Dear Sarasota Herald-Tribune Editorial Board,

Is it not time to put the good of Florida and the good of the United States above politics? Do we not all want "change"? Floridians and Americans are suffering under the extreme burden of high energy and gasoline costs. Isn't it time we look for solutions together regardless of party or ideology?

In your editorial, "On oil, the political vs. the practical" you restate what we Americans have been doing for the past 30 plus years. We have not drilled for our own oil in the Gulf of Mexico, even though China and Cuba can. We have not built new refineries or nuclear power plants in over 30 and 40 years respectively. We have created environmental regulations and an EPA bureaucracy that is stopping the building of solar power plants in the deserts of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. Congress has made it illegal to explore and drill for oil and natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico and ANWR in Alaska. Congress and the 50 states are requiring over 45 different mixtures of gasoline to be produced to meet state and federal mandates on pollution. Finally, we are conserving our hearts out.

All of these self-imposed restrictions have gotten us in large measure to where we are. Is it not time for a change?

Is it not time for us to think outside the box? Let's not be afraid of "change". Here are some innovative ideas that local citizens and others have proposed to move Florida and America toward energy independence. Our state legislators and Congress need to consider each of them.

1. Select one environmentally friendly emission standard and mixture of gasoline, rather than the current hundreds of emission standards that require the production of 45 plus gasoline and diesel mixtures, and produce only that. This will have an immediate impact at the pump.

2. Cut federal and state taxes on gasoline, diesel and home heating oil. A tax cut has immediate short term and long term impacts on the economy and American's pocket books. Off set tax cuts with spending cuts. That is what Americans are doing.

3. Release one-third of our strategic petroleum reserves. That would have a short term impact on gasoline and oil prices.

4. Remove regulatory restrictions on the building of new petroleum refineries, solar power plants, clean coal plants, natural gas plants and nuclear power plants.

5. Challenge scientists and entrepreneurs to find immediate and long term solutions by using American innovation and developing new technologies. The $300 million challenge to create a new battery to power our cars is a just a start.

6. Look at the massive environmental damage and human suffering caused by biofuels like corn based ethanol and move to other biomass alternative fuels and technologies such as sugarcane based ethanol/alcohol, nitrogen power, and algae based fuels.

7. Provide regulatory and tax incentives to begin pumping oil from currently abandoned wells. These may become productive in the short term given current drilling technologies.

8. Stop placing blame and move to finding solutions. More hearings and talk do nothing. Action is needed. Attacking those who have spent their lives, time and treasure exploring for and drilling or mining for our natural resources is counter productive and drives up the price of gasoline. This would be a big "change" in attitude.

9. Drill in ANWR now. The plan for drilling in ANWR involves 2,000 acres of land in Alaska's far North Eastern border. Is that any more environmentally harmful than producing 7 billion gallons of ethanol in 2007 from corn grown on an area the size of Indiana (23 million acres)?

10. Explore and drill in the Gulf of Mexico and Outer Continental Shelf. It has been illegal to do so for 30 years. This would especially benefit Florida. According to America's Power Florida gets 29.2% of our power from coal. We get 16.9% from petroleum, 38% from natural gas and 0.1% from hydroelectric. If we had our own supply of natural gas from the Gulf we could eliminate totally our use of coal and oil.

11. Recover oil from shale in areas such as the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The basin potentially contains more than three times as much recoverable oil as Saudi Arabia's proven reserves. The current high price of oil makes it profitable to extract it.

12. Require oil speculators to put up 50% of the dollar amount they bid in cash rather than working off lines of credit.

13. Instead of burying our trash let's burn it.

14. Let every American pledge to buy a car over the next 3 years that is more fuel efficient by 10 miles per gallon, whether new or used.

We would do all these things and continue to develop wind, solar and biofuels. We would all, of course, continue to conserve. However, we must recognize the limitations of wind and solar. For example to power New York city using wind power would require blanketing Connecticut (3 million acres) with turbines. To gain the maximum from solar we need to build plants in the America's deserts.

Let's work together to find solutions. Let's both agree that nothing is off the table. Let's demand that both Presidential Candidates on this 4th of July set a goal that America will be become energy independent in the next 10 years. Let's vow to keep the over $650 billion we send overseas to buy oil. Let's use that money to build new technologies, explore, drill and mine our own resources and best of all create jobs.

Let's join together and ask our readers to come up with more ideas on how we can become independent of foreign oil. No idea is to be rejected. All ideas will be submitted with forethought by the person making the suggestion. Let's pass these ideas on to our Florida Governor and legislature, our President and Congress.

Anyone with an idea on how to become energy independent please e-mail me at rswier@comcast.net.

Warm Regards,

Rich
Publisher, FromTheDuke Blog

Below are a series of pictures highlighting the size of ANWR, the size of the part of ANWR that Republicans want to drill in, what that small area really looks like during the summer and winter, and pictures of the existing oil rigs at Prudhoe Bay and what it looks like during the summer and winter.

This first diagram shows the size of ANWR and Alaska compared to the continental U.S. Clearly ANWR, while containing 19 million acres, is small when compared to the entire U.S.

This second diagram shows the actual proposed drilling area of 2000 acres.

These are a series of photos of that 2,000 acre area in ANWR in the summer and in the winter. Note the stark and desolate landscape in the area that is proposed for drilling. Pictures normally shown in the media are of areas of ANWR much further to the South.

The drilling area in the summer.


The drilling area in the winter.


These are pictures taken at the oil rigs located at Prudhoe Bay. Environmentalist were concerned that oil drilling in Prudhoe Bay would be an ecological disaster and harm the local animal populations. Clearly neither of these dire predictions came true.

Prudhoe Bay in the summer.

Prudhoe Bay in the winter. Note the similar desolation of Prudhoe Bay and the proposed drilling area. Neither is hospitable in winter.

As Paul Driessen of Townhall.com points out, "One of our best prospects is Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which geologists say contains billions of barrels of recoverable oil. If President Clinton hadn’t bowed to Wilderness Society demands and vetoed 1995 legislation, we’d be producing a million barrels a day from ANWR right now. That’s equal to US imports from Saudi Arabia, at $50 billion annually.

Drilling in ANWR would get new oil flowing in 5-10 years, depending on how many lawsuits environmentalists file. That’s far faster than benefits would flow from supposed alternatives: devoting millions more acres of cropland to corn or cellulosic ethanol, converting our vehicle fleet to hybrid and flex-fuel cars, building dozens of new nuclear power plants, and blanketing thousands of square miles with wind turbines and solar panels. These alternatives would take decades to implement, and all face political, legal, technological, economic and environmental hurdles.

ANWR is the size of South Carolina. Its narrow coastal plain is frozen and windswept most of the year. Wildlife flourish amid drilling and production in other Arctic regions, and would do so near ANWR facilities. Inuits who live there know this, and support drilling by an 8:1 margin. Gwich’in Indians who oppose drilling live hundreds of miles away – and have leased and drilled their own tribal lands, including caribou migratory routes.

Drilling and production operations would impact only 2,000 acres – to produce 15 billion gallons of oil annually. Saying this tiny footprint would spoil the refuge is like saying a major airport along South Carolina’s northern border would destroy the state’s scenery and wildlife.

It’s a far better bargain than producing 7 billion gallons of ethanol in 2007 from corn grown on an area the size of Indiana (23 million acres).

It’s far better than using wind to generate enough electricity to power New York City, which would require blanketing Connecticut (3 million acres) with turbines."

We have heard calls for change but the Sarasota Herald-Tribune calls for America to do the same things we have been doing for over 30 years that do not work.

In their editorial, "Offshore pandering" they argue against drilling off-shore because it is a vote getter. That is putting pure politics against the best interests of the nation. That is the height of partisanship and not change. We must put the good of the Country above political party.

As I explained in detail in my column yesterday, we have been doing exactly what the Democrats, liberal left, environmentalists and media have wanted. As the Sarasota Herald-Tribune points out there has been a 27 year moratorium on off-shore drilling. They state, "So, instead of supporting realistic solutions -- such as more conservation; better fuel efficiency in cars, industry and buildings; and incentives for developing alternative energy sources -- these elected officials are pandering to voters' fears."

But we have been doing all of these things for over 30 years.

Since 1980 we Americans: Haven't drilled for our own oil. We haven't built new refineries. We have significantly increased regulatory requirements on the production of gasoline to reduce carbon emissions. We have taken lead out of gasoline to reduce pollution and added ethanol to our gasoline. Via market pressures we have increased the efficiency of our cars. We have forced the production of 45 different grades of gasoline to meet EPA and state laws on pollution levels. We have heavily subsidized solar and wind power and ethanol production at both the national and state levels. We do build more energy efficient homes and buildings. And finally of course - we have conserved.

What has this gotten us? Higher prices for gasoline, oil, and natural gas. What does this mean for Gulf states like Florida? It means a direct hit on our economy. An economy that is already reeling from the shocks of a mortgage meltdown.

According to America's Power Florida gets 29.2% of our power from coal. We get 16.9% from petroleum, 38% from natural gas and 0.1% from hydroelectric. If we had our own supply of natural gas from the Gulf we could eliminate totally our use of coal and oil. Florida power is the 13th highest in the U.S. We could become one of the lowest with our own resources lying a few miles into the Gulf of Mexico.

For every one cent increase per KwH of electrical power that is $2 billion out of our economy.

Let's look at the arguments put forth by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, which match those of Democrats and some Republicans:

Argument #1 - "Even if new offshore areas were leased for drilling today, it would take 10 years to bring their oil or gas to market." If President Clinton hadn’t vetoed legislation allowing environmentally sensitive exploration on the Coastal Plain of ANWR ten years ago, today we would have one million additional barrels of oil coming from ANWR each day, which would mean lower gas prices for consumers and more energy security right now. ANWR is estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil -- about 15 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia. The "not bring relief immediately" mantra is simply designed to reject today's reality of high gas prices in favor of doing nothing. Doing nothing is not an option.

Argument #2 - "The United States has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves." According to Investor's Business Daily, "In this country alone there is at least 118 billion barrels of recoverable but untapped oil, a bit more than Iraq's estimated reserves. The latest forecast indicates that there are 3.7 billion barrels of oil that are recoverable from the Bakken Formation [located in the Williston Basin that stretches through Montana, North Dakota and Saskatchewan]. However, there is much more liquid crude there. The speculation begins at 500 billion barrels and goes as high as 2 trillion barrels."

Argument #3 - "...the damaging effects drilling could have on the state's economy and environment," Actually drilling in the Gulf will reduce the possibility of an oil spill because all the oil spills in the United States to date were from tankers, not off shore drilling platforms. There are 3,739 offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico today and 3,203 lie off the Louisiana coast. There have been no oil spills from an offshore oil platform in the Gulf, none. Even during hurricane Katrina, when over 1,000 platforms were displaced, not one drop of oil was spilled. Actually, studies by Louisiana State University have found that abandoned oil rigs in the gulf become artificial reefs and cause marine life to explode.

Argument #4 - "Energy companies already hold leases for 90 million offshore acres, but only about 20 million -- less than 25 percent -- are being tapped for oil." Like anything else you go for the oil that is easiest and cheapest first based upon market demand. By opening up ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf and the Gulf of Mexico we can get to bigger deposits, cheaper and faster. This means it gets to the market faster. More supply to meet the demand and you have lower prices. If ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf and the Gulf of Mexico were opened to exploration and drilling by Congress tomorrow, futures traders would suddenly bail and the oil bubble would burst sending prices tumbling.

The rights to the oil and natural gas off the shores of Florida belongs to Floridians. There are in fact billions of barrels of oil and billions, perhaps trillions, of cubic feet of natural gas just 50 miles off of our shores. We Floridians have the right to this off-shore property and the right to exploit those resources contained there in. We all understand that we must extract this precious resource in an environmentally sensitive way but we must extract it.

Finally, China and Cuba can explore and drill for Florida's oil right now. Why can't we?

Congress, and our state legislators need to get it like Governor Crist and we Floridians get it. This is a pocket book issue and impacts our ability to put food on our tables, get our kids to school, keep our homes, and run our businesses.

What is that saying, doing the same thing and expecting different results is a form of insanity. We can no longer afford this insanity.

The editorial, "How to cut foreign oil imports" by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune is a masterful piece of propaganda straight from Barack Obama's talking points.

There are key questions that the editorial board doesn't ask like: How did we get to this point? How did we become so dependent on foreign oil? How is it that we are annually sending over $650 billion overseas to buy oil from those who want to kill us? How is it that Cuba and China can drill in the Gulf of Mexico and we can't. Why does gasoline cost so much?

The answer: We have been doing exactly what the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and their environmentalist friends have wanted!

Since the late 1970s we Americans: Don't drill for our own oil. Don't build new refineries. We have increased regulatory requirements on the production of gasoline to reduce carbon emissions. We have taken lead out of gasoline to reduce pollution and added ethanol to our gasoline. We have increased the efficiency of our cars. Forced the production of 45 different grades of gasoline to meet EPA and state laws on pollution. And finally of course - we have conserved as pointed out in the editorial.

All of these liberal strategies have made us energy independent, right? Wrong.

We have done exactly what the environmentalists, their Democratic allies in Congress and the media have wanted and here we are with gasoline at $4.10 for unleaded regular. Do you know why? Because that is what they have wanted all along.

Environmentalists, the liberal left and the media want our gas prices high! Stop using gasoline, that is their goal. For you see fossil fuels are evil. Oil companies are evil. Moms driving SUVs are evil. We are evil because America "consumes 25 percent of the world's supply [of oil]".

Maybe it is time for a slightly different strategy?

How about we continue to do what the environmentalists want, even though it hurts us economically, but also do the following: What if we lift the ban on drilling for oil in ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf and the Gulf of Mexico? What if we explore and drill for our own oil at a greater pace? What if we begin mining the trillions of gallons of liquid oil contained in the shale in the Bakken Formation? What if we build new refineries to produce more gasoline?

If we did these things we would increase supply! When you increase supply the price comes down.

We would stop sending our money overseas and create jobs and wealth here in America rather than in Saudi Arabia and Iran. We would stop being held hostage to the whims of OPEC. We would stop supporting Communist regimes like that of Hugo Chavez. We would begin to tap our oil in the Gulf of Mexico, which Cuba and China have already agreed to do. We would buy ourselves time while we stop using oil to fuel our power plants and move toward nuclear, clean coal, solar and wind power. We would buy ourselves time as we look at alternative fuels for our transportation industry like biofuels that do not pollute more than oil.

I say we do it all. Clearly the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and their allies only want half of the pie. I say we take the whole pie because we have already paid for it. What do you think?

I sent the following e-mail to Governor Crist, the Florida Cabinet and Sarasota County Legislative delegation. Perhaps you will consider doing the same. It is worth your time to ensure our economic future.

Dear Governor Crist,

As a Floridian I commend you for your support of off-shore drilling. As you prepare for your environmental summit I ask you to consider the following:

As you know Florida, like the United States, imports its oil, natural gas, and gasoline. Additionally we currently have a significant electrical power deficit and buy power from other states. Floridians pay dearly for our energy. Florida has the 13th highest energy costs in the U.S. With the rising price of oil and natural gas and 54.9% of Florida's power plants dependent on these two fuels our energy costs will only rise, and rise dramatically.

I ask that you continue your efforts to allow off-shore drilling because it is best for Florida economically. Florida needs to become energy independent. We can do this in an environmentally friendly way. We must look at all forms of energy production, with nothing being off the table. Wind, solar, coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and biomass are all worthy of study. Those that make the most sense for Florida should be allowed to develop in a free market system and compete in that market to provide Floridians with cheap and reliable power.

Florida and America depend on cheap and reliable power and gasoline. That is what makes our economy run. Without it our economy will collapse.

As for gas prices, Florida needs to take advantage of our own resources and stop importing refined petroleum products from other states. We must drill and build refineries now for the economic future of our children and grandchildren.

I was most shocked when Senator Dennis Jones was recently quoted as saying there were "a hell of a lot" of oil spills. There has been one major oil spill in Florida in 1976. This spill was not from an oil rig but rather from a tanker. Tankers carrying oil into the Gulf are a greater threat to our beaches and environment than are off-shore oil rigs of which there are over 3,700 in the Gulf already.

Some in the Florida legislature have raised concerns about our military having to fly around oil rigs in the Gulf. In terms of the military flying around oil rigs off -shore, they can do that. The Gulf is big with lots of air space. Its much better from a national security perspective to drill for our own oil than to send billions of our dollars off-shore to fund radical Islamist terrorists and rogue nations.

I have provided below three of my articles [articles are here, here and here] on drilling off-shore and the negative impact of recent "green" policies on our electrical power industry.

I hope you will take the time to read these three articles and think about the future of Florida and America and fight against the "green" lobby.

I will do all that I can to support you. I look forward to your reply to my e-mail.

Warm Regards,

Rich

The editorial in today's Sarasota Herald-Tribune (SH-T), a New York Times Company, titled, "Drilling for votes" is stereotypical liberal lies. The editorial boards environmentalist roots are showing and they just can't help themselves.

Environmentalists (read the SH-T) always put the "environment" above the good of the humans who have domain over it. In fact environmentalist policies have killed millions and done more harm to the environment than any other political movement in America. Iain Murray in his book "The Really Inconvenient Truths" points out, "American values like property [rights], enterprise, and freedom work well to protect the environment; and that the environment suffers when these values are replaced by contrary values like nationalization, central planning, and control."

A Federal ban on off shore drilling is nationalization, centralized planning, and control to the highest degree.

The rights to the oil and natural gas off the shores of Florida belongs to Floridians. There are in fact billions of barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of natural gas just 50 miles off of our shores. We Floridians have the right to this off shore property and the right to exploit the resources contained there in. We all understand that we must extract this precious resource in an environmentally sensitive way but we must extract it.

China and Cuba can explore and drill for Florida's oil right now. Why can't we?

Now for the lies.

SH-T Lie #1 - "the United States can't drill its way out of its dependence on foreign oil."

Truth - Yes we can! America may hold more oil than Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Venezuela - but it is closed off to exploration by our own government. According to Senator Jim Inhofe, "Oil and gas exploration and production are currently prohibited on 85 percent of America’s offshore waters. Among industrialized nations with shorelines, the United States is the only one not actively seeking new offshore oil and gas deposits. Canada allows offshore drilling in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Great Lakes. Additionally, Cuba is also looking to expand drilling to within 45 miles of parts of Florida and with technology that may be much less environmentally sound than that used by American companies. Exploration and production activities are currently prohibited in the Pacific and Atlantic regions of the Outer Continental Shelf, which hold an estimated 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of gas. This is equivalent to more than 25 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia."

SH-T Lie #2 - "The simple fact is that even if the ban were lifted, the United States has just 3 percent of the world's oil and gas reserves."

Truth - According to Investor's Business Daily, "In this country alone there is at least 118 billion barrels of recoverable but untapped oil, a bit more than Iraq's estimated reserves. The latest forecast indicates that there are 3.7 billion barrels of oil that are recoverable from the Bakken Formation [located in the Williston Basin that stretches through Montana, North Dakota and Saskatchewan]. However, there is much more liquid crude there. The speculation begins at 500 billion barrels and goes as high as 2 trillion barrels."

SH-T Lie #3 - "Florida's waters and coastal areas are both environmentally fragile and economically vital. They would be threatened by new drilling not only off Florida but in the waters of neighboring states."

Truth - Florida's waters and coastal areas would not be "threatened by new drilling". Actually drilling in the Gulf will reduce the possibility of an oil spill because all the oil spills in the United States to date were from tankers, not off shore drilling platforms. There are 3,739 offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico today and 3,203 lie off the Louisiana coast. There have been no oil spills from an offshore oil platform in the Gulf, none. Even during hurricane Katrina, when over 1,000 platforms were displaced, not one drop of oil was spilled.

Also, according to Humberto Fontova of Human Events, "Oil companies have left in place in the Gulf of Mexico platforms from played out wells at the request of fishermen. Marine life had EXPLODED around these huge artificial reefs. Louisiana produces one third of America's seafood. In fact a study by Louisiana State University shows that 85% of Louisiana offshore fishing trips involve fishing around these structures and that there's 50 times more marine life around an oil production platform than in the surrounding Gulf bottoms. Louisiana produces one-third of America's commercial fisheries -- because of, not in spite of, these platforms."

SH-T Lie #4 - "Lifting the moratorium would not bring relief from today's high gas prices. It would take seven to 10 years to bring any new sources to market."

Truth - If President Clinton hadn’t vetoed legislation allowing environmentally sensitive exploration on the Coastal Plain of ANWR ten years ago, today we would have one million additional barrels of oil coming from ANWR each day, which would mean lower gas prices for consumers and more energy security right now. ANWR is estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil -- about 15 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia. The "not bring relief immediately" mantra is simply designed to reject today's reality of high gas prices in favor of doing nothing. Doing nothing is not an option.

SH-T Lie #5 - "The mirage of drilling our way to energy independence only distracts us from pursuing more promising efforts, such as conservation, energy efficiency and alternative sources."

Truth - No it doesn't. Nothing should be off the table. Nothing. Wind, solar, geo-thermal, coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, conservation, energy efficiency and alternative fuels all must be on the table. What is true is that energy efficiency historically leads to more energy use. According to the Manhattan Institute, "The history of the twentieth century is one of gigantic increases in efficiency—and even larger increases in consumption. The American economy has experienced massive efficiency gains: for each unit of energy, we produce more than twice as much GDP today than we did in 1950. Yet during that period of time, our national total energy consumption has tripled. Paradoxically, when it comes to energy, the more we save, the more we consume."

SH-T Lie #6 - "McCain seeks political advantage in offering false hope."

Truth - According to Investor's Business Daily, "The biggest obstacle to putting more domestic oil in the pipeline is not economics or technology hurdles...It is the pro-OPEC, Democratic-majority, maddeningly irrational U.S. Congress."

Here is the bottom line. Florida is an energy importer, like the United States. We import our gasoline and electricity from other states. If we had our own oil and natural gas supply and our own refineries we would become energy independent and help America do the same. We would gain financially with royalties paid by oil companies, as does Louisiana. We would protect our beautiful beaches from tanker oil spills by piping in our oil and natural gas on shore. Fish would thrive in artificial reefs provided by tapped out oil rigs.

Off shore drilling is a win, win, win for Florida and America.

Tell your Congressmen, Senators and Florida legislators so. Tell them to drill off shore now and make Florida and America more energy independent. We must for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

This article is from Freedom's Watch.

Rising oil prices are playing havoc with our economy. Continental Airlines just announced it's laying off 3,000 workers; Ford is considering slashing about 2,000 jobs. And now what you pay for electricity is going up as much as 29 percent. If you've had enough, please sign our petition and email your representative.

Since the new majority took control of Congress in January 2007 on a pledge to bring down gas prices, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have not sent a single bill that would lower fuel costs to the President. Just the opposite. Reid tried to get the Senate to pass a "cap and trade" bill that could have actually raised the cost of gasoline by as much as $1.10/gal.

Meanwhile, Senator Chuck Schumer's solution to skyrocketing gas prices is to bully Saudi Arabia into increasing production and lowering their price of oil.

It doesn't have to be this way. Believe it or not, America may hold more oil than Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Venezuela - but it is closed off to exploration by our own government. So why bully Saudi Arabia when, in terms of oil production, we could become Saudi Arabia?

The good news is that Congressman Mac Thornberry has introduced the No More Excuses Energy Act (H.R. 3089), which would allow for more oil drilling here at home, increase wind energy, encourage the construction of new refineries, and expand clean nuclear power. If 218 House members sign the discharge petition on the bill, it will be brought to the floor for a vote.

What a difference three years makes: In 2005, I led the charge against a massive global warming cap-and-trade bill. It was a lonely battle with few GOP members willing to join me on the Senate floor to publicly oppose it.

Fast forward to June 2008: Not only was I joined by dozens of GOP Senators, but nearly 30% of the Democratic Senators rebelled against their leadership and opposed the Boxer Climate Tax Bill. In the end, Senator Boxer only had at most 35 Democratic Senators willing to vote for final passage on the largest tax bill in U.S. history. The Boxer Climate Tax Bill was so thoroughly disowned by Democratic Leadership that proponents of climate taxes will now be forced to start from scratch next year.

Republicans were prepared to debate the bill and were ready to offer amendments. But the Democrats did not want to debate, much less vote, on our amendments that were aimed at protecting American families and workers from the devastating economic impacts of this bill. When faced with the inconvenient truth of the bill’s impact on skyrocketing gas prices, it was Democratic Senators who wanted to see this bill die a quick death.

The Wall Street Journal aptly noted that environmentalists are “stunned that their global warming agenda is in collapse.” The paper added, “The green groups now look as politically intimidating as the skinny kid on the beach who gets sand kicked in his face.” The paper quoted a political analyst, noting that “this issue is starting to feel like the Hillary health care plan.”

Despite claims that we must “act now” to prevent a climate “crisis,” the Boxer Climate Tax Bill would not have resulted in any “action” whatsoever. The bill, often touted as an "insurance policy" against global warming, would instead have been all economic pain for no climate gain.

And Americans are suspicious of the need for “solutions” to global warming. A Gallup Poll released on Earth Day 2008 revealed that the American public’s concern about man-made global warming has remained unchanged since 1989. According to Gallup, “Despite the enormous attention paid to global warming over the past several years, the average American is in some ways no more worried about it than in years past.”

Just a few days after the embarrassing defeat of the climate bill, the Democrats were at it again. As the price of gas at the pump continued to climb, Democrats were proposing yet another energy tax as part of their “solution” to our energy challenges. The Democrats’ “no” energy bill would increase taxes by $17 billion for America’s oil and gas producers and increase government bureaucracy. Their bill does nothing to increase access to America’s extensive oil and natural gas reserves, does nothing for the promotion of nuclear energy, does nothing to increase refinery capacity, does nothing for electricity generation or transmission, and does nothing for the utilization of clean coal. They are attempting to ignore the basic concepts of supply and demand.

A major component of the Democrats’ “no” energy bill would reinstate the Windfall Profits Tax. Democrats want to impose the tax despite the fact that we tried this almost 30 years ago, with disastrous results. In 1980, under President Jimmy Carter, Congress imposed an excise levy on domestic oil production. According to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the results of Carter’s Windfalls Profits Tax “made the U.S. more dependent upon imported oil.” If the Democrats are successful in enacting their “no” energy bill, they will decrease domestic production and increase America’s oil imports -- the exact opposite of what we need to do

Until we explore and develop domestic energy resources and increase domestic refining capacity, the cost of gas at the pump will increase. As America faces mounting energy challenges, now is not the time for politics as usual -- now is the time for common sense solutions.

Oil and gas exploration and production are currently prohibited on 85 percent of America’s offshore waters. Among industrialized nations with shorelines, the United States is the only one not actively seeking new offshore oil and gas deposits. Canada allows offshore drilling in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Great Lakes. Additionally, Cuba is also looking to expand drilling to within 45 miles of parts of Florida and with technology that may be much less environmentally sound than that used by American companies. Exploration and production activities are currently prohibited in the Pacific and Atlantic regions of the Outer Continental Shelf, which hold an estimated 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of gas. This is equivalent to more than 25 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia.

If President Clinton hadn’t vetoed legislation allowing environmentally sensitive exploration on the Coastal Plain of ANWR ten years ago, today we would have one million additional barrels of oil coming from ANWR each day, which would mean lower gas prices for consumers and more energy security right now. ANWR is estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil -- about 15 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia.

The climate tax debate and the Democrats’ “no” energy bill provide a stark contrast between those who believe the answer to solving our nation’s energy crisis is to raise taxes, regulate more, and drastically increase the size of the federal bureaucracy, and those of us who believe the path forward should develop and expand America’s domestic resources. Congress must reject the Democrats’ attempts to increase taxes and implement back door price controls.

As my home state of Oklahoma shows, tomorrow's energy mix must include more natural gas, wind, geothermal and renewable energy, but oil, coal, and nuclear energy -- the world's largest source of emission-free energy -- must also be included. Developing and expanding domestic energy will translate into energy security and will ensure stable sources of supply and well-paying jobs for Americans.

According to the Heritage Foundation:

High energy costs were a big reason why liberal efforts to institute a carbon tax failed earlier this month in the Senate. Now emboldened conservatives are moving to further help American consumers by pushing for the lifting of government bans on energy development. In April 2007 only 41% of Americans favored drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Today, 57% of Americans favor drilling in coastal and wilderness areas currently off limits.

The typical liberal response to calls for more domestic oil production is that drilling will not help lower prices significantly. For example, Speaker Nancy Pelosi says, “Even by their own standards, drilling in ANWR by the year 2030 would save 1 penny off the price per gallon.” While the estimated 10 to 13 billion barrels of oil currently off limits in ANWR may not drive down the price of oil by itself, liberals are vastly underselling the potential domestic energy possibilities currently off limits thanks to federal bans. Just last week liberals in Congress rejected a proposal to allow drilling for oil 50 miles of the U.S. coast. The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf.

And there is also plenty of energy currently banned from production onshore, too. The Department of Interior estimates onshore energy in the West and Alaska contains 31 billion carrels of oil and 231 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That 31 billion barrels of oil represents U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia for 50 years and the 231 trillion cubc feet of natural gas is enoug to supply all of America’s households for 46 years.

Then there is the granddaddy of them all: the oil shale in Green River Formation, which goes through Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. According to a RAND Corp. study , there are 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels worth of oil shale in the Green River Formation. That is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. At $95 a barrel, it was not economically viable to develop these resources, but at $130 it definitely is. Furthermore, Shell Oil scientists have already conducted small-scale field tests that if replicated on a large scale would make developing the oil shale profitable at $20 a barrel. Are liberals in Congress anxious to see this oil help American consumers? No. Just last week they voted to extend their ban on oil shale development.

Want to know who is for Americans and who is against Americans. Just look at the numbers. Any questions?

Well, I told you so. In a 1989 trade journal article that not many thought was important I pointed out that global oil supply and demand were getting closer to balanced , and projected that prices would firm late in the 20th Century.

What I didn't know then was that the price of oil would be determined by others than the companies and countries producing the oil. Privately-owned oil companies no longer control the price of oil, despite the rhetoric in letters to the editor in local and national newspapers and cries of anguish from the halls of Congress.

Voters could cause the price to decline for the time being if they wished. That's because the price of oil and gas is not fully controlled by how much resource is left to drill. Political and social agendas have significant influence on the price of your gasoline.

Why has oil, and thus, gasoline, become so pricey? Part of it is supply and demand, part is increased costs and capital requirements to find more oil, but much of it is due to speculation by traders on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the lack of access to the resource itself, owing to actions by groups claiming to be "environmentally sensitive."

Supply and demand are easy to diagnose. Global consumption is about 90 million barrels a day, nearly matching global production. Any interruption in the production process could shrink production to less than demand. Ergo, the price goes up. But oil is in trans-shipment across the ocean, so that the price should not be immediately reflected at the pump, but lags by a few days to a week or two. Consumer demand is easily manipulated among sellers by pricing. At one time, the global price was determined by the price of a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude at Cushing, Oklahoma, set by purchasers who bought oil for refineries. At that time the major producing companies were also the major refining companies. Now, the price of oil is set by traders in New York, who never actually touch the oil. They set prices by bidding on lots of oil in the pipeline or yet to be produced, and bid based on their assessments of production security (wars, insurgencies, political unrest, fires, etc.) and on new discoveries, announcements of production fall-offs, or recalculated reserve forecasts. Or, perhaps, on whether they have a hangover from the night before.

Media commonly hype that there are sufficient reserves of oil already discovered to solve any supply crisis, implying that the reserves could be tapped to meet any shortage. Nothing could be further from the truth. When a new well is successfully put on line, the maximum daily production of that well is established. Thereafter, every month it will produce at a lower rate. That is called its "decline." The total amount that the well will eventually produce is its reserve. Reserves can be produced only at the decline rate, so that there is no excess capacity to supply the world with additional oil unless production is purposely kept off the market. As far as I know, there is little surplus capacity left in OPEC, so we are looking at a constant decline in global production, barring any new discoveries and extension of existing fields. And demand is ratcheting up in India and China.

Reserves do not equal increases in production. Wells produce ever decreasing quantities of oil until they reach their economic limit, then are plugged.

Exploring for oil is risky. Many more wells are dry than produce. The capital costs of drilling are staggering and increasing, as the areas to which companies must go to find new oil are ever deeper, darker, colder, and violent. In the continental United States, wells that cost a million dollars a few years ago might cost three million now. If they are horizontal, then they might cost eight million. Wells that are drilled in water or in remote locations cost proportionately more. The requirement for high risk capital is huge. That's why there has been so much merger in the oil industry, and why names like Amoco, Arco and Texaco are gone. The profits of the large companies fund new drilling. Without new drilling, global oil production will fall. The profits also go to reward stockholders, including large pension funds, who have put up a lot of capital to own the stocks, and who get relatively small dividends in return for their risk.

New drilling is crucial to maintaining oil supply. But the drillers have to have places to drill where oil is likely to be found. And that's where you voters come in. The United States daily production has been falling for years, and not necessarily because we don't have the oil resources to drill, but rather drillers can't get access to resources. In a National Petroleum Council study a few years ago, it was demonstrated that trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of oil are locked up from use in the Rocky Mountains, Alaska, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and offshore east and west coasts of the United States. Some Congress members argue that we need to become energy self sufficient, but they continue the constraints placed on access to the resource base.

Why the constraint on access? Because some organizations litigate and politic to keep development of the resources from occurring because they believe that it is environmentally harmful. For instance, the recent litigation successfully sought to declare polar bears endangered because in the future they might be harmed by global warming caused by use of fossil fuels. In reality, the polar bear population is the largest it has ever been in history, they have survived several major warmer episodes in the past, including the Medieval Warm Event, and there is absolutely no published data showing that fossil fuel consumption actually has affected climate. The effect, and we assume, the intent, of the litigation was to stop oil drilling in northern Alaska. The rationale for not drilling offshore east and west coast and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico is that some don't wish to see the development from their ocean-side homes, but the development is likely to be more than 17 miles offshore and thus not visible. The 1002 area in Alaska could supply 5% of the nation's oil supply for twenty years, from an area the relative size of a Kansas University basketball poster in a Kansas wheat field.

The question voters must eventually consider is whether the development of resources will cause irreparable harm to the environment or whether lack of development will cause irreparable economic harm to all, especially the poor and the middle income people of the United States. You are seeing the first effects now. The petroleum exploration and production industry cannot supply you with the transportation and other energy you need without your concurrence.

Your choice. Make it wisely.

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, Senior Scientist Emeritus and retired Director of the Kansas Geological Survey, lectures widely about environmental impacts of natural resource development. He is an honorary member of several professional organizations, and a member of the Kansas Oil & Gas Hall of Fame. He can be contacted at leeg@sunflower.com.

Today the Sarasota Herald-Tribune again uses the war against Radical Islam to bash President Bush and his administration.

In their editorial, "Connecting the dots", they tell the same old story that, "Before the war in Iraq, President Bush and his chief associates claimed they knew about a solid link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, the international terrorist organization that attacked New York and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001." This statement is meaningless, irrelevant and myopic.

What the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, liberals, anti-war proponents and the Democratic Party are missing is that Radical Islam is at war with the West. Radical Islamists want to kill you and me. The question is will we fight back or capitulate.

Tom Trento, Director of the Florida Security Council put it best when he said, "When 'obsessed' people supported by historic precedent and philosophic foundation proclaim war against you and plot your death and destruction you better damn well take them seriously. Sadly, Americans are divided, some for political reasons, some out of ignorance, as to whether radical Islamism is indeed America’s number one problem."

"This division hastens our demise." says Tom.

Tom points out, "In order to be victorious in this global war on terror - which has two primary targets, the 'Great Satan,' America and the 'Little Satan,' Israel - we need a unified and united effort by a majority of Americans over a protracted period of time."

Tom goes on to say, "Currently, there are a significant number of Americans who understand this ideological battle and fully comprehend the deadly desires of our Islamist enemies and the catastrophic consequences of not properly responding at all required levels. Conversely, there are a significant number of Americans who do not understand this ideological battle, have no real comprehension of the related cataclysmic consequences and do not believe our Islamist enemies either desire or are capable of our complete destruction."

"As with most controversial issues, a considerable number of Americans are in the middle trying to figure out if we should conform ourselves to a cultural mindset that attempts to appease and befriend our enemies, or if we should adapt a resilient transformational posture preparing for an ideological war underscored by military battle," according to Tom.

Those who oppose the war do so at the risk of America and Israel. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board, either out of ignorance or ideology, have "no real comprehension of the related cataclysmic consequences and do not believe our Islamist enemies either desire or are capable of our complete destruction."

Radical Islam looks at Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Europe, Israel and the United States as simply fronts in their global war against western ideals and ideas. When we stop focusing on minor past details and come to grips with the global nature of this "clear and present danger" can America and our allies win. Otherwise we are doomed.

The war has already come to our shores. If we leave Iraq and Afghanistan the next battle will be in our homeland. Radical Islamists have said so. We must listen to them.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune has a major article written by Zac Anderson titled, "Not so cool: Sarasota-Bradenton tops for 'greenhouse gas emissions".

Actually, the Sarasota-Bradenton area should get a medal for producing more CO2 than other areas. We are helping our plants grow because you see CO2 is plant food. When we breath we emit CO2. The plants love us.

Zac spends the entire article talking about and to global warming alarmists. He quotes Jerry Karnas, Florida climate project director for Environmental Defense who states "You have the perfect storm for a carbon nightmare." Carbon nightmare? Really? Freddy Kruger is a nightmare, not our good friend carbon.

Of course our very own Florida Representative Keith Fitzgerald is quoted. He states, "Studies like this [Brookings Institution study] are important,"...They give us evidence to back up these efforts to change our growth and transportation patterns."

"This drives home the point we've been making as far as encouraging redevelopment, urban revitalization and the importance of our land use pattern," said County Administrator Jim Ley.

"Change our growth and transportation patterns" and "land use pattern" are code for destroying our local economy with more restrictions and taxes on energy, gasoline, development and of course us citizens. All in the glorious name of reducing CO2 emissions.

In Sarasota County, FL there is a movement right now within a group called SCOPE to require 100% of new development and 50% of existing buildings to have solar water heaters within five years. I sit on the committee looking at this proposal from the SCOPE SEA conference. I will be reporting out on the results soon.

The interesting thing is that Zac, who is a reporter, does not discuss the other side of the issue. I always thought that reporters were supposed to present both sides and let us decide. That is fair and balanced. Clearly Zac is not.

The only quote he uses at the very end of the article is from Rep. Paige Kreegel, R-Punta Gorda, who favors a free-market approach."We can talk all we want about conservation of energy and people not moving out towards the periphery, but nothing does it more than $4 gas," Rep. Paige said. We agree with Rep. Page.

Since Zac didn't, we will give you the other side of the issue. Human caused global warming is a theory that has been proven to be false. We can measure CO2 emissions all we want but human caused CO2 emissions are not the primary cause of global warming. In fact, we are entering a global cooling period at a time when CO2 emissions are at an all time high and rising.

We now know the following facts:

· Ice core data shows that there have been repeated heating and cooling events on the earth long before human activity was significant. Global warming is a naturally occurring event. Attempting to interfere in this process may have unpredictable consequences.

· The Earth cooled between 1940 and 1975 while fossil fuel consumption rose dramatically. The Earth should have warmed if CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption is a cause of global warming. The theory does not fit the data.

· Ignoring data that does not fit a theory is poor science. Only one inconsistent piece of data is necessary to negate a theory.

So why do environmentalists, politicians and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune still cling to a debunked scientific theory? Global warming has transformed into a political movement. It is no longer science it is propaganda. It is a perceived vote getter, plain and simple.

We are saddened to read in the article that, "Sarasota County leaders said the report reaffirms their efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Such gases are trapped in the atmosphere, creating a greenhouse effect that warms the plant."

These "Sarasota County leaders" ignore the fact that Global warming stopped in 1998. We have entered a global cooling period that is predicted to last until 2015 according to current research.

The evidence based data showing the Earth's failure to continue warming has confounded the promoters of man-made climate fear. The American people have consistently rejected climate alarm as a Gallup Poll released on Earth Day 2008 shows the American public’s concern about man-made global warming is unchanged from 1989.

Curbing greenhouse gas emissions is a fool's errand that will cost us all with higher prices for food, fuel, energy and housing. These are the building blocks of our economy. They are beginning to crumble under the weight of the "carbon nightmare" propaganda.

Get ready for $10 a gallon gasoline, higher energy bills, and un-affordable housing courtesy of our local, state and nationally elected officials.

President Bush said that America is "addicted to foreign oil". He is right.

President Bush wants us to dramatically cut our dependence on foreign oil. So do we. However, the Democrats in Congress have been and are passing legislation and implementing policies that force us to remain addicted to foreign oil and prevent us from using those natural resources we have been blessed with.

America depends on cheap and reliable power to fuel our growth. Fossil fuels are the life blood of a strong and growing American economy. High cost and unreliable power will bring down our economy. Wind and solar are currently high cost and unreliable sources of power.

Since the Democrats took control of Congress two years ago the price of gasoline, energy and food have dramatically risen. Gasoline alone has gone from $2.19 a gallon in 2006 to $4.00 a gallon today. Is there a relationship, or cause and effect, between the policies of Democrats and the rise in price of gas since they took control? We believe so.

Are Democrats by design forcing us to remain "addicted" to foreign oil? We believe the answer is a resounding yes.

So how does America break the addiction to foreign oil? This question is the basis of the current debate in Congress and among Americans as they fill up their cars and trucks every day.

The two sides are in the debate are: 1. drill for our own oil now and 2. conserve fuel and use alternative energy sources - wind and solar.

This past week there was an impressive group of oil company CEOs testifing before Congress. Here are some excerpts from that testimony:

One theme that emerged from the [U.S. Senate] hearing was the surprisingly small role played by American oil companies in the global petroleum market.

John Lowe, Executive Vice President of Conoco Phillips, pointed out: "I cannot overemphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments.

We continue to be amazed at the editorial board of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. In their column, "Same old drill", they take the totally illogical position that we should not drill for our own oil.

Their rational is it will take us ten years to get the oil flowing. This was the same rational that caused former President Bill Clinton to veto an energy bill in 1995 that would allow drilling in ANWR. If that bill had been signed we would have 1 million barrels of American owned oil flowing now into our economy every day.

According to Robert J. Samuelson of the Washington Post, "It may surprise Americans to discover that the United States is the third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. We could be producing more, but Congress has put large areas of potential supply off-limits. These include the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and parts of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. By government estimates, these areas may contain 25 billion to 30 billion barrels of oil (against about 30 billion barrels of proven U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic feet or more of natural gas (compared with about 200 tcf of proven reserves).

What keeps these areas closed are exaggerated environmental fears, strong prejudice against oil companies and sheer stupidity. Americans favor both "energy independence" and cheap fuel. They deplore imports -- who wants to pay foreigners? -- but oppose more production in the United States. Got it? The result is a "no-pain energy agenda that sounds appealing but has no basis in reality," writes Robert Bryce in "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence.' "

As Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) said, "The real common sense solution, as we transition away from dependence on fossil fuels, is to increase the supply of domestic energy. We need to get the government out of the way and allow use of plentiful resources under our control. If Congress stopped penalizing and handcuffing our domestic energy production, we could produce an additional 2.7 to 3 million barrels of oil a day within a relatively short period of time."

Senator Cornyn went on to say, "That is why Senate Republicans have introduced legislation, The American Energy Production Act, an important step towards driving down gas prices for all Americans. If enacted, this new legislation would allow access 24 billion barrels of oil—enough oil to supply America for 5 years with no foreign imports. It would also provide for authorization to explore for American oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)."

We have shown over and over again that conservation and greater efficiency (like fleet mileage standards) do not work. According to the Manhattan Institute, "The history of the twentieth century is one of gigantic increases in efficiency—and even larger increases in consumption. The American economy has experienced massive efficiency gains: for each unit of energy, we produce more than twice as much GDP today than we did in 1950. Yet during that period of time, our national total energy consumption has tripled. Paradoxically, when it comes to energy, the more we save, the more we consume."

Prices do go down when you increase supply. The best way to lower energy prices, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, is to accelerate production of all forms of domestic energy.

We have taken off the table drilling for more fossil fuels in Alaska, the East and West coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico. We have not built a new gas refinery in over 30 years. We have not built a new nuclear power plant in over 40 years.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune is oblivious to the pain caused by high gas and energy prices. All they, and their environmental friends in Congress, care about is reducing carbon emissions.

Americans don't care about carbon emissions. What American's care about is cheap reliable energy.

The "same old drill" is the solution. Increase supply and reduce price. Economics 101.