So, Let's See. We've Got Three Energy Alternatives

Two of 'em just lead us back into economic quicksand:

1) The Pelosi House plan, 1434, which she is trying to ramrod through today. This would raise taxes, and effectively prevent any new drilling, via a) forcing oil companies to develop the leases they now have on non-productive land, and increase their losses therefrom, before they are permitted to drill in areas that have oil; b) setting the default for platforms and rigs at 100 miles offshore, where the oil isn't, and creating a dis-incentive for states to cut that in half, by denying them any share in revenue from said platforms and rigs; c) taking the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off the table. In addition, it contains an earmark for public transportation in the state of New York, which might or might not be a worthy cause, but certainly isn't being approached in anything like a democratic fashion. (Ah; after releasing the bill at 9:30 last night, they may allow three hours of debate on it today before attempting to railroad it again. Classy.)

2) Then, we have the "Gang of 20" Senate proposal co-sponsored by ten nominally GOP Senators (Dole [NC], Collins [ME], Graham [SC], Thune [SD], Corker [TN], Isakson [GA], Chambliss [GA], Sununu [NH], Warner [VA] and Coleman [MN]). This is slightly less crappy, in that it would permit some drilling 50 miles off off Florida's West Coast (in the Eastern Gulf), but still bans drilling off of the Pacific Coast. It allows states to share in the income from domestic fossil-fuel development, so that 100 miles could turn into 50 miles. But it still limits us to the Eastern Gulf and some parts of the Atlantic, so we'll still have shutdowns during hurricane season.

3) Then we have House and Senate versions of comprehensive energy reform, which are being blocked by Nancy "I Need a Big Jet" Pelosi, and Harry Reid, respectively.

And our legislators wonder why they collectively "enjoy" a 9% approval rating from their constituents.

If we can't do any better than (1) and (2), they shouldn't pass anything with the word "energy" in it at all. They should wait two more weeks, and let the clock run out on the existing moratoria. If the government has to shut down briefly, they should cite the embattled economy and the ongoing energy crisis, and point to the Democratic hijinks as the reason.

UPDATE: Margaret Thorning of the American Council for Capital Formation discusses the economic ramifications of energy development in a podcast here below.

She believes that that opening more areas for drilling would have send a signal to the market very quickly, and exert rapid downward pressure on oil prices. So we might get some immediate relief from a decent energy bill, and we would certainly be helping ourselves in the medium-term. (Long-term relief, of course, requires that the new technologies become viable—and they will. We have engineers working on electric, hybrid and flex-fuel vehicles now, and researching alcohol-based liquid fuels, better batteries, hydrogen possibilities, and the generation of cleaner electricity. This is all happening around the clock; it's just that we just don't know which alternatives will become most cost-effective, and when they will become practical. We need to let that race go on with as little interference as possible.)

h/t on the "Gang of 20" names: Double-Plus Undead, via Ace.

Here's the podcast: