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

Fri Aug 25 07:40:15 PDT 2006

Tom,

  Well, I am glad we are agreeing on some level. 

  You asked:

  "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."

  You  do that by making the market predicable by fixing the future price of  gasoline. If you are an investor, you will invest only in products that  you know will be cheaper than the fixed rate of gasoline. It eliminates  a great deal of the risk, and more investors will invest, giving it the  capital to compete with gasoline. 

  "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." 

  I  don't agree with forcing people to do things when the free market which  allows choice can accomplish the same goal. If gasoline simply becomes  intolerably expensive compared to the alternative, why make laws and  force people against their will? Further, I don't agree with outlawing  all gas powered vehicles. There will no doubt be instances where  gasoline is still the best or only means for powering some machines. 

  Best,

  _DJA

Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:              v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}          st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }                    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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060825/cf6d4b9b/attachment-0001.htm 