ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG TODAY
We need you to help protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
Get EWG widgets & blog badges.
ENVIROBLOG TO YOU
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Are the National Academies Fair and Balanced?
Remaindered Climate Change Links
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Infant formula: How to choose it & use it
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
Let's talk some serious shop about TSCA reform
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
Monthly Archive
Toxics
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on mercury in dental fillings:
...Mercury in its many forms is poisonous, especially to children and pregnant women. The most heinous problems are neurological ones, which can hurt children's ability to learn, even before they're born.
[...]
many dentists and all of the associations that back them say the fillings are safe. But some medical practitioners, holistic adherents and even the World Health Organization say mercury shouldn't be considered totally safe under any conditions.
Here's the best part:
The answer as to whether you should fear your silver fillings falls to your own comfort level, dentists say.
A health study at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) finds that certain deodorising products including air fresheners, toilet-bowl cleaners, and mothballs may be harmful for your lungs.
“Because people spend so much time indoors where these products are used, it’s important that we understand the effects that even low levels might have on the respiratory system,” said researcher Leslie Elliott.
Organics in the News
The New York Times plugs EWG's Shopper's Guide:
If you would like to make sure your organic dollars are delivering on their promise, you can keep an eye on the Environmental Working Group’s site at www.ewg.org[...]
Some Vermont dairy farmers are finding the transition to organic production to be both painless and more profitable. Currently 10 percent of the state's dairies are organic and by next year that number is expected to jump to 20 percent.
Altered Oceans: A Primeval Tide of Toxins
This week the LA Times brings us Altered Oceans, a five-part multimedia expose on the crisis in our seas, and the implications of being at a "tipping point" in marine history.
Part 1, A Primeval Tide of Toxins, opens with a descripition of the poisonous "fireweed" (Lyngbya majuscula), responsible for severe rashes and respiratory distress of watermen and scientists who've had contact with it:
When fishermen touched it, their skin broke out in searing welts. Their lips blistered and peeled. Their eyes burned and swelled shut. Water that splashed from their nets spread the inflammation to their legs and torsos."It comes up like little boils," said Randolph Van Dyk, a fisherman whose powerful legs are pocked with scars. "At nighttime, you can feel them burning. I tried everything to get rid of them. Nothing worked."
As the weed blanketed miles of the bay over the last decade, it stained fishing nets a dark purple and left them coated with a powdery residue. When fishermen tried to shake it off the webbing, their throats constricted and they gasped for air.
After one man bit a fishing line in two, his mouth and tongue swelled so badly that he couldn't eat solid food for a week. Others made an even more painful mistake, neglecting to wash the residue from their hands before relieving themselves over the sides of their boats.
This poisonous sludge is able to thrive because of the excessive nutrient loading from sewage effluent and agricultural runoff:
Industrial society is overdosing the oceans with basic nutrients — the nitrogen, carbon, iron and phosphorous compounds that curl out of smokestacks and tailpipes, wash into the sea from fertilized lawns and cropland, seep out of septic tanks and gush from sewer pipes.Modern industry and agriculture produce more fixed nitrogen — fertilizer, essentially — than all natural processes on land. Millions of tons of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide, produced by burning fossil fuels, enter the ocean every day.
Weiss, the author, forecasts that as overfishing and pollution burden the seafood industry, jellyfish will become a staple of our diet:
Jellyfish populations are growing because they can. The fish that used to compete with them for food have become scarce because of overfishing. The sea turtles that once preyed on them are nearly gone. And the plankton they love to eat are growing explosively.[...]
Pauly, 60, predicts that future generations will see nothing odd or unappetizing about a plateful of these gelatinous blobs.
"My kids," Pauly said, "will tell their children: Eat your jellyfish."
Nancy Rabalais, of the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, describes the effect of farm runoff from the Mississippi:
The cause of death is decaying algae. Fed by millions of tons of fertilizer, human and animal waste, and other farm runoff racing down the Mississippi River, tiny marine plants run riot, die and drift to the bottom. Bacteria then take over. In the process of breaking down the plant matter, they suck the oxygen out of seawater, leaving little or none for fish or other marine life.Years ago, Rabalais popularized a term for this broad area off the Louisiana coast: the "dead zone." In fact, dead zones aren't really dead. They are teeming with life — most of it bacteria and other ancient creatures that evolved in an ocean without oxygen and that need little to survive.
The dead zone off Louisiana, the second largest after one in the Baltic Sea, is a testament to the unintended consequences of manufacturing nitrogen fertilizer on a giant scale to support American agriculture. The runoff from Midwestern farms is part of a slurry of wastewater that flows down the Mississippi, which drains 40% of the continental United States.
The same forces at work in the mouth of the Mississippi have helped create 150 dead zones around the world, including parts of the Chesapeake Bay and waters off the Oregon and Washington coasts.
Check out the Altered Oceans website for amazing photos, video, and other graphics, as well as the message board where you leave or read feedback on the series.
Great Lakes Radio Consortium's series, Pollution in the Heartland, looks at the impact of farming practices on the water supply of the Great Lakes region and what some people are doing about it.
Read Dead in the Water: an Environmental Working Group analysis of government and industry data which shows that reforms of wasteful federal farm programs could lead the way to restoration of America's most valuable fishery.
Friday Round-Up
A Dangerous Lie: What the EPA Knows and Won't Say About the Libby [Asbestos] Cleanup
In November 1999, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that 192 people had died and 375 had been sickened by exposure to asbestos from WR Grace & Company’s Libby vermiculite mine. The ill effects were not limited to miners, but struck down many who had never even been to the mine. The newspaper posited that Grace executives, the EPA and other government agencies knew the dangers of the mine, but did nothing to stop exposure(...)after six years of abatement, at a cost of $110 million, and with Montana’s one-time shot at an expedited Superfund cleanup spent, exposure to asbestos, which has now killed approximately 300 and sickened 2,000 in Libby, continues.Read the full story. Learn more about asbestos-related diseases and the Libby mine scandal.
Farmers use as much pesticide with GM crops, US study finds
From The Independent (UK): One of the major arguments in favour of growing GM crops has been undermined by a study showing that the benefits are short-lived because farmers quickly resort to spraying their fields with harmful pesticides.
Fat. Fat. Fat. Fat.
A commentary in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription only) discusses Chicago's proposed ordinance banning restaurant chains from cooking with oils containing trans fats. Trans fats, linked to heart disease, are a favorite in the food industry because they extend the shelf life of products. The author poses the question: "What if arsenic also conferred profitable advantages to margarine or potato chips? Clearly, we'd all vote to ban its use. "
Have A Green Summer
Earth Day Network and Google Maps have released a new green-travelling website, featuring video tours of five top U.S. vacation spots.
The Terror of our Ways
Michael J. Kavanagh for Grist on the extreme Right's conflation of environmentalists as terrorists. This is from a few weeks back, but still a good read. Also check out Environmental Action's round-up of news clips in which "experts" compare climate change science to Nazi propaganda.
Too Much of a Good Thing
A new report from the World Health Organization reminds us that we can have too much of a good thing. The report states that 60,000 lives are claimed each year from excessive sun exposure—the majority of the deaths from skin cancers caused by UV radiation. What does the WHO say are the best ways to minimize your risk? Limiting time in the midday sun, wearing protective clothing, using sunscreen with a minimum SPF of 15, and staying away from the tanning salon.
Funny—they forgot to mention this hi-tech bikini with built in alarm and UV meter that rates the intensity of the sun's rays on a scale of 1 to 20. The swimsuit, which sells for $190, goes on sale next month.
Are the National Academies Fair and Balanced?
Today Center for Science in the Public (CSPI) Interest hosted a public forum to discuss conflicts of interest on National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issue panels. CSPI's most notable finding was that out of 320 NAS issue panel committee members evaluated, 18% had "direct conflicts of interest " defined as "a direct and recent connection to a company or industry with a financial stake in the study outcome." CSPI has made clear that they do not dispute the high quality of reports produced by NAS, but feel that full disclosure of industry ties should be mandated and strictly enforced to allow panels to be balanced with scientists who have contrasting views.
Six presenters were on hand at the conference to give their impressions of the report and on the issues related to the intersection of industry and science--not just limited to the NAS, but also including EPA and FDA advisory panels. In brief, here are some of their positions on the matter:
Dr. David Michaels, chairman of George Washington University School of Public Health, believes that scientist with conflicts of interest should be barred from government agency panels that "reach conclusions." He also discussed the results-driven leanings of science firms for hire that manipulate science to help companies clear regulatory hurdles and arrive at their desired outcome.
James Conrad, attorney for American Chemistry Council, argued that the best qualified scientists on any given substance, have at one time or another worked with or for a company that deals with that substance. To exclude scientists with ties to industry would, in his view, not be taking advantage of the "best available science" and “expertise.” He also reminded attendees that those with “intellectual interests can be as biased as those with financial interests.”
Steve Nissen, president of the American College of Cardiology, was most blunt in his estimation of the effect of commerce on scientific integrity. He described the FDA as currently "facing a crisis in public confidence," and blamed budget limitations for the FDA's dependency on the very companies it regulates. Dr. Nissen didn't sugar-coat his disapproval of the former and acting commissioners of the FDA, whom he said have significant conflicts of interest themselves, nor did he withhold his frustration at the appointment of Scott Gottlieb, senior advisor to Andrew von Eschenbach, and also a presenter at the forum. He said Gottlieb had come “straight from Wall Street” and had no regulatory experience.
Dr. Gottlieb said that to screen out scientists with industry ties would be very difficult since the "standing" advisory committees are convened, sometimes years, before a drug or substance is brought before them to be evaluated. When the moderator, NPR reporter Snigdha Prakash, asked Gottlieb if there were any circumstances under which he felt it would be necessary to exclude a scientist based on ties to industry, he did say yes, but wasn't able to give a clear example of what those circumstances might be. Gottlieb did say that he was not at the meeting to defend the current status quo FDA advisory panel policies, and acknowledged that there was a need for greater transparency and consistency in the regulatory process. He added—during a Q & A at the end of the forum—that it is becoming increasingly harder to assemble advisory panels due to the poor compensation offered and candidates’ fear of having their reputations besmirched.
The next speaker was CSPI director and former Chicago Tribune reporter, Merrill Goozner. Goozner insisted that there are an ample number of qualified experts available who do not have conflicts of interest. He identified previous employment at think tanks such as CATO or The American Enterprise Institute as being indicative of a pro-industry slant. In Goozner's opinion the NAS currently does "an abysmal job of disclosure."
The final speaker, frequent NAS panelist Frederick Andersen, accused the CSPI report of making “broad, sweeping, and unsubstantiated claims.” Andersen dismissed the CSPI report as being a "witch-hunt" against scientists with ties to industry, and suggested that CSPI's definition of "conflict of interest" led to their shocking findings.
Current NAS policy does not does not consider a scientist as having conflicts of interest if his or her financial relationship ended before the start-up of the panel. In their report, CSPI used a five-year time frame for considering financial ties, which is comparable to the financial conflict-of-interest disclosure policy at the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Other Useful Links:
Union of Concerned Scientists report which found some FDA scientists are pressured to alter their findings, and fear retaliation for voicing safety concerns
Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP), of which Dr. David Michaels is a chair.
Merrill Goozner's blog, GOOZNEWS.com
Remaindered Climate Change Links
Here are a few remaindered links to get you through the weekend:
In Did Al Get the Science Right? Der Spiegel surveys the scientific community for reactions to Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. And cheers to the author, Katharine Mieszkowski, for doing what so many journalists are failing to do when quoting global warming skeptics: reveal the sources of their funding. Who cares what these industry hacks have to say when their rent is being paid by ExxonMobil?
An opinion piece in the BBC clues us into the social upside of driving restrictions in London.
The Nation tells the story of National Wildlife Federation chairman, Jerome Ringo, and his plans to bring varying constituencies together across class and racial lines to build a broader and more powerful green movement.
Check out this new Greenpeace ad, The City Gas Guzzler.
EnviroGroups on MySpace ?
What do Oceana, Oxfam America, and Greenpeace all have in common? Well-among other things-they are all nonprofits that have tapped into the social networking world of MySpace.com to attract new supporters. The website, which is best know for giving exposure to lesser known bands and helping teenagers stay in touch with their massive amounts of online "friends," has proven itself to not be limited to these uses. Where MySpace is limited is in its own site construction, which allows groups to set up pages that are usually clumsy, at best. The upside to its simple construction is that you don't need a programmer to set up a profile--anyone can do it. If you want to learn more about this phenomenon, check out this interview with Pete Cashmore of Mashable.com or this article by Ken Goldstein of the The Nonprofit Consultant Blog. If you're an environmental group looking to enhance your communications with the public and stay on top of the rapidly-shifting communications landscape, do yourself a favor and check out Green Media Toolshed.
Hilarious bonus link: Demetri Martin of The Daily Show on "social networking"
A Taste for Ag Policy Discussion
Keith Good, president and editor of the popular subscription daily, FarmPolicy.com, is also the editor(or should I say "Chef") of Ag Policy Soup. Launched in March '06, the site publishes audio interviews with U.S. farm policy experts.
Just today Good interviews Dan Morgan, Washington Post staff writer and brainchild of the Post's current farm policy series, "Harvesting Cash. In the interview Morgan reminds us that the his series is:
"not about beating up on farmers, [but rather meant to] indentify and spotlight flaws in the program & highlight places where money could be used better to the benefit of farmers."
Washington Post Series "Harvesting Cash" Continues
Today, the Post's farm policy investigators tell the story of a 2003 boondoggle in which massive stockpiles of powdered milk, intended for use as "drought relief," ended up being traded all over the U.S. and in Mexico for big profits.
Yes, I did just use the word "boondoggle."
Washington Post Keeps Digging Up Dirt on Wasteful Farm Policies
The Post's Dan Morgan, Gilbert M. Gaul, and Sarah Cohen continue to expose some serious flaws with the 2002 Farm Bill today in three articles deatiling different aspects of farm subsidy waste. Today's three articles build on the authors' July 2nd and 3rd pieces Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm and Growers Reap Benefits Even in Good Years
From No Drought Required For Federal Drought Aid; Livestock Program Grew To Cover Any 'Disaster':
In all, the Livestock Compensation Program cost taxpayers $1.2 billion during its two years of existence, 2002 and 2003. Of that, $635 million went to ranchers and dairy farmers in areas where there was moderate drought or none at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post. None of the ranchers were required to prove they suffered an actual loss. The government simply sent each of them a check based on the number of cattle they owned.
From When Feed Was Cheap, Catfish Farmers Got Help Buying It:
One of the more unusual offshoots of Congress's drought-relief efforts was a $34 million assistance program for catfish farmers. Under the 2003 Catfish Feed Assistance Program, announced in August of that year, commercial catfish farmers in Mississippi, Arkansas and a handful of other states got government credits for feed equal to $34 per ton. All they had to do was apply at their local feed mill. The amount they received was based on how much feed they had purchased at the mill in 2002 -- not any actual losses.
Also check out BIRTH OF A SUBSIDY: Benefit for Ranchers Was Created to Help GOP Candidate
Organic Fast Food Coming to NYC
Organic hot dogs, burgers, and milkshakes may soon be making their way to the streets of the Big Apple. According to Sustainable Industries Journal, activist Antonia Nagy is working on a business model that will put multiple street-vendor style food carts around New York, allowing a greater diversity of people exposure to organic food. Way to go, Antonia!
The bottle-versus-the-tap debate
Today, The L.A. Times reveals that consumers spend 10 billion dollars annually on bottled water which undergoes a far less scrupulous testing regimen than big-city tap water systems. Municipalities are required to test for fecal coliform bacteria over 100 times per month and to make their results public, while bottled water facilities are only required to perform these tests once weekly and do not have to publicize their findings. This information--coupled with a June United Nations Environmental Program report finding an average of 46,000 pieces of plastic debris floating near the surface of every square mile of ocean--may be good encouragement to stick with tap water.
Sally Squires, author of the LA Times piece, suggests drinking your water--whether bottled or tap-- cold, for improved taste.
Oregon Mail Tribune: How pure is bottled water?
Like Mother, Like Baby
In a new study published in Environmental Science & Technology, researchers watched levels of plasticizing chemicals called phthalates ("THAH-lates") rise and fall in breast milk over a six-month period.
In other words, baby ingests chemical residues of the consumer products such as moisturizer, nail polish and plastics that Mom uses.
Some of this sharing of pollution is inevitable, because phthalates are used to make products all over the home. Breast milk is still the best baby food there is!
For now, nursing Moms can avoid using nail polishes that contain phthalates, but in the long run what we need is a better public health system. Did you know that most chemicals are not tested for health effects before being put on the market? We should revise our laws so that companies have to prove a chemical is safe enough for kids before putting them on store shelves.
"We Need to Talk About Farm Policy" -- A Must Read.
The following editorial, written by Thomas Rowley of Rural Policy Research Institute, explains---in terms we can all understand--the ways we are linked to farm policy, and how the idea that farm subsidies "help farmers" is misleading.
And finally, at long last--a farm policy piece that will not sail over the heads of all but the most studied wonks!
July 10, 2006
We Need to Talk.About Farm Policy
By Thomas D. Rowley
I confess that I shudder at the phrase: We need to talk. Immediately my
mind begins to race and pulse quicken. Sweat forms on my brow as my gut
tightens. What did I do? What does she think I did? How long is this
"talk" going to take? You guys know the feeling. The only thing worse is
to hear, "We need to talk later," because, of course, we will then spend
every second between now and "later" inventorying our infractions and
preparing a confession that includes far more than we're being accused
of.
That said, we need to talk about farm policy. Boy, do we need to talk.
And not just the farmers, lobbyists and bureaucrats, but all of us.
Why? Because farm policy affects all of us (and millions of others
around the world). Because so few of us understand it. And because it's
broken.
As commentator and former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower
says, "If you eat, you're involved in agriculture." To that, I'd add
that if you pay taxes or care about rural communities, the environment
and/or poor people around the world, you ought to care about
agricultural policy, the $25 billion it passed out in assistance last
year and the huge impacts it has.
With respect to understanding, farm policy in this country has to be
among the most Byzantine of all governmental arenas. It's rife with
convoluted jargon, counterintuitive methods and unintended consequences.
I've worked on rural issues for 18 years and still get headaches trying
to keep track of direct and countercyclical payments; loan deficiency
payments; amber, green and blue boxes and the like.
Finally, farm policy doesn't even work well for most of the people it
purports to help. As reported in The Washington Post last week, the
lion's share of payments goes to a small percentage of producers of a
few select crops-some who don't even need help. Payments also go to
landowners-some who aren't involved in farming at all. Left wanting are
all the growers of so-called "non-program" crops like fruits, vegetables
and livestock. Also left wanting are the nation's rural communities,
even those that are home to farmers receiving big government checks.
Indeed, analysis by the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank shows that farm
payments don't improve the economy in counties where most of the
payments go, if anything they depress it, creating not growth but
dependency.
None of which is to say that Americans shouldn't care about our
farmers. We should and most of us do. But we ought to make darn sure
that the people who receive farm payments are farmers and that they are
farmers who really need the help. To do that, we have to talk.
As President of the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit research
organization, Ken Cook has done more than anyone else to start that
conversation. In 2004, EWG's farm subsidy database began posting the
names of farm payment recipients beside the amounts they receive. That
information got many people talking and many others crying foul. Cook
has now gone a step further by challenging former House Agriculture
Committee Chair Larry Combest (R-TX) and chief architect of the current
farm program to a series of debates on the subject. The debates, Cook
says, would help inform the public as Congress formulates the next Farm
Bill. Prominent farm journalists and policy experts have agreed to
moderate the debates, which would be held around the country and which
Cook calls "PowerPoint at thirty paces."
Unfortunately, Mr. Combest-who now lobbies for clients such as the
Minnesota Corn Growers, the American Sugar Alliance and the USA Rice
Federation and has staunchly defended current farm policy in the
press-isn't interested. Over the phone, Mr. Combest told me he had no
intent of debating Cook, didn't appreciate the public delivery of the
challenge and suggested that Cook travel the country learning about
farmers and their circumstances.
While I wasn't surprised by Mr. Combest's refusal to debate, I was
greatly disappointed. What better way could there be to improve a policy
that affects so many than to have an open and honest debate on the
issues? Here's hoping Mr. Combest reconsiders, because we really need to
talk.
--
Copyright 2006, Thomas D. Rowley, RUPRI Fellow
Update: More Venues Offer to Host Farm Policy Showdown
Purdue University has agreed to host one of a series of debates on farm subsidies and the next farm bill that EWG president Ken Cook has proposed to former House Agriculture Committee Chairman Larry Combest. Professor Otto Doering, an internationally respected agricultural economist, policy expert and educator would be serving as moderator.
This adds yet another high profile moderator to the list. The others so far are:
1. Sonja Hillgren - Senior Vice President/Editorial of Farm Journal
2. Barry Flinchbaugh - Kansas State University Professor
3. Forrest Laws - Executive Editor of Farm Presses
Government Study Confirms Dangers of Dioxin
Today the National Academy of Sciences released a report confirming that dioxin, the byproduct of several industries, is a potent carcinogen.
In a 2005 investigation, Environmental Working Group (EWG) researchers tested the umbilical cord blood of 10 newborn babies, and found that all of them had dioxins in their blood from the moment they were born.
UPDATE to Cook v. Combest
Purdue University has offered to host one of a series of debates on farm subsidies and the next farm bill that EWG president Ken Cook has proposed to former House Agriculture Committee Chairman Larry Combest. Professor Otto Doering, an internationally respected agricultural economist, policy expert and educator has agreed to serve as moderator.
Combest has yet to formally reply to the invitation, and so it remains to be seen if he has the gusto to stand up to Mr. Cook, whom he had previously referred to as one of "the medley of malefactors who are teamed up to bring farm policy down in this country," united by "inverted pentagrams" and "voodoo," and who "need to understand that the real environment—as opposed to the one they are trying to conjure up—is not on their side." Certainly very bold accusations from a man who's been so silent since being invited to defend his farm bill in a public forum with Ken Cook.
The Westerner on Cook v. Combest challenge
Rural Populist on Cook v. Combest challenge
.
The 'Rumble in the Jungle' of Farm Policy Debate
Environmental Working Group president, Ken Cook, has challenged former House Agriculture Committee Chairman, Larry Combest (R-TX), to a series of nationwide debates on 'agriculture policy, including the purposes and impacts of farm subsidies, agricultural trade, conservation, rural development, and the shape of the next farm bill.'
Cook's challenge arrives on the heels of a Washington Post series that lambasted the wastefulness of the current farm bill. According to the Washington Post investigation "the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all..."
Combest, the main architect of the 2002 farm bill, has yet to rise to the challenge and was unavailable for comment to Andrew Martin of the Chicago Tribune.
Cook's Letter to Larry Combest : Farm Subsidy Database
Keith Good of FarmPolicy.com calls this 'The 'Rumble in the Jungle' of Farm Policy Debate'
Traci Bruckner of Center for Rural Affairs offers her vision of the 2007 farm bill
A Food Fight Over Farm Subsidies
Happy Interdependence Day
As many of us celebrated the 50th birthday of our nation's highway system and the 230th birthday of America with a roadtrip, it's a good time to ask how we plan to get around for the next fifty years. Even greenies like me are not going to stop driving, so as a nation we'd better figure out how to stabilize gas prices.
For my $3.12, Sebastian Mallaby hits the nail on the head, saying we should just admit that no nation is an island when it comes to energy security. Rather, the more nations diversify their supply sources of energy (ie buy less oil from more places), the less vulnerable everyone will be to individual catastrophes or political conflict.
For example, check out how much money drivers from 50 metro areas send to Middle East oil producers each year. It's here: http://www.ewg.org/reports/stuckinthesand/.
Clearly, we have to give in to that other great American pastime -- shopping, for oil. Just remember what your grandmother said when she gave you birthday money: don't spend it all in one place.
And PS: For those that want to drill in our own backyard, consider that all of our hard work over the past 15 years has given the US, um, 53 days' worth of oil: http://www.ewg.org/oil_and_gas/.