Kathryn, you’re right, of course. There should be more domestic production (and it would be interesting to know what impact possible tax rises might have on oil companies’ decisions to invest in U.S. E&P). The question of the utilization of oil shale reserves also needs revisiting. All that said, the idea that the current problems can be resolved solely by increasing U.S. production is a myth (and I’m sure that you wouldn’t argue that they can). Incidentally, it’s worth noting that while we could debate the pros and cons of drilling in the ANWR, the idea that drilling there is any significant part of the answer is, I suspect, false. The symbolism of such a decision could, however, mattter. Opening up the ANWR could send a meaningful signal that the U.S. is serious about boosting domestic production and that, in and of itself, could have an impact on the market. At the same time, it could also send a signal that the U.S. is not serious about doing what it really needs to do, which is to reduce its dependence on oil – imported or otherwise. And, yes, there’s also the environmentalist issue to consider. Not an easy topic. I’m unconvinced either way.

The longer term answer to this crunch does not, of course, include gas tax holidays. It will, I suspect, lie in a bundle of technologies from oil to to shale oil to nuclear to solar to wind to biofuels (with Brazilian imports, hopefully, being allowed to play their part) to, yes, conservation. I’m optimistic enough to think that the market will take us a long way there, but I’m not so optimistic as to believe that government (through subsidy or regulation) will not need to play some part in this process.

And could John McCain be the candidate to craft an energy policy that makes sense in terms of national security, an environmentalism of doubt and a willingness (very occasionally) to use the resources of government? He could. But fiirst he needs to drop his attachment to the gimmickry of gas taxes and big government greenery.