Oil: Exxon Mobil is selling its gas stations because there's no money in it. Meanwhile, two GOP congressmen do what John McCain should do — change their position on drilling in ANWR.

Despite the pain at the pump for consumers, the retail side of the gasoline business isn't that profitable, if at all. Gas station owners have known this all along. Most now hope they get enough traffic at their stations to make money on auto repairs or food and drink sales.

Exxon Mobil, proclaimed by the no-drill demagogues to be the poster child for gas gouging, recognizes this as well, deciding to unload its 800 company-owned stations and an additional 1,400 dealer-operated locations to distributors.

Unfortunately, by reducing supplies, a windfall profits tax will only lead to even higher prices. Still, if Congress really wants to "do something" about high gasoline prices and global warming, it can always try rationing.

To lower gasoline prices permanently, you can reduce demand, increase supply, or do both. Congress long ago capped supplies by proclaiming from on high: Drillest thou not offshore, nor in ANWR. The next obvious step for our solons is to cap demand by rationing gasoline, and then gradually reduce the quantity of ration coupons.

We all care about the environment, but passing legislation like the Warner-Lieberman Climate Change bill will have very little effect on global warming.  However, the effect on a struggling economy would be devastating.

You have heard and will continue to hear Democrats talk about the unemployment rate and the need to pass extended unemployment benefits; all the while they will attempt to pass economy killing legislation.

They are either severely misguided in their judgment or this is just part of their plan to move everyone over to a government sponsored society.  Source

Related story

On Thursday, ABC News took global warming hysteria to a new level.

After Chris Cuomo and Bob Woodruff previewed an upcoming environmental scare piece on "Good Morning America" as previously reported by my colleague Scott Whitlock, an article was posted at the network's website asking (emphasis added throughout):

Are we living in the last century of our civilization? Is it possible that all of our technology, knowledge and wealth cannot save us from ourselves? Could our society actually be heading towards collapse?

I keep wondering how long it will take Americans to connect the dots and figure out why the most powerful economy the world has ever seen cannot manage to drill for oil in its own backyard and then get it refined nearby.

The news on June 10, if anyone was paying attention, was about the way the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups were able to thwart the plans of ConocoPhillips to expand its refinery in Roxana, Illinois. An appeal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was upheld because, said the EPA, its air permit, previously granted, just did not meet all the excruciating requirements involved.

For the record, ConocoPhillips was and is prepared to invest an estimated $1 billion to add a second coker, otherwise known as a crude oil processor. The company wants to expand in order to process Canadian tar sands oil. These days it refines approximately 306,000 barrels of oil per day to produce gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, asphalt and other products.

Many Americans think that switching to energy-efficient light bulbs, buying environmentally friendly appliances and obeying a (100% recycled) bag of green living tips will be the extent of their contribution to curbing greenhouse gases. But the price tag to consumers could be a lot higher if some politicians have their way. In fact, U.S. households could expect a $2,900 annual hit to their family budget sooner than they think.

That's just one figure causing concern as politicians race to address global warming. Therefore, it's worth noting that at the same time Americans are concerned about climate change, they are also very concerned about the sluggish economy and the impact it is having on the pocketbook. It is only fair, then, to view the two issues side by side. When cooler heads prevail, the reality is clear:

There is weak public support for global-warming policies, which would end up costing the average family thousands of dollars.