There is a great debate in the halls of Congress, among environmentalists, and within the executive suites of big oil companies. Why not allow protected U.S. lands and offshore areas to be open for drilling of crude? Oil supply is tight. There are huge fields in some of the areas where companies are not allowed to explore.

A similar push and pull has begun over U.S. farmland. With critical crops destroyed by rain, the price of corn is at record levels and rising. The government has a policy to get farmers to set aside land for conservation. Perhaps at this point that is a bad idea.

According to The New York Times, one of the senators from Iowa "urged the Agriculture Department to release tens of thousands of farmers from contracts under which they had promised to set aside huge tracts as natural habitat."

Corn prices are being driven by high demand for ethanol and food poorly balanced against inadequate production. The flooding in the Midwest only makes that worse.

If the U.S. government wants to do everything it can to bring down food and oil inflation, it can set up a "drill anywhere" and "plant anywhere" policy. The streets of New York can be covered with the next wheat harvest. San Francisco Bay can be riddled with oil derricks.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

The U.S.'s average price for gasoline topped $3.50 per gallon this week, The New York Times reported Tuesday, and energy traders and analysts said the record-high prices are likely to continue to move higher, absent a major cutback by consumers.

A confluence of factors is forcing U.S. gasoline prices higher, overwhelming the fact that weekly U.S. gasoline consumption has declined for almost three straight months -- the first consumption decline in more than 15 years.

"So far, U.S. consumers are doing their part, but it isn't amounting to anything, which is a shame," economist Glen Langan told BloggingStocks Tuesday.

Bleak gasoline conditions

Langan said limited refining capacity in the United States, oil prices touching a record $119 per barrel, and investor-fund activity is "conspiring to create the worst of all possible gas worlds for American drivers, and rough conditions for the American economy as well."

Amsterdam-based Philips (NYSE: PHG) announced Monday it has agreed to purchase U.S.-based Genlyte (NASDAQ: GLYT) group for $2.7 billion.

The deal values Genlyte at about $95.70 per share, or about a 50% premium over Genlyte's Friday closing price. Genlyte's shares surged $31.50 (just over 50%) to $94.17 in Monday morning trading. Philips gained 24 cents to $42.46.

Philips said the deal will strengthen its position in energy-efficient lighting, adding that with Genlyte it will surpass rival General Electric (NYSE: GE) as the largest lighting company in North America. GE's shares fell 14 cents to $37.53.

Stock Analysis: It looks like Philips has executed a smart purchase at a fair price. In Genlyte, Philips will gain greater access to U.S. distributors, which will increase sales of its fluorescent and next-generation light-emitting diode (LED), energy-saving light bulbs. The deal will also add to Philips's manufacturing capacity. Philips has the light bulb / lighting lead in Europe, but (understandably) it trails GE in North America. Hence the Genlyte deal underscores its commitment to compete on both continents with GE, as the market for energy-efficient lighting expands at a healthy rate in the years ahead.

Oil at $120 per barrel?

Once unfathomable, it's now possible, and in the near future -- as in the summer 2008 -- if current trends continue.

Economist H. David Wang told BloggingStocks that a convergence of "bullish events" could take oil "well over the century mark next year." Oil traded early Thursday around $95.50 per barrel.

"We know about emerging market demand, and the various political issues which pose a threat to supply, but now there's concern that OPEC won't strive to increase production because of the falling dollar, because most oil transactions are priced in dollars," Wang said. "That's a concern. That's exactly what the market does not need at this time. Up to now the market has factored-in OPEC cooperation. But now we hear OPEC talking about a lack of a need to raise production. If OPEC doesn't raise production, we're looking at $110 or even $120 per barrel oil by the summer of 2008."

On the heels of oil's push through $79 per barrel, with traders indicating that a move through $80 is likely, the elevated price of oil is once again placing itself on the table of concerns facing investors.

On Tuesday OPEC agreed to increase production by 500,000 barrels per day after production-increase advocates, including Saudi Arabia, successfully argued that continued elevated oil prices are likely to reduce global GDP growth. (Those elevated oil prices have already reduced U.S. GDP by one percentage point or more, depending on model projections.)

However, even more disconcerting for economists, analysts and consumers alike is the secular, long-term trend regarding oil: namely, that both OPEC and non-OPEC sources combined are unable to keep pace with rising demand.

I've been knocked around a bit for coming out full tilt against Big Oil. I do realize that when I take my stance against crude oil, in some ways I'm taking a stance against trillions of dollars of modern economics. The fact that the modern world is built upon petroleum is not lost on me. But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with or like it. So those of you who have the mind to, please invest a couple minutes to read what more I have to say on the subject. Perhaps you'll be enlightened to some things you never thought about or at the very least you may have more reason to consider me "a bit off center."

First I'd like to ask, why are the supporters of Big Oil trapped into this thinking that seems to claim: In ten years everything will be just like it is now, with the exception that it will be like that in more places? What kind of limited logic is that? Someone wrote to tell me that 15 million Chinese will be needing cars soon. That's just fine with me, but it takes gall to suggest that all those Chinese need cars with gasoline-fired internal combustion engines! Is it so hard to believe that an effective electric car is not only possible but is here already? Does no one think that Chinese citizens might like electric cars? Has anyone considered the contrasts between American industrialization and that of the Chinese? Is it insanity to think that electricity can be generated without petroleum?

Get a grip you guys! Life isn't relegated to 55 gallon drums!!! Those same anti-anti oil individuals like to accuse me of conspiracy thinking when I claim that the price of crude is regularly manipulated. They state that oil prices are strictly market driven. Excuse me, but don't they read the papers? OPEC whispers "oil production cut back" and the price per barrel rises without any change in the actual flow of the precious black stuff. Umm, are you getting it yet? And what about the virtual moratorium on production of domestic crude? Has everyone forgotten that we have oil reserves also? The Sierra Club has done a fine job of helping to curtail domestic oil production statistics. I see some conflicts.