FWIW, I derive this environmental philosophy partly from the creation story of Genesis. In that story, God went six days before creating people, but looked at what he’d made each day, and said “it’s good!” Later, humans’ duties and privileges in the Garden of Eden were to “to work it and take care of it,” and to eat from any tree (except the one, of course) in the garden. I’m not bringing this up to debate the literal veracity of the Genesis creation account, but simply to provide background.

We as a nation tend to get fixated on one and only one solution. Those days should be considered done and over with. Drilling a new oilfield alone isn’t an answer. Relaxing regulations alone isn’t an answer. Solar energy alone isn’t an answer. Hybrid vehicles alone aren’t an answer. A mix of solutions is the best to go, to whit:

• bio-diesel from corn and soybeans for home heating oil. Heck, get the tobacco farmers to convert their fields over for that purpose
• Somenew exploration for oilfields. No one knows what’s in ANWR; maybe we should try to get a better grip on what’s there before we make a decision
• Solar panels on office buildings that dump electricity back into the grid. It’s seems ridiculous to me that large office buildings don’t do this, especially in Atlanta, L.A., Dallas, etc. Why not try it and give those that do some limited tax benefits for it. The amount of electricity generated may not seem like much, but every little bit helps. This competition in Washington D.C. proves it’s viability.
• Adjust the taxes on gasoline to spur efficiencies and development at the conglorporations

These are just some ideas I’ve been thinking about. My point is that a silver bullet won’t be found for this or any other serious problem, like water usage, in the near future. The era of searching for panaceas should be over and done with, and this is a perfect problem to show how creative and innovative we can really be.

He has put his money where his mouth is and has invested (successfully) in renewable energy companies.

So…whatever one may believe about:
- environmental-damage arguments against drilling in the ANWR
- in general, the environmental effects of burning fossil fuel

these arguments really aren’t even necessary. Approaching drilling in the ANWR solely from a national-security perspective, it looks as though it’s somewhere around #13 on the top-10 list of ways to improve America’s energy security.

*expected amount = sum of possible quantities times the probabilities of each quantity being found. I assume that the “mean” amount reported in the article is this number.
*exhaustion = the point where extraction of remaining quantities isn’t economically viable

So basically congress is saying to the oil companies: “No you can’t drill for oil. So anyway why are gas prices so high?”

On the bright side though gas prices, at least in Richmond have gone down significantly over the past couple of weeks.

The companies summoned to testify have given about $400,000 in PAC money this year alone — and much of that has found its way to those who served as the executives’ interrogators.
…
“First, let me begin by thanking each of you and the companies for what you all did to save lives, to save property, to restore the communities along the Gulf Coast,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who has taken $249,155 in oil and gas money over five years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
…
When Energy Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska, $102,190) announced that he would not require the executives to give their testimony under oath, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash., $9,400) asked for a vote on the issue. Stevens shot back: “There will be no vote . . . It’s the decision of the chairman, and I have made that decision.”

“I move that we swear in witnesses,” Cantwell persisted.

“I second the motion,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif., $9,450).

“That’s the last we’re going to hear about that, because it’s out of order,” a piqued Stevens replied. When the two women continued their protest, the chairman informed them that “I intend to be respectful of the position that these gentlemen hold.”

I’ll give the oil company execs some credit for at least being brave. Here’s what they thought about their tax breaks, a tried and true Republican platform. Here’s the Milbank article again:

At times, the senators seemed to be bigger boosters of the industry than the executives themselves. Under questioning from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore., $12,500), all five executives testified that they did not need the tax breaks in the recent energy bill.

“That energy legislation is zero in terms of how it affects Exxon Mobil,” said the company’s chairman, Lee Raymond.

This did not sit well with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex., $306,820). “But,” she asked, don’t the tax breaks “make a difference” in investment decisions?

Raymond would not play along. “They will not significantly alter the programs that we have,” he said. Stevens scratched his head.

I guess it’s difficult at best to tug on the thread that stitches a political career together. This then begs the question: who’s running the show on Capitol Hill? Doesn’t seem like the ones elected in are doing anything.