I would be for natural gas. We have an abundence of Natural Gas around. But we have LOTS of oil still around too. Plenty for several decades before we start getting short of natural supply. So now, what is ignorant about what epsilon said? 

Energy from nuclear power plants is much more expensive than other forms of energy despite decades of intensive research.  Also, we still don't have a practical way to safely store or dispose of the waste created from nuclear power plants.  There's a reason the great majority of countries are scaling down their nuclear power plant programs.

While we do have a few decades of oil left, pursuing new drilling places isn't very wise.  Prices are going to keep rising regardless of a few more million barrels of oil.  I believe it's speculated that if we extracted ALL the oil left in our planet, it'd still only last us 60-80 years at current rates.  Essentially, drilling for new oil spots is a waste of time because it diverts our attention away from new energy sources and doesn't do anything to help prices.  We can't just magically find new drilling spots; there are a limited number, and they're running out.

Note: The only problem with natural gas is it's stored and transported in a liquid form that is highly combustible.  It's much more dangerous than oil to transport.  We do have over two centures worth of it, though, at current consumption rates.

Edit: The ignorance part, in case it wasn't clear, was in reference to the mistaken idea that many people have that we can magically find new drilling spots and there's this unlimited supply of oil.  Also, people think nuclear power is some magical solution when it has just as many pros and cons as other energy sources in reality.

 It is true that corn based ethanol is net-negative is some areas such as western Kansas but it is efficient in Iowa and other places because they don't have to water their crops. Plus most of the ethanol plants are set up to switch to other crops such as milo or sugar cane. Once they are able to produce ethanol from the entire plant instead of just parts of it it will be effective. But until then it is iffy at best.

You're not considering the environmental effects of corn ethanol either.  All the fertilizers and pesticides used go straight to the Gulf of Mexico and are rapidly expanding the Dead Zone.

 So... we are not to drill to ease the strain on current market supply... We are only to look forward. Gotcha.

So we are supposed to move on to new technologies that are not yet ready for mass market use... they are far too expensive and unreliable at this time.

So because the oil is starting to run out, or so you think, we should not drill for more... Also the number of available drilling spots are running low so no more exploring for oil... Ok, so what about Oil under the Gulf of Mexico, or off of Florida and California. What about ANWR, or the Bakken Formation? There is plenty of oil for us to use for no, while we develop new technologies for future use. Government should get out of the way and allow exploration and drilling while other companies look into developing better alternative fuels. 

2 million barrels per day equals about 700 million more per year. The world already uses more than 30 billion per year, a number that's growing. The best we could do is slow the rise in price, but it wouldn't slow for long, and it's a fantasy to think that it can actualy solve the crisis.

@Tarheel
LNRT said: "Once they are able to produce ethanol from the entire plant instead of just parts of it it will be effective. But until then it is iffy at best."

What he is referring to is cellulose ethanol which can be produced with pretty much any green organic. So the stems of corn would be what would be used to make the fuel and the corn can still be eaten. Therefore it would be the production of food that would be responsible for the fertilizers and pesticides and as an added benefit, would could make fuel with stems which used to be waste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose_ethanol

EDIT: BTW, capitalist Sir Richard Branson, founder of Virgin, is heavily invested in Cellulose  ethanol with the beleif that it can even be made as jet fuel.

 New types of corn are reducing the amounts of fertilizer and pesticide we use because we are making it resistent to pests and better able to restist drought and nitrogen deficiency, ect. Plus when a lot of ethanol plants switch to milo it will greatly decrease those factors. It will be a while before ethanol is viable but we will get there eventually.

 Ethanol is not only ineffecient, because it cannot be pumped to a destination, but it is causing food shortages, especially in 3rd world Countries. It is increasing the cost of food in America as well. It solves nothing and only creates more problems than it is worth.

 I think we're arguing about two different things.  I'm not talking about known sources of oil in terms of exploration.  I'm talking about scouring our country for other ones that have yet to be discovered.  That is a waste of time.  There's not enough oil in these spots to be worth the time.  As for known ones that are controversial for drilling, they really won't make too much of a difference in terms of easing market strain.  If we got all the oil out of all the availaible reserves in the US, it'd last us a few years at best, and the whole world 6 months (I'm not pulling these numbers out of thin air; using figures from an AP enviro science textbook).  Plus, with all the controversey involved in getting permission to drill them, it seems like more hastle than its worth.  We've still got a few decades before things get bad even leaving things the way they are.  I, personally, think time would be better spent developing systems that make natural gas more efficient and practical for nationwide use.  That's just me, though.