Unfortunately, this is the case with most of the general public on 99% of the issues on both sides of the aisle.

I wouldn’t underestimate the power of the netroots. I have a master’s thesis to send you if you doubt me. Almost every press officer in the Senate starts their day by reading blogs. Pelosi largely sets her agenda by what the left blogosphere is saying. The R side of the House is still catching on, but the green movement has driven the netroots. They’ve been a force in DC since at least 2004, and their power is continuing to grow.

But more important than their web presence is their ability to sink their talking points in to TV, education policy, movies, product placement, labels, magazines, etc. DC politicians come and go, but media stories make a lasting impression, especially among impressionable school-aged children. In the long-run, that’s far more powerful than paying K Street.

I completely agree that our thirst for oil has gotten out of hand. Alternative energy sources need to be researched and implemented. But ethanol is not smart. It’s terribly inefficient, expensive to manufacture and the refining process creates more pollution than it saves during consumption. But most importantly, mass-produced corn is not good for soil. Over a longer span (25-50 years), it will wreck farmlands. Beef production in the Amazon has shifted to corn production at an alarming rate, and at a much higher detriment to that region’s ecology. (Sidenote: I’m not entirely convinced that ethanol production has driven up the cost of food as much as a weakening dollar has).

We import 75% of our oil in the U.S. The remaining 25% is produced domestically. The price of oil is based on global supply and demand. A barrel of U.S. crude is worth just as much as a barrel from Saudi Arabia. Commodity traders are not likely to discriminate on price any more than oil companies are likely to sell at a cheaper rate.

Furthermore, increased domestic production would be a drop in the bucket of the global supply. For instance, ANWR drilling would lead to a 20% increase of domestic production (1 million barrels a day). How will 1 million additional barrels affect the price when global production is up to 85 million/day? India and China could chew through a million barrels in a day without breaking a sweat.

What troubles me most about this position of domestic drilling is that many (not you) who hold this position behave as though it will fix all our problems at the pump. Townhall or some other ridiculous site is filled with these kinds of “solutions.” And the Wall Street Journal never hesitates to propagate this myth. But the “magic bullet”of increased domestic production will take about 15 to 20 years to implement. How is that going to help you or I when we’re paying $4 a gallon now?

The Dept. of Energy has published numerous studies on the real world effects of increased domestic drilling – from ANWR to the Gulf. The results are inconclusive for this cause.

Oil is traded globally. However, it’s traded based on futures. The prospect of increasing supply tomorrow will drive the price down today. Even if Congress authorized drilling tomorrow, OPEC and state-run oil entities face a future threat and start playing nice. Oil is as much a political issue as it is economic. Furthermore, this would increase the supply that is available to the US. According to the testimonies in the recent House hearing, US suppliers only have access to 1/7 of the world’s supply.

I don’t believe that ethanol is a liberal pipedream nor is drilling a conservative one. We need a realistic approach to shape our energy policy immediately and in the future. The prospect of new drilling would drive down the price now. We also need to invest in alternative fuels such as ethanol. I believe that it’s possible to be completely off of oil withing 25 years. But we need to do it in a way that doesn’t thrwart our economic system.

Right now, we’re facing global food shortages since farmers are selling corn to produce ethanol rather than food. What’s more important, starving people in developing countries or driving clean vechicles in industrial ones? Ethanol may not be the answer since it requires more energy to produce than refining petroleum.

We also need to invest more in nuclear power facilities, wind farms and solar power. If it were economically feasible, every homeowner could have solar panels on their roof.

I won’t disagree that Big Oil has a huge lobby in Congress, but the Greens are immensely powerful and wealthy. The Green movement is larely responsible for Internet activism and they’re backed by wealthy celebrities and philantropists. Who has more power in the long-run–an industry buying off Congress or a movement manipulating the American public.