no the government us. should not it did not mandate gas and diesel as the fuels so it should not mandate alternative ones. some alt fuel vehicles are available and those that want them need to search them out and buy them then go to local gas station and ask for the fuel they need as demand increases so will supply . if it is going to be let it be done because of consumer demand not because you forced it on other people by the govt.
note that the resolution only says cars sold in the U.S. Other countries would have to comply, and other countries have signed the kyoto protocol, so they most definitely would comply. This isn't communism, it's just changing what is sold in the united states. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/accuse_write?qid=20090109191904AA1Gda1&kid=ELpfHUf8OG_X8ZwOGrJm&s=comm&date=2009-01-16+09%3A25%3A28&.crumb=
If the government doesn't do it, it just won't happen because people don't like to change, and we'll be back in the same boat as last year, eventually. I have cars that run on natural gas (methane) and it has been very difficult to convince even friends and neighbors that these are a great way to break the oil habit. All summer long when people were paying over $4 a gallon for gas, I was driving around not using a single drop of the stuff and paying 80 cents a gallon for natural gas. It's also cleaner than gasoline and there is plenty of it in the USA and just off the west coast in the form of natural gas hydrates. I wish it would catch on, but I doubt it from what I've experienced, until the government gets involved. What's so sad is that the big 3 automakers already know how to make natural gas cars and have for years. All mine were made in the 1990's. It CAN be done.
No.
It's not the government's job in the first place. And, so far there is no alternative fuel that is head and shoulders above petroleum. CNG is the easiest, but has a finite limit of availability just like petroleum. Many of the bio-fuels have a larger energy input to manufacture than they they deliver to the engine. Besides, to you want to eat corn or drive on it. There is only so much of it able to be grown. None of this means to stop Alternative fuel research, but lets take a heads up approach. And tell me, just what enterprise does the government run at present that any one is satisfied with the job they are doing?
Absolutely. I have no doubt they will once the money in Oil dries up.
The governments of the world are all profiteering organisations. They are not about to cut themselves out of the revenue they earn from petrol.
If ever a responsible governing body decides to endorse renewable fuels like hydrogen or solar, further promoting the actual production of those fuels through renewable means, and put a mandate on manufacturers to build those types of vehicles, I would give my support.
At this stage, I feel that the manufacturers are sitting on their renewable technologies, probably as per government mandates.
Solar power has taken off in Europe, especially in Germany, but no-one can charge for solar power. I suspect that is why other Governments, the US and Australia for instance, resist renewable energy and go for more coal stations and Nuclear options. I wouldn't mind the Nuke option if it wasn't for the much ignored waste that no-one seems to be able to get rid of safely other than with a 'store and ignore' policy.
So... are you a PFD debator looking for an edge on this month's topic? of course the government should not mandate this because of the principle of free trade. The consumer should be looked upon to make the decision not the government.... as well as the fact that in the past governmetnal mandates have been huge failers- case in point sythafuels. The automotive industry also circuvents mandates as well.. if there is a way around it they will find it.
No, the government shouldn't mandate anything. They should quit subsidizing and supporting the many different commodities that are harming the general public and humanity at large. Without all the gvt. subsidies, gas would be around $15/gallon. Bet your **** car companies would begin to build better vehicles within a couple weeks or they would be gone for good.
Alternative fuels are not affordable enough to mass produce, simply.
Mechanics must be highly trained in electric/hybrid cars first.
Its a hell of a lot harder to switch fuels than people think.
Global warmning has been proven to be BS by many scientists, because after taking ice core samples in Antartica, they learned massive global temperature changes occur naturally.
Trust me, were not hurting the earth, the earth could wipe US out at any second.
The earth has survived dozens(that we know of) asteroid collisions which wiped out life and trees and everything.........so theres no way carbon raising the earths temperature or someone throwing a bottle in the ocean is gonna do JACK to the earths stability....
These stupid earth hugging hippies make me and others sick.
Mother earth ISNT sweet and ISNT nice and pretty, it could wipe us all out easily, and will eventually.
Obviously history proves this.
Oil dependence exposes the U.S. economy to the volatility of world oil markets. Price increases can occur suddenly and, because there are no widely available substitutes for oil, consumers and businesses may be unable to respond by changing consumption patterns. At the national level, the climb in oil prices during the past few years has imposed considerable costs. Between summer 2003 and summer 2006, world oil prices rose from roughly $25 per barrel to more than $78 per barrel. Each $10 increase requires roughly $50 billion of additional foreign payments (approximately 0.4 percent of GDP) per year. In 2006, U.S. foreign payments for oil were more than $250 billion. David L. Goldwyn the President of Goldwyn International Strategies describes in a letter written on oil dependence “Energy is a central challenge to U.S. foreign policy, not simply one of many challenges. Global dependence on oil is rapidly eroding U.S. power and influence because oil is a strategic commodity largely controlled by regressive governments and a cartel that raises prices and multiplies the rents that flow to oil producers. These rents have enriched and emboldened Iran, enabled President Vladamir Putin to undermine Russia’s democracy, entrenched regressive autocrats in Africa, forestalled action against genocide in Sudan, and facilitated Venezuela’s campaign against free trade in the Americas. Most gravely, oil consumers are in effect financing both sides of the war on terrorism.â€
The real price of gasoline is what people actually pay for it, not just what they pay for it at the pump. Our dependency on oil from countries that are either politically unstable or at odds with the U.S. subjects the American economy to occasional supply disruptions, price hikes, and loss of wealth, which, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, have cost us more than $7 trillion present value dollars over the last 30 years. That is more than the cumulative cost of all of the wars fought by the U.S. since the Revolutionary War. The transfer of wealth to oil-producing countries - $1.16 trillion over the past thirty years - significantly increased our trade deficit. The Department of Energy estimates that each $1 billion of trade deficit costs America 27,000 jobs. Oil imports account for almost one-third of the total U.S. deficit and, hence, are a major contributor to unemployment. So the real cost of gas for someone living in the US is the pump price plus the taxes it pays that are used to subsidize the oil industry. Suddenly, oil is not as cheap, and just like with corn-ethanol, these taxpayers dollars are making fossil fuels artificially more competitive and keeping cleaner alternatives down.
The energy crisis is not going to solve itself without government intervention. In an interview with Charlie Rose, Thomas Friedman gives a good example of why the government needs to shape the free market to move to a cleaner future. He gives the example of someone inventing the first cell phone and putting it on the market. Consumers would be willing to pay 1000$ a piece and buy 10 pieces because it’s going to be enormously useful to them. But naturally as many people invest in this product the way the original consumer did, prices will go down and cell phones will become widespread and cheap. But why isn’t this a reality for alternative fuels? Simply because right now the majority of the people do not recognize a real need or advantage for alterative energy sources. They really do not care where they get their electricity from because it’s cheap. But the reason it’s cheap is because oil has been subsidized. Oil might be helping the United States on a short term notice economically wise but as we look at the long term status of the United States we see a disastrous economic and environmental road ahead for the future of the United States. The pro side of today’s debate is doing the inverse of that. We are laying the bricks of foundation of our future. The resolution is only the beginning to a prosperous future if action is taken place. Remember you cannot build a house unless you have a foundation to keep it stable. Once that foundation collapses so does everything that the foundation is supporting. This is what will happen to United States if we keep on leading ourselves down the same path we have been since the 1970’s. We will be allowing ourselves to fall into the depths of economic turmoil and environmental hardships if our present foundation is not fixed.
The government should do lots of things, but they dont, they are at the mercy of the corporations that fund their lifestyles.
Nope.
No comments:
Post a Comment