Many Republicans are wrong to cite offshore drilling as a major solution to America’s energy crisis; it is no more than a small part of the solution as the country dreams of energy independence. They are wrong to demonize Democrats for supposedly holding back offshore drilling, when in fact it currently is permitted off four Gulf Coast states (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama), plus Alaska and a tiny portion of California.

But many Democrats are wrong to dismiss offshore drilling as irrelevant. According to McClatchy Newspapers, in the Gulf of Mexico alone about 3,900 offshore platforms produce about 1.3 million barrels of oil a day, about one-fourth of U.S. domestic production. There’s not much wrong with that, and more oil is to be had in those areas.

Meanwhile, offshore-drilling bans exist for the rest of California, all of Oregon and all of Washington. There’s not much wrong with that, either. Offshore drilling, in its place (which is neither the Northwest nor the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) is a viable industry and should be allowed to grow responsibly.

President Bush on Tuesday lifted an executive ban of offshore drilling in the protected areas. This was little more than a political stunt, as a congressional ban remains in place. Both Bush and his Democratic critics resorted to finger-pointing, further polarizing the issue. But both parties are not so partisan that they cannot agree on this fact: No solution will have a short-term impact on the price of gas. It will take a long-term combination of solutions, including the rapid rise of alternative energy sources, conservation by consumers to reduce demand, and, yes, a boost in production to increase supply and make us less dependent on OPEC.

Rather than heeding the pontificating politicians, Americans would be wise to listen instead to ourselves. A recent Gallup Poll showed that 57 percent of Americans favor offshore exploration in now-prohibited areas to reduce gas prices. We suspect that percentage would soar if the pollster’s inquiry included the phrase “in every other coastal state except my own.” Indeed, that remains the sticking point: where drilling should be allowed. In the offshore waters of Oregon and Washington, where experts don’t even know if and where oil might be and where governors and most constituents simply don’t want offshore drilling to commence, it makes no sense. In the Gulf of Mexico, a mecca of oil production, why not?

Another source to be trusted is science. Technological advances have allowed offshore platforms to be placed out of sight from shorelines. Advances in horizontal drilling techniques and oil field safety have changed the entire industry.

A third source to be trusted is Mother Nature, which gave us a clue with Hurricane Katrina, the costliest storm in U.S. history yet one that caused no accident related to those 3,900 offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

It is curious to see President Bush lifting a ban that every president (including himself and his father) kept in place for 27 years. Equally curious is the Democrats’ refusal to acknowledge a viable energy source.

Particularly troubling is the inattention by politicians to expansive but untapped inland petroleum sources such as the Bakken Formation in North Dakota and Montana (an estimated 3-4 billion barrels of recoverable oil) or the Green River Formation in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado (up to 1.1 trillion barrels.).

Given those astounding numbers, the partisan bickering over offshore drilling seems hardly worth the effort. Perhaps after the presidential election Americans can let scientists and not politicians lead us toward energy independence.