2.60 a frickin gallon! 2135

No kidding! Ya think?

It's probably best to work on the root causes of these things, not the political causes (since it's largely irrelevant). Lack of refinery capacity is a problem that many enbreasties can take plenty of blame for (including both political parties). Lack of domestic energy production is another one. The spotted owl and the frozen waste land of Alaska was deemed more important than helping to make us a little more energy independent. Methods to develop and use alternative energy will only be done if it is economically feasible. People simply won't pay more (in general) for principal alone. For example, we have electrical energy choice where I live. There is a "green" electricity producer one can choose, but hardly anyone does (from either party, I might add). Why? It's almost twice the cost. So, people pick pollution over their pocketbooks. Not a surprise really. When it comes to that issue, we all want someone else to pay (which is really us in the end, no matter who pays)

If investment in alternative energy sources were going to happen, it would have happened during the economy boom of the late 90's when there was more money and venture capital available to put to use than anyone knew what to do with. However, if there is any positive side to increasing energy cost it is that alternative energy becomes a more viable option. In the early 1980's when a barrel of oil was ~$90.00 in inflation-adjusted dollars, about 1-3 of the homes in my neighborhood had solar panels on the roof or our in the yards for hot water and heating purposes. Far fewer ran their air conditioners in their homes and cars, except on the hottest days. When energy was cheap again, those solar panels all came down, the windows were shut and the AC came on and ran all summer.

So, money drives everything. Not Congress. Not Bush. (even though they would even like to think so)