How would you convince the US government to fully support and invest in alternative sources of energy?
I know if the government really put every resource they had into alternative energy, it would become possible to commercialize this industry in as little as 10 years. But 2 decades of war in the Middle East have not encouraged this move, neither have terrorist attacks. Greenland already is moving away from oil as its primary source of energy, why can’t we? We have scientists and MBA’s that are just as brilliant. The only good news I’ve heard is that somewhere in the Midwest, I think it’s Colorado, the state returns some money to homes which use wind-powered energy instead of the traditional forms of energy (oil or electricity). Tax breaks on electric cars are not enough, because I haven’t seen that big of a change in our energy resources yet.
Related posts:
- Hopewell’s Thomas Wu Says Firm May Invest in Alternative Energy Hopewell’s Thomas Wu Says Firm May Invest in Alternative Energy...
- Mammoth Energy Group Announces Move Into Developing Alternative Energy Sources Mammoth Energy Group Announces Move Into Developing Alternative Energy Sources...
- Alternative Energy and Benefits Alternative Energy refers to the electrical energy derived from the...
It shouldn't be the government that does this. I am an Economics major, and spent a semester studying Environmental Economics. The solution can, will, and should come from the private sector. There are many companies out there researching alternate sources of energy, and when it becomes more economical to use these new advances in technology, the market will use them. Right now it is too cost prohibitive to use alternate forms of energy, but as other resources become more scarce, the price of them will go up, and we as a society will use alternate forms of energy, all without having to get the government involved.
Get people high up in the Government to invest in the product. The reason that we still use so much oil is because the leaders of our government all invest in it. If you were in charge would you make the value of stock in a company you owned shares in go down?
First of all, you need to:
a) Change the president
b) Show them the money (convince them with stats based on facts how it would be profitable or at least, how they could save money.
c) Build a strong, socially oriented campaign, informing the voters (a.k.a the voters) why alternative energy sources are needed urgently. build on panic if you have to.
d) Pray to god.
e) Prey on foundations, millionares and or corporations that could be willing to support your cause.
I wouldn't. Actually the best way to do it is to offer taxbreaks and incentives to private industry to come up with it. That being said if there isn't a market for it do you really want a government to tell you what to do? I don't. The main reason is I am an American I have the right to have a choice (per Roe v. Wade). For decades the government has tried to get people interested in ethenol and it hasn't worked.
Electric cars are not feasible for anywhere other than cities. Rural states it would just be insane to rely on one especially if you get stuck in a blizzard for three days.
For decades people have tried to get solar power off the ground, but on the whole no one uses it.
We won't ever really get away from using hydrocarbons factoring use of nylon, plastics, and various other products. Even if we used hydrogen power we will still have to use hydrocarbon (coal) to separte the hydrogen from the oxygen molecules.
If you want to convince somebody find a research project that is working on alternative fuels and donate money. Using tax dollars is a waste of money because by the very nature of government it isn't efficent. Look at the Katrina response.
Another thing:
Ethanol Plants; Pollution
Thursday, March 2, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Bush administration has proposed allowing ethanol plants to send more hazardous pollutants into the air.
It's part of an attempt to increase domestic production of alternative fuel sources.
The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a rule that would raise the emissions threshold for corn-milling plants that produce ethanol fuel — allowing those plants to emit up to 250 tons per year of air pollutants.
That's two-and-a-half times the amount they can emit now.
Frank O'Donnell is director of the environmental advocacy group Clean Air Watch. He says the proposed rule could lead to more pollution in communities near ethanol refineries.
North Dakota has ethanol plants in Walhalla and Grafton. Plants are under construction at Richardton and Underwood. Plants also have been talked about in the Wahpeton, Williston and Jamestown areas.