mreye Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 However, I think most houses are heated with either natural gas(a much cleaner, more plentiful resource, I believe) or electricity(infinte resources, no emissions). Electricity is created in a coal or oil burning facility near me. That absolutely DOES polute, and is not infinite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 One issue that is central to this debate is Does our government have the duty to legislate things for our own good? For example increasing the mpg on vehicles reduces our reliance on foreign oil. Many people will agree this is a good thing and in our collective, national best interest. Even though we individually agree that reducing our reliance on foreign oil is good, many Americans believe * you * should drive the small, lightweight, fuel efficient car and I'll drive a Hummer. So left to market conditions, we would not see an increase in over all fuel efficiency. Consumers also would not spend more for fuel efficiency. So by legislating this, the government is telling all Americans you cannot be trusted to do the right thing, we need to do the right thing for you. Is that correct? Duty to encourage - by incentives for producers as well as consumers. But a duty to legislate - absolutely not. For instance, it would be beneficial to us for everyone to take public transportation, but I don't think they should "force" us to take it. But to encourage by letting me buy my train ticket before taxes is fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 3, 2004 Author Share Posted March 3, 2004 Duty to encourage - by incentives for producers as well as consumers. But a duty to legislate - absolutely not. For instance, it would be beneficial to us for everyone to take public transportation, but I don't think they should "force" us to take it. But to encourage by letting me buy my train ticket before taxes is fine. Then would you be against a draft? After all in times of war, it is in our best interest to have a full military. As far a public transportation; would it be wrong to shut off sections of a city to private vehicles to help eliminate air pollutions? Mexico City uses a system where based on your license plate number you can drive on certain days and not others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pale Hose Jon Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 how about government giving more support to cars that use a clean fuel. bush gave 1.7 billion, yes i said billion, to hydrogen fuel cell research Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Then would you be against a draft? After all in times of war, it is in our best interest to have a full military. As far a public transportation; would it be wrong to shut off sections of a city to private vehicles to help eliminate air pollutions? Mexico City uses a system where based on your license plate number you can drive on certain days and not others. Mexico City is the most populated city on Earth. A little different than here, but I understand your point. No, I'm not in favor of shutting off parts of the city to private vehicles if you mean a large part, because parts are already cut off to traffic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Electricity is created in a coal or oil burning facility near me. That absolutely DOES polute, and is not infinite. But electricity can also be generated in nuclear and solar plant as well, no? There is a nuclear waste concern, but not with solar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 But electricity can also be generated in nuclear and solar plant as well, no? There is a nuclear waste concern, but not with solar. Yes, I said that earlier: Nuclear power is much cleaner than coal or oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fullcollapse Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 bush gave 1.7 billion, yes i said billion, to hydrogen fuel cell research good, cause i really think we need to kick our oil dependencies. alternative fuels in passenger cars seem to be feasible in the near future, but how about in larger vehicles that use diesel fuel, or even something like an suv. how far off is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 good, cause i really think we need to kick our oil dependencies. alternative fuels in passenger cars seem to be feasible in the near future, but how about in larger vehicles that use diesel fuel, or even something like an suv. how far off is that? An SUV is essentially a pickup truck with a bigger body on it. There wouldn't be any problems making ones that run on alternative fuel, when they become more practical. When I bought my most recent car(a Honda Civic), the only reason why I didn't go electrical was because I read that the potassium hydroxide batteries they use only last about 5 years, and cost something like $6000 to replace. That doesn't make any sense. When the batteries get cheaper, or last longer, then I'll be getting an electric ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.