On Wednesday, President Bush argued that, “Congress must face a hard reality: Unless members are willing to accept gas prices at today’s painful levels—or even higher—our nation must produce more oil. And we must start now.” Unfortunately, the president’s proposal to end the moratorium on offshore drilling in sensitive coastal areas would not lower gas prices. The science contradicts President Bush, and arguments from legislators that the U.S. should open offshore fields for drilling are simply the latest instance of federal policymaking that willfully ignores scientific evidence.

According to an Energy Information Administration study, drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf would increase domestic oil production 7 percent by 2030 compared to a reference case, but “because oil prices are determined on the international market…any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.” Further, it would take years for production to begin, and the nation lacks both the infrastructure necessary to conduct offshore drilling and the capacity necessary to refine extracted oil. The science is clear: offshore drilling in sensitive coastal areas would not even come close to alleviating the energy crisis. But these aren’t the only reasons; the Center for American Progress has a full “Ten Reasons Not to Lift the Offshore Drilling Moratorium.”

The president’s proposal demonstrates both a lack of imagination and a refusal to incorporate science into executive decision-making. Instead of trying to produce more oil, the United State should be researching technologies that would move us beyond our dependence on oil. The real solution to the energy crisis—and to the climate crisis—is to innovate, become more efficient, and move forward. That’s why offshore drilling in sensitive areas is a bad idea. For a long-term plan, it is remarkably short-sighted.

Cartoon by Mike Luckovich, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. From the Cartoonist Group.