Phil Kuarez: There is absolutely no reason to believe that passing such a law would help.1. You haven't mentioned what you consider to be an "alternative fuel" or the possibility of cars not running on fuel (is electricity a fuel? not by current definitions. So you are going to outlaw electric cars?) 2. The bottom line is that we haven't the foggiest notion of how society is going to change over the next 40 years and what the important concerns are going to be. In this context, looking at "alternative fuelds" is letting the tail wag the dog.3. Almost of the current "alternative fuels" are currently more expensive or more damaging to the environment than any of the current non-alternative fuels. So, by definition, switching to alternative fuels is going to hurt the economy rather than help it. (It may help the environment, etc. - but that wasn't your question)The only exception I know about is liquified gas - either propane or natural. It is currently used in Tokyo taxis, ! etc. But if by alternative fuels you mean fuels that are not "mined", then LNG probably wouldn't count.4. The entire idea of thinking about the economy more than 40 years from now, rather than society as a whole, or civilization, strikes me as rather perverse. It is a short-sighted focus on the economic numbers that have gotten into this fix in the first place.5. Looking for reasons to support an argument without looking for reasons to disagree strikes me as intellectually dishonest unless you are preparing for a debate. And even then, you need to research both sides to prepare properly.(None of this is to say that encouraging research into alternative fuels is a bad idea - just that the proposed law is a loser as is the question as posed.)...Show more
Brock Hladik: Should the alternative fuel source actually be sustainable / renewable we would be looking at a renewable / inexaustable source of new jobs, from ongoing research to peripheral and support professions. Ini! tially the stranglehold that Oil producers and petroleum compa! nies have on the world would be broken, but there is the danger that other companies - "owners" of the new fuel sources- would take their place. This is entirely possible because although corn and sugar cane grow in manny countries, the monies and other resources for sustained research and development is concentrated in a few industrialized nations.So the switch to alternative fuels would only be effective / beneficial if accompanied by 1) a wholesale change in the mentality of the powers that administer / distribute not only the funds to develop alternative fuels, but also the resultant off-branching technology, and 2) committment by auto manufacturers to make a product free of planned obselecence. I am a consumer like everyone else in this country and I am far from being rich. So on the subject of cars I can't afford to buy a product that seems designed to wear out as quickly as possible. I have been burned sufficiently by the low quality of domestic cars that I will no ! longer invest in them. This has to change or alternative fuels will be meaningless. I'm not alone in my views . Consider the following data :Nearly half of all Americans (44%) believe that Japan makes the best quality cars, out-pacing the United States (29%) and Germany (15%). College-educated car buyers are even more convinced, with 55% stating Japan makes the best quality cars, while those with less education were more likely to state that the U.S. produces the best quality cars (34%). Despite this overwhelming belief, only 17% of car owners said they preferred to buy foreign cars. Senior Americans (61%) are the highest in favor of buying American, while women under 45 and those with college degrees (24% each) are in favor of buying foreign cars. When asked which manufacturer, domestic or foreign, produces the best cars, a quarter of American drivers stated Toyota, just beating General Motors (21%). Honda ranked a solid third with 17%....Show more
No comments:
Post a Comment