Before dawn on Saturday, Sept. 13, Hurricane Ike, the strongest hurricane to hit the U.S. since Katrina in 2005, made landfall along the Texas coast near Galveston. The Category 2 storm caused billions of dollars’ worth of damage, including devastating 10 oil refineries along the Gulf Coast. Because the area accounts for 25 percent of American crude oil production and 47 percent of our refined oil output, Ike’s effects caused oil prices to soar to a national average of $4.08/gallon as of Sept. 15, according to USA Today. The price of gas looks to rise even higher in coming days, despite initial reports that damage from the storm was not as extensive as had been expected.

One storm has managed to cripple 25 percent of oil production within the U.S., raising gas prices across the nation in defiance of the fact that oil prices are declining worldwide, reaching a low, according to Reuters, of $91/barrel on Sept. 15. One would imagine and hope that such events would remind the American public and politicians that our dependency on oil—a finite resource that can be massively affected by a storm against which it is impossible to completely protect the refineries—is undesirable. However, this catastrophe has had the opposite effect on Senator John McCain and his views on oil. McCain has used Ike in an attempt to strengthen his “Drill, baby, drill” stance and make his ideas more acceptable and desirable to voters as the election draws near. McCain encouraged Congress to lift the ban on offshore drilling in order to combat what he viewed as an “energy crisis.” Though drilling off the Florida coast certainly would decrease the effect on the U.S. if another storm hit the Gulf, it still leaves the country vulnerable to a bad hurricane season, which could cause damage both off Florida and the Gulf Coast.

More importantly, increased drilling will only entrench our dependency on oil and ignore the possibility of exploring different kinds of energy in order to replace oil. Even though McCain has said in the past that he was committed to finding alternative fossil fuels, his current position counters his previous commitment and in effect negates his “willingness” to find these alternatives.

It is worrisome, also, that many Americans might fall for McCain’s tactics. Americans commonly believe that more oil production will mean immediately cheaper prices, and during a time in which many people are paying $4.00, and sometimes even close to $5.00/gallon for gas, this view can be extremely convincing to voters. However, this view is incorrect. It will take years for oil from off Florida to reach American markets and, by that time, the increase in global demand will make the price decrease from expanded supply negligible. Additionally, we also must keep in mind that increased drilling will only lead to a very temporary price cut, a band-aid solution for the energy crisis that will only cause a much worse crunch. Can’t McCain realize that his plan would lead the U.S. down a longer road to the same end? How long will the Alaska wilderness, which McCain still views as off limits for drilling purposes, be safe from the greedy clutches of the oil companies?

Instead of investing in increased production of oil in order to briefly lower gas prices, we should invest in alternate forms of energy. Unless we deal with this issue now, the future will present us with the same question, only then, we will have much more pressing problems due to our continued use of and dependency on oil. Hurricane Ike should be a wake up call; but up to this point, the Republicans appear to be taking all the wrong lessons from it.