( CNN ) -- For most Americans , energy policy right now is all about gasoline prices . And given the political claims and counterclaims on this issue being tossed about , it 's no wonder that the public is both skeptical and confused . Republicans charge that the president is responsible for higher prices at the pump , and a certain GOP presidential hopeful has even been so bold as to promise a return to $ 2.50 a gallon gasoline . How can the average American , already feeling the impact of higher prices , filter through the nonsense and noise ? Critics of the administration are quick to note that when Barack Obama took office , gasoline prices were $ 1.95 a gallon . But they neglect to note the U.S. economy was in a virtual depression . For purposes of comparison , when President George W. Bush took office in 2001 , gasoline sold for an average of $ 1.55 a gallon . In the summer of 2008 , his last year in office , prices exceeded $ 4.25 . In reality , presidents have little to do with near-term fluctuations in gas prices . Earlier this year , closures of refineries announced in the United States and elsewhere began pushing up gasoline prices well in advance of the coming `` driving season . '' More recent increases are more closely tied to the delicate balance between increased demand growth and concerns related to supply disruptions , including but not limited to concern over Iran . The single largest component in the price of gasoline is the cost of crude oil . Federal , state and local taxes as well as refining costs , transportation , retail advertising and the cost of the service station lease also figure in . All things being equal , for gas to cost $ 2.50 a gallon , the crude oil price would have to be in the $ 50-a-barrel range ( less than half of the current price ) . And to achieve this anytime soon would likely require a global economic collapse . With oil at $ 50-a-barrel it would not be economically viable for oil companies to bear the cost of extracting oil locked up in hard-to-reach places such as the deep ocean or oil sands , where much of the new production is found . Such a price reduction would , in any event , be short-lived , as demand would grow with lower prices while supply languished . For the longer term , the president 's goal of doubling fuel economy standards and increasing fuel choices makes eminent good sense : It would make $ 4 gasoline feel like $ 2 gas to consumers . Also a very good thing . Republicans charge that the president has impeded domestic oil production , while Democrats are quick to note that production is at its highest level in years . Here , the facts are on the president 's side , as U.S. oil production is at its highest level since 2003 and imports are below 46 % . This is truly good news . Nonetheless , the nit-pickers are quick to point out that much of the recent development has been the result of technology improvements on the part of industry and is largely occurring on private , not federal lands . This too is true . The domestic oil and gas industry has been the source of enormous and valuable technology , innovation , tax and royalty revenues , and new jobs . But production is also up on federal lands as well . Critics claim that if the president had been more aggressive in promoting domestic development of oil and gas and increasing development acreage over the past three years , domestic production would be significantly higher and gas prices would thus be substantially lower . This assertion is false for a couple of reasons . The Deepwater Horizon oil spill ( for which the president bore no responsibility ) necessarily curtailed U.S. offshore production for the better part of a year . Additionally , exploration and production of green field projects take time -- several years , in fact -- and even modest increases on the order of several hundred thousand barrels per day in a 90-million-barrel-per-day world would not guarantee significantly lower prices at the pump . The president has recently characterized the latest iteration of his energy strategy as an `` all of the above '' approach , albeit with a continued emphasis on lower carbon sources . This seems to have struck a raw nerve with industry activists and political opponents , even though in 2007 the National Petroleum Council -- and more recently , Republican proposals -- reached the same conclusions . Similarly , Obama 's language emphasizing the need for responsible development mirrors exactly what the industry said in a 2011 National Petroleum Council study and is consistent with the findings produced by Secretary Steven Chu 's Energy Advisory Board with respect to shale gas development . Thoughtful debate here may be falling victim to politics and pique . Sloganeering and political infighting should not drive our energy debate when there are real challenges to be addressed . The bottom line is that we are all in this together . Regardless of your political affiliation , if the nation does well , we are all the better for it . So let 's try to find some common ground to advance economic , energy and environmental goals where the opportunities present themselves and stop the petty bickering and finger-pointing . The American people deserve better . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Frank Verrastro and J. Robinson West .
J. Robinson West and Frank Verrastro say politics has sown confusion on high gas prices . The authors say presidents have little to do with spiking gas prices . For $ 50 a gallon gas , crude oil would be $ 2.50 a barrel , likely due to global collapse , they say . Writers : National Petroleum Council 's `` all-of-the-above '' energy approach makes sense ; finger-pointing does n't .