Drill, Baby, Drill

I swear not every post will be political, but...

There's been a lot of talk about our nation's dependence on oil, and it seems to me there are two issues: getting our country less dependent on foreign oil sources, and weaning ourselves off from our oil addiction entirely.

The former issue is a band-aid at best and extremely harmful at worst. The underlying assumption of this is that we WILL continue to use oil as our main source of energy, despite the fact that it is a fossil fuel and contributing to "global weirding." (This is a term used by some scientists to denote the fact that global warming is a misnomer; our planet's weather won't just get warmer, it'll actually get stranger: hotter hots, colder colds, stronger storms, longer droughts, etc.) Oil not only pollutes the planet, but it's also a finite (and expensive) source of energy. This is not a long-term solution to our problem.

The latter issue - weaning ourselves off of oil - is the solution espoused by both candidates as well as the Bush administration. Makes sense: the investment in renewable sources of energy will create jobs and help the economy, and the energy sources will be non-polluting and infinite. (If only Reagan hadn't derailed this effort in the 80's. Imagine what our country would be like now if we had continued with this as Jimmy Carter had wanted.)

The problem: the republicans (or people voting for them) are talking about doing both. Their solution: while we're developing these alternate sources or energy, let's start more drilling off our coasts and (as Palin wants) in Alaska. Logically this makes no sense and is hypocritical at best - underhanded and evil at worst - and here's why.

'Drilling' is not as simple as pounding a giant bit into the ground and collecting a fountain of Texas Tea. It takes years of research, it's environmentally unsound (and thus subject to potential lawsuits) and it's costly. The most optimistic guess on when we could see the benefits of drilling is five years, with most analysts saying it would be at least 10. Which is not to say that we would then be completely independent from other countries' oil supplies, we would just have a little more.

Again, according to the 'pubs, this would be happening at the same time as the research and development of alternate fuels. In that case, what's the point? Why spend years and millions of dollars on drilling when, at the end of 5-10 years, we would've developed something else and wouldn't need the oil? If we're honestly looking into solar, wind, tides, fusion, etc, why bother with the huge investment of drilling?

The cynic in me says that the 'pubs aren't being honest. They say that they're for alternate fuel sources when they really just want to help the big oil companies. They have no real interest in developing alternate fuel sources, as evidenced by the alternative energy tax credit bill which has stalled in Congress. What they want is the same thing that the oil execs want: huge sums of money at our expense.

The worst part: we were the suckers chanting along with Guilliani, "Drill, baby, drill."