Do you feel that it is the responsability of the US government to dictate which types of fuels should be commercialized or would our country be better off if the consumers were allowed to decide? 50% 2 Votes
Other Answers (9)
-
Let the private sector decide.
Big Government will screw it up! 0% 0 Votes -
Free market decisions are a lot better. Who needs more government intervention? Not me, I can%26#039;t paint the bottom of my boat anymore. Its %26quot;illegal%26quot; to do it, I hate NYS
0% 0 Votes
-
Consumers can%26#039;t decide if they don%26#039;t have a choice.
If they do, they%26#039;ll go for the cheap one if it%26#039;s good.
Hydrogen can be cheap, and it%26#039;s good.
The government%26#039;s job is to look out for the best interest of the people, and smog isn%26#039;t in their best interest.
Hydrogen is the future, not biofuels. Biofuels are getting pushed by big business, including the agriculture sector because they can grow the corn for the fuels. But in the long run, they%26#039;re not better because the fleets are getting bigger still.
But in the end, people want cheap, that%26#039;s why this summer you will see people clamoring for hybrids. 0% 0 Votes -
govt if not we would still be using leaded gas
0% 0 Votes
-
The government has a responsibility to make sure that the fuel is clean and safe.
When it comes to deciding the we should go to alternate fuels the market is pushing the move more the the government.
There is more demand for alternate fuels and alternate fueled vehicles than there is supply. 0% 0 Votes -
1. No car maker will change from gasoline unless another
fuel is readily avalable.
2. No energy co. is going to make a new fuel if there isn%26#039;t a
car to use it.
3. A governments job is to do those things that one cannot
do individualy. It makes sense for government to point
to the best solution and guide us to it. 25% 1 Vote -
no.
0% 0 Votes
-
This is a two edged sword.
If you leave it up to just the government
you may find yourself using fuels you don%26#039;t approve of.
If you leave it up to just the consumers
there may not be enough guidelines
to help the environment and the low income families.
What we need to do is encourage the government
to take a more active part in controlling emissions
to reduce the release of poisons into the air.
At the same time we need the governent to ignore
the oil company lobbyists and
more actively persue alternative fuel sources.
the oil companies interest%26#039;s are not for the government
or the people or the planet.
Their interest is to line their pockets with gold.
If the government put higher taxes on gas engines
than on electric engines, hydrogen engines, and
other fuel type engines we have not heard of
then we will be able to help the environment.
If the government give tax breaks
to the alternitive fuel engine makers
even better.
Then you can make choices
that benefit yourself and the earth the most. 0% 0 Votes -
It%26#039;s always better to let the consumer decide.
As the reknowned Larry Kudlow on CNBC states %26quot;Free Market Capatialism is the best path to prosperity%26quot;
And I have always agreed with that.
However, when it comes to a nations energy security, or the environment, this no longer works. The businesses are concerned about making a profit, and the consumer will almost always choose the least expensive overall product of equal quality.
In this case oil companies and consumers stay focused on gasoline from which a larger portion each year comes from the Middle East.
The EPA decided to mandate Catalytic converters and emission control devices after 10 people dropped dead in california in the 60%26#039;s from inhaling exaust fumes. Also the switch to unleaded gasoline made it so you and I don%26#039;t have brain damage. If it was left to the %26quot;free market%26quot; everyone would have chosen to use leaded gas because it had a higher octane, and their cars required it. Buying octane boosters was very expensive and nobody wanted to do that, except the government decided. But in the end it was the best decision.