Thanks for your reply. First off, some points of agreement. I agree that not all the recent spike in gas prices can be attributed to environmental restrictions. However, while not all of it can, a significant amount certainly can, specifically the more constant rise in gas prices over time. If environmental restrictions were laxed, or if for example, other areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska or the Outer Continental Shelf were opened for oil exploration, I have no doubt that it would result (given time) in a large drop in gas prices, certainly well below current gas prices.

I also feel that you are being especially harsh on oil companies. Sure, there have been instances of profiteering, like the Exxon example you gave, but that is really a small piece in the grand scale of things. Remember, Exxon and American based oil companies cannot set the price of oil, in a market where oil can be be purchased from the middle east, latin america, russia, and elsewhere, it is simply not possible for oil companies to have much power in what prices get charged for gas. The prices, like most things in the free market, are set by supply and demand.

You write,

Traditionally, oil companies have help no punches in seeking to pad their bottom line, including displacing peoples, unrestrained exploitation of natural environments, and destruction of animal habitats…

What makes oil companies different from any other company? All companies, whether oil companies or not, have a common objective of maximizing profits, in ‘padding their bottom line’. Much of what you criticize oil companies of doing can also be said of all companies in general, and therefore your problem is not with oil companies specifically, but with capitalism generally (a topic for another day).

Your critique that oil companies engage in, “unrestrained exploitation of natural environments, and destruction of animal habitats” is also not a fair charge either, after all, these are oil companies we are talking about, not insurance salesmen. Their goal, indeed their sole objective, is to supply the most oil possible. And to some environmentalists, anything oil companies do in trying to supply oil is considered an “unrestrained exploitation of natural environments, and destruction of animal habitats”. Do you believe that building the Alaska pipeline was an example of “unrestrained exploitation of natural environments, and destruction of animal habitats”? I certainly don’t think so. The Alaska pipeline has shown the world that an environmentally friendly oil exploration can be built without the “destruction of animal habitats”, and in doing so, supplies nearly one million barrels of oil a day. Yet as environmentally friendly as the Alaska pipeline has been (and that was nearly 30 years ago, todays technology is vastly more superior and environmentally friendly), many environmentalist protested and continue to be against it.

In short, there is very little a company whose objective is to supply the world a natural resource it so desperately needs can do to satisfy the objections of all environmentalists.

Thanks again for the comments, I have learned alot and enjoyed our discussions, as I mentioned above, while we may disagree, I still respect your consistency and principled stand on this matter.