So much talent and money has been spent in searching for life out there while ironically we are reducing the existence of our descendants by continuing to burn fossil fuel instead of using some of the same talent and money to search for effective and cheaper solution to replace petrol, diesel engines, etc.
2006-06-08 05:37:34 · 7 answers · asked by Son of Gap 5 in Environment
Actually we are spending tons of money on finding fossil fuel replacements. General Motors along with several other companies are working on devoloping hydrogen fueled vehicles. GM already has a couple working prototypes and I think Daimler-Chrysler also has one that runs on hydrogen fuel-cells. Hydrogen fuel cells were developed clear back in the 1960's from guess what, the NASA space program. Actually, hydrogen fuel cell cars may become reality within the next 20 years or so. They are also working on devoloping biofuels like ethanol (an alcohol made from plants) and biodiesel (made from soybeans) and making the process for creating those fuels more efficient. Those plants would decay and create the same carbon dioxide if they were used as fuel or not, thus reducing pollution and helping support farmers. At the same time, research is being done on enhancing the abilities of solar power and wind power. GE has made great strides in wind power. More and more wind generators are being added to help produce electricity. Studies have gone into ocean wave movement in helping create electricity etc. There are so many facets of fossil fuel replacent and reduction going on in our universities and US companies that we don't realize how much is actually being spent on it. We spend billions each year on the study of fossil fuel replacement and most of those programs are funded in some way (partially or fully, directly or indirectly) by the government.
2006-06-08 06:24:29 · answer #1 · answered by devilishblueyes 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
First of all, we don't spend trillions studying space. NASAs entire budget for FY2005 was about 16 billion if I recall correctly. Step back and visualize that amount as less than 0.7% of the entire federal budget.
Did DOE spend nearly that amount in energy development? No. Should we spend more on developing a viable fusion reactor design? Absolutely. I tend to think cutting a few hundred billion in social entitlements for that purpose would be a better idea.
As far as saving the planet...it is useful to remember where fossil fuels came from. Most of that carbon was in the atmosphere at one point...plants thrived in the process of removing it. Burning every ounce of coal and oil on the planet isn't going to doom us. Really.
2006-06-08 06:49:58 · answer #2 · answered by Ethan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is the age old quest or instinct, tribes or packs venture further to conquer larger domains.
Oh yeah... there is big$ in oil and big business runs that part.
If government were involved, we would probably be paying $7.00
a gallon by now to fund research.
2006-06-08 05:51:29 · answer #3 · answered by astroservus 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And who is so say there isn't any fossil fuels out there in space?
2006-06-08 05:43:31 · answer #4 · answered by Susan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are aware that the current US president is an oil tycoon, right? Why would he do anything to help the planet? He wants money, hon.
2006-06-08 05:42:21 · answer #5 · answered by e_ever_after 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My dogs knows my sons name. I ask her to find Oskar and she runs to him. It's probably because he's only a toddler and I'm constantly saying his name, and were at home most of the day so she's hearing me call his name a lot :)
2016-03-26 22:34:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why? Because George W. Bush is our president.
2006-06-08 05:41:46 · answer #7 · answered by H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋