advanced projects would conceivably tap the gravitational energy of star clusters or galaxies. Because of their effects upon stellar emissions and gravity, these projects would produce anomalies which would be evident from very far away. In fact, SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) is presently looking for such anomolies.

 - The fact that we see no evidence of such projects supports the idea that intelligent life is probably fairly scarce.

It's an interesting theory, and my hunch is that it's true - we don't see evidence of advanced life because it's not there.
Pessimists would say that we don't see this evidence because intelligent life is short lived, or destroys itself. But intelligent beings with hands or the equivalent have an enormous advantage over all other life forms - they are not hostage to the natural environment. As long as we have access to ice and energy, we can survive in almost any environment, and we're likely to spread into space just as we've spread across the globe. Many humans would survive even the worst conceivable disasters: all out nuclear (and chemical and biological) world war, or an astronomical event such as a gamma ray burster or a nearby super nova. And once we colonize other star systems, it's likely that only a superior intelligence - either The Creator or a more advanced species - could actually exterminate mankind.

So what does all of this have to do with our current situation?
This is the first time since the 1970s that energy has become a significant issue. And this time around, people are considering it in totality. One of the most basic facts that should underlie the entire debate is that our appetite for energy as a species will grow as we advance technologically. And it's likely that the growth will far outstrip our current expectations.
If you'd made the argument about the fundamental importance of energy for advanced technological civilizations several years ago, few people would have objected, they'd have thought it obvious. Now, some resist because the obviousness of the point has been driven home with a ball-peen hammer, and the implications (more drilling, nuclear, coal) upset the world-view of some people. But we're going to need energy if we plan to continue to advance, and that means using what we have. We are not running out of any of the non-renewable sources of energy at present. We simply aren't exploiting them.

In a million years, are we going to be holding up the construction of new Dyson spheres because of lawsuits by radical environmentalists, or stonewalling by radical legislators? One has to think not. If these folks survive as a potent political force, we probably won't be building much of anything in the future, so it would be a moot question.

TOTA

At the moment, the GOP has a virtual monopoly on the energy issue. That won't last long; reports of Democrat lawmakers returning from weekends with constituents don't bode well for the GOP. Some Democrats are getting the message. The GOP must act now if they are going to see this issue save their hides in November. Talk of likely democrat pick-ups in both houses is grossly premature, the uber-issue has yet to be addressed to the satisfaction of voters, much less resolved. This is the GOP's big chance, if they have their wits about them they will seize it.

Specifically, an election contract should be drawn up, in short order. Everyone knows what we need to do, so let's codify it, and put it in front of the voters in a way that can't be ignored. Spend most of the GOP money in the bank advertising it, promote it on TV, radio, and the web. Have legislators and candidates, including McCain, sign it, so that voters know that the legislators who sign this contract are committed to actually doing something about energy prices, while those who have not are committed to dreaming. Properly framed and promoted, this could be the major question in the voting booth this fall: "Which one of these candidates supports the Free America Energy Plan?"

It seems only fair to allow Democrat politicians on board, but let's get on with it already, GOP, the longer you wait, the more of them will be standing in line to clamor about how they've been for drilling all along. Their idiots at the top are all off in lala land, so let's get on with this now while a crystal clear distinction can still be made. If not, we can count on this still being a significant issue in November outside of the looniest districts, but then, the general Democrat line will be, "I had some environmental concerns, but after visiting blah blah blah, I'm convinced that we can do this in an environmentally friendly way. Of course the only way to make sure the drilling we all want happens in a 'smart' and 'responsible' way is to elect more Democrats."

GOP, if you can't recognize a gift horse when it is served up on a silver platter, you are a precursor to something; your will is no longer sufficient to carry you for long in this brave new world. If roles were reversed, and the Democrats could make hay by advocating something the vast majority of Americans actually wants, we'd be wallowing in hay. GOP: Whatever else you are doing can WAIT. This is the most important thing on the itinerarty; it is the itinerary for all intents and purposes.

Is it possible that this simple idea has not occurred to the powers that be in the GOP? Not likely. So what explains the lack of action on it? Don't bother explaining, GOP, just act. Don't tell us about legislation being drawn up in the house and senate, do this first, then propose the legislation. Can't get everyone together in a big room for long enough to hammer this out? Then put your top guys on it and have them ride herd on the rest of the GOP, and make sure every GOP challenger signs on. It's go time; the light is green.

TOTA

Reid's latest screed about drilling boasts that 106,000 square miles, a total area about the size of Colorado, is currently open to exploration and drilling and is not being drilled. Reid is implying that this is a huge area, but consider a map of the US and the outer continental shelf (OCS) provided by the Dept of the Interior.

Reid of course refers to the now famous "68 million acres not being drilled". Reid notes that only 24 million leased acres are in production. His argument is that oil companies are sitting on fat deposits they simply refuse to exploit. Greedy beyond words in every other conceivable way, big oil must be waiting until the last minute to develop this 68 million oil rich acres, hoping that Haliburton will drive prices higher first, or whatever nut-jobbery is in fashion around the Reid asylum on any given day. The truth is that companies are drilling where it is profitable to do so.

But back to the map. Montana has the square mile area (145,000) closest to the total of leased square miles (130,000). For those waiting for the short bus, Montana is the big one at the top, with the Nixon profile. So Montana is larger than all of the controlled territory that our benevolent congress has allowed energy companies to explore. I would guess from eyeballing the map that it's less than 2% of the total land mass under our control, a pittance.  Humans occupy a tiny percentage of the country, let's open the rest up. We can reclaim land, and priority for new wildlife refuges can be given to resource-poor areas. We're going to plumb all of these resources eventually anyway, we might as well send as clear a signal to the world as we can: America is back, we still have will.

Reid's essential dishonesty is also on display in his missive, it should be read with caution. For example, his arguments about the bulk of oil on the OCS already being open to leasing and drilling are misleading to say the least. He speaks of technically recoverable oil - oil already found. But much of the OCS has never been explored, we have no idea how much is there, for certain. The map above estimates that on the OCS alone, there are 86 billion barrels of unmapped recoverable oil as of 2006. Note that the same bureau's 2003 estimate was 76 billion barrels.
The more we know about the OCS, the more resource rich it looks to be, particularly for oil. In the three years between these Dept. of the Interior estimates, the oil estimate went up by 13%, the gas estimate by 3%.

Mr Reid and his cohorts face a mounting public firestorm. This question has been front and center for some time now, and they stubbornly cling to their juvenile worldview. This nation consumes 20 million barrels of oil a day, nearly 3 gallons per person. Day in, day out. 14 million of those barrels are imported. Americans simply will not tolerate ongoing risk of financial ruin because Harry Reid thinks oil and coal are dirty. He and his ilk are literally holding the entire planet hostage - as the US goes economically, so goes the world. If they don't budge, they threaten the entire world's economy. Food riots are already commonplace in the developing world.
It would be bad enough if this myopia were occurring in isolation. The fact that it is happening alongside the chaos in the middle east and the credit crisis makes it unforgivable.

TOTA

There is excellent reason to believe that Senator Obama has already lost the election to Senator McCain. In the end, his nutty associates won't matter. Nor will his almost complete lack of meaningful experience. By opposing increased domestic energy production in fossil fuels, Obama has taken a completely untenable position on what will be the deciding issue in the election. At the same time, McCain rushed to do the right thing - he will be our next president.

Americans are already boiling over gas prices, and winter has yet to start; wait until home heating bills are mailed. Even if Washington subsidizes heating oil, that solves nothing. There is every indication that oil prices will continue to rise, making Obama's position more obviously ludicrous with every passing week. And there's no sign yet that the Democrat leadership is going to change their stance; just today Harry Reid quipped, “Oil makes us sick. Coal makes us sick.”

Most people will vote with their pocketbooks, and others will have begun to understand that the left desperately wants high energy prices, something they have advocated for years as a means of promoting conservation. Obama himself, in the wake of the massive gas price run up to $4 and more, merely lamented that it happened so quickly. As prices go ever higher, with perhaps some temporary drops, every hike will spread the fear that the people and the economy just can't take it much longer. And Mr. Obama will be offering what, precisely? Hope. And hope will not cut it when consumers are losing more and more ground.

Obama took the ultra-liberal approach to energy policy and has been repeating it incessantly. So Obama has already blown his presidential candidacy, on the energy issue. He is flat wrong, and one has to wonder what he would actually do with real power in dangerous situations. Even if he makes an about face of sorts on domestic development, he's already shown either his true colors (radical environmentalism uber alles) or a disturbing inability to grasp the obvious in the face of crisis. Existing alternative technologies will not do the job; it would take a solar panel field the size of Connecticut to power New York City. With some thought, it will occur to most people that an Obama presidency holds no hope for consumers and businesses concerned with energy prices, so he cannot conceivably be elected.

Forgive me for not rebutting the standard leftist bilge about domestic production: dirty power, years to develop, acres already leased, unsafe waste, windfall profits, etc. It's all low-brow rubbish, intended to dupe only the idiots among us. Strangely, democrats are buying and parroting this duplicitous and dishonest drivel, while the bulk of America is dismissing it as the obvious lies and irrelevancies that they are. Why is the left consistently willing to ignore reality in order to prop up their fantasies? This is their curse. They do it consistently enough that they literally require a stupid and complacent population in order to meet their ends by democratic means. We ought to take the left's treasonous abuse of the courts' “review” power as a compliment to the American people – we are not yet brainwashed enough by the short bus crowd and their 'something for nothing, dog eat dog' worldview to willingly give them power. They always have to campaign as something they are not - until now. Obama missed the short bus on the way to the campaign, and while walking there, he came to a really stupid decision.

In the end, Obama will lose the election for the very reason he should: his first reaction to every significant problem is essentially identical: more spending, more taxes, more regulations, or a combination of the three. Listen to him. When you really listen, you see that this is not merely a pattern, it seems to be inexorable, it happens every time he opens his mouth. As the distastefulness of his autocratic dreams starts to sink in, a predictable 'run to the center' may fool some gullible people, but does any sane person take such obviously phony displays seriously any longer? What business do the media have reporting approvingly on such charades?

Thank God we have a real leader ready to take the helm. If John McCain's quest for the presidency is successful, some will mark Wednesday, June 25^th, as a turning point. It was on that day that McCain drew the energy line clearly and positioned himself on the side of sanity, securing the election in the process. He visited the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, in the proverbial shadow of Yucca Mountain, the likely repository of much of the the nuclear waste produced in the 45 new nuclear plants McCain proposes green lighting in the next few years (Obama is opposed to rapid nuclear development, of course). At UNLV McCain threw down the gauntlet: America has what it takes to be energy independent, all we lack is the will. His Lexington Project envisions an aggressive effort to end American dependence upon foreign sources of energy by 2025. Take a few minutes to read it. The first half is spot on. McCain lays out a realistic vision for the future, based on technologies and reserves that exist now. It contrasts sharply with Obama's approach of consumer austerity, punishing energy producers, and hoping for technological advances that may or may not come.

McCain understands that we are sitting on top of everything we need to power our automobiles and plants for decades if not centuries. If we have to endure regular price shocks because of reliance on foreign oil, America's economic future will always be uncertain. No matter how good things seem to be going, we will always be at the mercy of forces beyond our control. With our combined reserves of coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium, America is the world's premiere energy superpower.

Perhaps as importantly as staking out the winning position on the deciding issue of the election, McCain introduced a new seriousness to his candidacy. Previously opposed to offshore drilling and the expansion of many other domestic energy supplies, he's done the right thing and made an about face. This opens the door on other fronts. McCain will be our next leader, and circumstances desperately require that he re-examine his thinking on several issues:

• President McCain's opposition to drilling in a tiny part of the immense and desolate Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) will soon look silly alongside his bold Lexington Project. To accommodate the legitimate interest in preserving important parts of our shared environmental heritage, perhaps a compromise of sorts is in order. In addition to reclaiming the land, some similar acreage elsewhere in the country could be set aside as a refuge. If the environmentalists are actually concerned about preserving biodiversity and habitats, this idea should delight them. In any case, whether they like it or not, they ought to propose it themselves, because drilling in ANWR will happen; events to date are quite likely the tip of a very large and ugly iceberg.

  If McCain can argue for opening up most of the country to energy exploration in a way that has no net negative affect on the environment, Americans will support him in landslide proportions, and many dedicated environmentalists will support him with few reservations. And as McCain's election looks increasingly likely, energy prices on the world market will drop as it becomes clear that the world's real energy super-power is about to awaken with a start. It goes without saying that an important element of the Lexington Project will have to be expediting exploration and extraction. That will mean legislation with reasonable environmental restrictions, and an end to the legal wrangling that now ties these projects up for years.

• McCain's consistent advocacy of a carbon offset program to curb global warming should be reconsidered. He has consistently advocated what amounts to a tax on carbon emissions. He's also insisted that much of global warming is man-made, and can be corrected if we limit carbon emissions and other 'greenhouse gases'.

Yet 31,000 American scientists, including more than 9000 Phds, have signed a petition doubting man's contribution to any global warming. The website promoting the petition argues, “In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPPC process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.”

In addition to asking why all of these scientists have refused to buy the demagogic line that “the debate is over”, McCain should argue that the economic situation has changed, because it has. The energy shock shows the sensitivity of the American economy in a way that was not evident before now. The shock has also encouraged many of the changes that will serve us well in the future: promoting a new ethic of conservation, awakening people to the elemental importance of energy, the development and widespread sale and use of hybrid cars and more energy efficient vehicles, etc. There's probably no turning back; this period will likely not be forgotten by consumers any time soon, regardless where oil prices go from here. Industry and marketing are already focusing on more sustainable products and technologies. The market says that oil prices will likely be high for some time, and the market believes that conservation and efficiency will be watchwords for years. So like clockwork, the bulk of the market system is retooling to accommodate this reality. The market has responded vastly more quickly and efficiently than the government ever could, and without spending any of our money.

There's also good reason to wonder if whatever we could do will make any difference in the end. China, which dismisses environmentalism as quaint, is completing a coal fired electric power plant every three days. They will soon dwarf our 'carbon footprint'. Much of their country is a polluted mess, and the Chinese government doesn't seem to care unless it makes them look bad in Olympics coverage. It may be impossible to dissuade them from their ambivalence. If so, in the long run it may not matter a whit what we do. If current emissions levels are going to push the world over the brink, the US literally might as well do nothing beyond what we are doing now, since China and India are certain to push us way, way over the same brink by themselves, in short order. At the least, the issue requires considerable study before we fundamentally alter our economy to deal with something we may not be able to affect in any significant way. Edward Teller, the father of modern physics, is a signatory. McCain should sit down with him, and perhaps some of the other signatories.

The history of the earth's climate is one of constant changes. Until we know for sure what is happening and why, and whether we can really do anything about it, massive government action is simply irresponsible. In the meantime, we can encourage voluntary action by citizens that addresses pollution of all kinds, such as McCain's proposed $5000 tax credit for zero emission vehicles.

It is absolutely necessary to encourage alternative energy sources and energy efficiency. But not with direct government investment, which is almost always a boondoggle.  McCain has the right idea with his proposed $300 million prize for a dramatically more efficient battery. He ought to take it further, proposing a list of prizes for any number of energy-related advances, from solar cells to super-conductors. And the prizes should be significant enough that investors will take them into consideration when funding projects. Tax free prizes in the billions would give any firm or private inventor the capital to be a significant player in the marketplace. How many trillions would the discovery of sustainable fusion – unlimited energy – be worth to the world economy? Development on all levels, everywhere in the world, would leapfrog within a generation. Is a prize of $50 billion unreasonable for workable fusion?

The world is full of intelligent, determined people, all bent on carving out a place for themselves and their countrymen, and they are now awakening to the fact that energy is to economies what blood is to individuals. They will want whatever they can get, and everywhere on earth except America, they are hard at work at getting it. This fact alone makes Obama's unique position on the issue dubious – do all of these countries hate the environment? Are they all wrong about the importance of developing fossil fuels – only Obama and the rest of the radical left are right? A detached psychologist may suspect that a form of collective mental illness grips these demagogues.

In America, events will insure that domestic fossil fuel production will increase dramatically regardless what democrats and environmentalists say today. Before long, anyone opposing it will be politically extinct, except those representing the wackiest districts and states.

Normally it's bad form, on principle, to offer helpful advice to the enemy, but here is some: save this part of your credibility, for the country's sake. Otherwise, you risk both repudiation at the ballot box and lasting contempt from the American people. There is no special interest too large to throw from the train (off a bridge) to avoid the energy train wreck you've engineered for yourselves. Conservative democrats: If your leadership won't change on this issue, switch parties. You don't want to go down with these blithering idiots

TOTA