[Vision2020] [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Inconvenient Truth -- What WE REALLY HAVE TO DO

[Tom Hansen]

I am not stating that this should be strictly a government undertaking.  I
am suggesting that for any program to develop "teeth" it either must be
supported by the government or those enterprises that possess the lion's
share of the market.

 

To expand on Arnold's red/green apples analogy.  Yes.  The lower-cost green
apples would benefit those people who prefer apples, but cannot afford the
more expensive red apples.  The question then becomes, "How are you going to
be able to supply your green apples over a large region and still maintain
low costs?", unless you can enter the apple market at the same level (and
volume) as your red-apple competitor.

 

The free market (pronounced "Exxon", "Standard Oil", etc. etc) has already
pretty much dictated what fuel we will use.  For the sake of energy
conservation and our environment, the government must take action in
expanding current alternate fuel research programs and make a clear and
unwavering statement that vehicles manufactured after a certain year WILL
NOT be designed to operate on fossil fuels.  This approach worked in
converting to lead-free fuels.  It can work to eliminate our dependence on
fossil fuels altogether.

 

Tom Hansen

Moscow, Idaho

 

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
sideways, chocolate in one hand, a drink in the other, body thoroughly used
up, totally worn out and screaming 'WOO HOO. What a ride!'"

  _____  

From: Donovan Arnold [mailto:donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 3:50 PM
To: Tom Hansen; 'Art Deco'; 'Vision 2020'
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [Vision2020] Inconvenient Truth -- What WE
REALLY HAVE TO DO

 

"Simply coming up with an alternate fuel source will not work.  It needs
government support."  Tom Hansen

Tom,

Governments don't solve problems, individuals and entrepreneurship does. All
government can do is stand in or out of the way, or move problems from one
location to another. 

Let the free market determine WHAT alternative fuel we will use. Setting a
fixed price of $7.50 per gallon in the next 5 years, lets the market know
what the going  rate will be and they can invest and plan better. If the
government forces people to buy bio-diesel and someone comes up with a
better more economically and environmentally sound method, we couldn't use
it. The first of a new technology is usually not the one society sticks
with. Let the capitalists present us with there different options, put them
on the market, and then let Americans pick one, two or three options. Maybe
even having two different types of cars, a Coke and Pepsi competition
driving down the prices, instead of one fuel source. 

Best,

_DJA

Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:

One good idea would be to re-invest in bio-diesel research.  The program was
promoted and supported under the Clinton administration and terminated under
the Bush administration.

 

Simply coming up with an alternate fuel source will not work.  It needs
government support.  

 

Remember the "Get the Lead Out!" campaign that was mandated by government
policy?  It worked.  If the government mandates that all vehicles will be
fueled with bio-diesel by the year 2012, you can bet your last gallon of
regular gas that Exxon, Standard Oil, etc. etc. will do their best to get
into the bio-diesel market.

 

Has anybody got any ideas on how to develop some SERIOUS interest in
alternate fuels, the kind of ideas that will "spark a fire" of major
interest within the George "All for Oil" Bush administration?

 

Tom Hansen

Moscow, Idaho

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060824/bb44248a/attachment-0001.htm