Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: Gingrich Leads Chorus of Simpletons

Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: Gingrich Leads Chorus of Simpletons

WASHINGTON, May 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — American Solutions for Winning the Future announced today that more than 100,000 Americans have now signed a petition urging Congress to immediately start drilling for oil domestically to ease gas prices. The petition is part of the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" campaign American Solutions launched last week.

The petition reads:

"We, therefore, the undersigned citizens of the United States, petition the U.S. Congress to act immediately to lower gasoline prices by authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries."

Next week, American Solutions will deliver the signatures, gathered from citizens in all 50 states, to the U.S. Senate as a first step toward stopping the destructive Warner-Lieberman bill which would raise the cost of gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, and aviation fuel.

According to American Solutions’ research, 73% of the American people agree that with appropriate safeguards to protect the environment, we should drill for oil off America’s coasts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This belief is so widespread it is supported by a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents.

"Our message of ‘Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less’ is clearly resonating with hard-working Americans who are struggling to pay for rising gas prices," said Dave Ryan, American Solutions Executive Director. "The voices of more than 100,000 Americans are demanding that Congress offer real solutions to our energy challenges, and that begins with drilling for oil now."

For more information about the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" campaign, visit

About American Solutions

American Solutions for Winning the Future is a new, non-partisan organization built around three goals: to defend America and our allies abroad and defeat our enemies, to strengthen and revitalize America’s core values, and to move the government into the 21st Century. Its General Chairman is former Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Populism meets American exceptionalism in this ludicrous "petition." Some people still think that they can change the laws of physics, economics, or geology by fiat, or–in this case–democratic tantrum. It’s funny how so-called "conservatives" just can’t understand concepts of "pay-as-you-go" when it comes to energy and the environment. Or deficits for that matter. I just love the little manipulative sympathy ploy for "hard-working Americans." As if other people around the world aren’t even more hard-working (without the comforts brought by Americas voracious energy consumption). But no matter. Americans–blue and white collar alike–can work and struggle as hard as they want, and it won’t change the physical reality. The world is running out of easy oil. Production is close to peaking globally. Deal with it.

U.S. oil production peaked in the ’70s and is now down several million barrels per day. Drilling ANWR, which is really what this petition is about would add 780,000 barrels a day for a short period after which U.S. production would again inexorably decline. So basically, by drilling ANWR, we would be more quickly producing our children and grandchildren’s oil, leaving them to once again carry our burden of consumption.

Instead, we should be pursuing policies which raise oil prices, so that the free-market can do its work and provide alternatives. Why do conservatives have to be lectured about free-market economics? Oh, right. They’re actually only for free markets when they are rigged in their favor. Oil has most decidedly spun out of their control, since the vast majority of the world’s oil reserves are being sold by National Oil Companies (NOCs) to the highest bidder, which more often than not these days are not Americans. So the isolationist crybabies want legislation to extend the illusion that they remain indifferently above the global reality of rising demand in the face of plateauing or falling energy production.

In addition, oil is a fungible commodity, meaning any excess produced in America simply feeds into the world market. Therefore a 780,000 barrel per day increase (vs. 85 million barrels consumed) would be absorbed quickly by growing consumer demand in China and India and falling production elsewhere. Impact on U.S. prices would be negligible.

Instead of ignorantly whining for domestic drilling, why don’t they push for real solutions that would not only result in real change, but a long-term and sustainable drop in energy prices 10-15 years out. To make that happen, we need to suck it up today and welcome high fuel prices. That will naturally and without government intervention launch a whole new revolution in sustainable energy production, complete with millions of new jobs, safe from outsourcing. The good part is, it will happen with or without the moronic plan to drill ANWR. I’d just rather not prolong the world’s agony. We need solutions now. Instead of swallowing the nightmarish conservative oil-industry legacy of petroleum shortages and carbon emissions problems stretching as far into the future as the eye can see, we can and will build a new infrastructure of pollution-free and renewable energy.

Some visionary people and companies are determined to do just that:

Rocky Mountain Institute




Sapphire Energy


Solix Biofuels

And many others. So quit your bitching, Newt, and get on board to build America’s real energy future!

Comments (12 comments)

ClintJCL / May 31st, 2008, 12:01 pm / #1

Signing that petition doesn’t mean that one also signed a petition against funding alternative energy sources.

For a diabetic metaphor: If my blood sugar is dangerously low, why should I NOT eat something unhealthy like candy — while looking for more healthy food that might not be within arm’s reach?

If you want oil prices to go up, you should support the drilling — the more oil that gets used up, the more prices will go up. If we ignore reserves, doesn’t that keep the price lower, knowing there is an untapped supply?

BlackSun / June 1st, 2008, 11:37 am / #2

Well, Clint, it boils down to basic economics. When oil becomes more expensive, oil alternatives become more attractive. These yokels are trying to make oil cheaper. Which won’t work anyway.

Speaking to your diabetic metaphor: What if the permanent cure for diabetes (medication that would heal the pancreas and cause it to resume producing insulin normally) was just across the room, but you sat there in your chair refusing to get up, eating candy and taking insulin shots?

That’s more like what Gingrich is proposing.

Your last point is economically unsound. Reserves don’t keep the price low. The market only responds to the actual available supply of the commodity at a given moment. The futures market is the only exception, but one could say that traders in that market already anticipate future production. In fact they are betting heavily on their knowledge of ACTUAL future production. Not reserves.

Let’s look at that another way: even if we knew the world had an essentially unlimited supply of petroleum, say 100 trillion barrels. If the rate of production was physically limited to-say-85 million barrels/day, but demand was 100 million, prices would still skyrocket, and some non-essential uses of oil would have to be curtailed. This is true no matter how much proven reserves existed.

Rate of production is as important as reserves to the world economy. Peak oil is essentially a rate-of-production problem. If you look at falling production in the North Sea, Mexico and other areas, you will see that by the time ANWR came online, it would simply slow the inevitable drop in world production slightly. Not a solution at all.

Any policy change that favors drilling is going to negatively impact the switch to alternatives. Which is why this petition is so ridiculous. Not only is it the wrong prescription for the problem, it prolongs it.

It’s like having strep throat and instead of taking antibiotics, downing a vial of still more streptococcus bacteria. Disgusting.

Reality Czech / June 2nd, 2008, 10:31 am / #3

… a 780,000 barrel per day increase (vs. 85 million barrels consumed) would be absorbed quickly by growing consumer demand in China and India and falling production elsewhere. Impact on U.S. prices would be negligible.

The effect of the changed balance of trade on currency exchange rates would reduce local prices somewhat.

Gerr / June 13th, 2008, 4:55 am / #4

780k negligible ? at the current price of $135 per barrel that is more than $38 billion a year! Money that stay here and not in the Mid East. That is how you solve a problem, $38 billion at a time.

blhu / June 14th, 2008, 6:01 am / #5

all you use is the low -anti anwr -figures .. what if and unless we explore we will never
know, you are wrong and say there is closer to the high side of the estimate , plus add in balken, oil shale in the central western states , coastal supplies by current estimats there is enough reserves in the US .. to ,at current consuption rates to last 120 years . If we drill here , drill now and agressivley pursue and develop alternative energy ie
nuclear , fuel cell, and renewable sources what would be the harm.. plus the money spent on the oil would stay here creating jobs and helping our economy as well . hecll if if it doesnt lower the cost of oil much id rather pay my neighbor than some misddleeast dicatator that is trying to kill me

tom / June 14th, 2008, 7:48 am / #6

Nobody is saying drilling ANWR is a total solution. It’s only one segment of a comprehensive plan to rid ourselves of dependance on countries, who don’t like us very much, for 70% of our energy needs. It makes no sense at all to be hostage to foreign sources when we have proven reserves of our own in the form of clean coal liquification, oil shale recovery, continental shelf extraction and, yes, ANWR. Alternative energy sources: wind, solar, bio-thermal, etc. should all be vigorously pursued, but the reality is that none of these alternative sources (under the best of circumstances) can significantly replace petroleum-based energy for at least 20-30 years. What are we supposed to do in the mean time, allow our country to revert to a third world, agrarian, horse-drawn society? Yeah, right.

Reality Czech / June 16th, 2008, 8:17 am / #7

all you use is the low -anti anwr -figures .. what if and unless we explore we will never
know, you are wrong and say there is closer to the high side of the estimate

The figures come from the USGS. They could be high just as easily as they could be low.

coastal supplies by current estimats there is enough reserves in the US .. to ,at current consuption rates to last 120 years

If you believe this, you are delusional.

It’s only one segment of a comprehensive plan to rid ourselves of dependance on countries, who don’t like us very much, for 70% of our energy needs.

Not 70%, about 28%. Oil is only about 40% of US energy consumption, and imported oil is only about 70% of that fraction.

Reality Czech / June 16th, 2008, 8:18 am / #8

Also, much of the USA’s oil imports come from Canada (friendly) and Mexico (relatively friendly).

tom / June 16th, 2008, 9:44 am / #9

Czech, You’re right. I mispoke… I meant 70% of the oil we use, not 70% of total energy.

tom / June 16th, 2008, 10:02 am / #10

BTW, the last figures I saw on imports from Canada and Mexico was about 16-17% each (~33%) or slightly less than half of what we import.

dave / June 22nd, 2008, 12:21 pm / #11

Isn’t it amazing how anyone who voices an opposing opinion is branded a “simpleton”? Open minds don’t close doors. This simpleton wonders why America is the only nation who’s government actively oppresses proactive infrastructure in support it’s own energy needs. China is allowed to drill off of our shores, but our companies aren’t. I have little doubt that over-educated idiots will still blame Bush when China’s inept management, environmental policies, and technology damage U.S. shores. Poor, poor, manatee.
Just another simpleton view, but is anyone else asking why we’re flooding our homes with mercury-based flourescent bulbs? Anyone thinking about where we will dispose of used batteries from our hybrid autos? I vote that we send them to Congress. This simpleton actually drives a hybrid (I’m just too uninformed to understand how to operate a regular internal combustion drive).

BlackSun / June 30th, 2008, 8:07 am / #12


It’s not the opposing opinion that brands someone a simpleton, it’s their lack of understanding of economics. Oil is a fungible global commodity. Meaning that not only do Chinese companies get to drill off our shores (assuming your facts are correct), they also get to bid against us for oil that American companies produce right here in America. So we have to look at the global supply picture if we want to do something about prices. There is no “energy independence.” That’s a pipe dream. And there will be no drop in prices without massive investment in renewable alternatives. Petroleum (and oil-equivalents) production is on an irreversible decline globally.

Your assessment of CFL’s is a bit ridiculous. Coal fired power plants release mercury right into the atmosphere. The tiny trace amounts contained in CFL’s will be more than offset by their drastic reduction of electricity consumption and therefore coal-plant mercury emissions.

Hybrid batteries can and should be recycled. We have to stop looking at products from a once-through then throw-it-away model. We need to close all the loops in our industrial processes and implement cradle-to-cradle manufacturing.

The final reason why Drill Here, Drill Now is a joke is that we need high oil prices to encourage alternatives. This is the magic bullet. People have been asleep and now they are painfully awake. Unfortunately, reaching for the pacifier in the form of more drilling will be fruitless this time. Global supplies are dwindling. It’s face the music, or else…

If you drive a hybrid, good for you, but please do a little research and get your energy awareness where it needs to be. This is now becoming a matter of human survival.

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this post.