I’m convinced that I have discovered a new social law. It seems to have the validity of Newton’s Laws. Here it is: rising energy prices cause IQs and body temperatures to converge. Convergence is most rapid in the political arena, especially in a presidential election year.

For thirty years our politicians have blathered on about “energy independence.” Here’s a summary of our progress. In 1973, U.S. foreign oil imports were at 33 percent of total consumption. Today they are 58 percent, and may reach 70 percent by 2020.

We import energy for a straightforward reason—it’s cheaper than producing it at home. (In 2007, Canada was our top source for oil. Mexico and Saudi Arabia tied for second.) Since almost all of our oil imports are consumed by the transportation sector, energy independence means finding alternatives to gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Transitioning our transportation fleet towards a substitute other than oil will likely take most of the 21st century.

Eliminating the tariff on imported Brazilian ethanol would help. Brazilian ethanol is made from sugar cane. Brazil produces it so cheaply that it is able to export it to the United States and make a profit despite the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff. By removing the tariff, Brazilian ethanol will make ethanol-gasoline blends cheaper. (The U.S. corn ethanol mandate is ethically, ecologically, and economically perverse. The Sierra Club’s Dan Becker calls it “a hoax on the public.” It’s a great example of how well-off, well-organized groups use government to transfer wealth and opportunities from the poorly organized and less well-off to themselves.)

Wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear power generate electricity. Hence, their contribution lies in displacing greenhouse gas emissions from coal and natural gas-fired power plants. (A single quarter-ounce pellet of uranium generates as much energy as 3.5 barrels of oil, 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, or 1,780 pounds of coal.)

Both candidates say that we cannot drill our way out of the current oil “crisis.” That’s true, but it’s also clear that solar, wind, or biomass aren’t the answer either. As a matter of logic, it doesn’t follow that because one measure cannot solve a problem, it should be dismissed.

Regarding increasing offshore oil drilling, it’s true that in the short term (e.g., five years) increased access will not lower gasoline prices. Long lead times are needed to develop these fields. Production is slowed by a shortage of both human and physical capital (e.g., drilling ships and rigs) meaning product from offshore fields is likely a decade away.

But offshore oil and gas resources are potentially substantial. Refusing to allow more drilling provides reason for oil buyers to believe that crude supplies will remain tight for years to come. Hence they are likely to bid up futures prices.

The environmental arguments against drilling seem moot. There hasn’t been a significant spill from an offshore U.S. well since 1969. Recall that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (and now Ike) destroyed or damaged hundreds of oil rigs without causing serious damage. The Washington Post reports that of the more than 7 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore in the last 25 years, 0.001 percent—that is one-thousandth of 1 percent—has been spilled.

Proposals to float a windfall profits tax are a great example of economic illiteracy. Given what we know from experience, I’m amazed the media still gives it legs. In 1980, Congress passed, and President Carter signed, the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act. The tax was supposed to generate $393 billion in revenues, but ended up generating only about $40 billion. Because the tax discriminated against domestic oil producers, over the eight-year life of the tax, foreign oil imports rose by 8 to 16 percent.

If foreign producers can offset the lost domestic production, then the tax simply shifts domestic consumption to foreign sources, with no effect on gas prices. If foreign producers can’t offset reduced U.S. production, then not only will we be more dependent on foreign oil, but gas prices will rise to bring demand in line with newly reduced supply.

The economist Thomas Sowell often remarks, “Reality is not optional.” Nowhere is his observation more germane than energy policy. Is either candidate capable of delivering this message?