The government where to offer incentives ... like say $10million or something... to a company that came up with a viable energy source to replace oil and that was fairly green... it's not changing regulations.. and that much money is hardly a drop in the bucket for the nation.. but could do great for a single company (amount could be varied.. more or less .. it's just an arbitrary number I picked off the top of my head)... you aren't really messing with the free market.. people would still have to pick what they wanted to use... how would you guys feel about something like that? It's kind of walking the line.. but I think it could help and be acceptable by most.
2007-04-04 04:56:53 · 12 answers · asked by pip 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
$10million is too small?? but a $1million prize placed a private company in space.. you'd be surprised what companies can do when there is an incentive
2007-04-04 05:03:22 · update #1
I'm not talking about funding a few companies though.. I'm saying offer the prize and let everybody have a shot at it.. someone would figure it out pretty quickly.
2007-04-04 05:05:00 · update #2
I like the idea. I think that the government should be doing a lot more to offer incentives to companies to find alternatives to fossil fuels.
2007-04-04 05:01:46 · answer #1 · answered by tangerine 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1. I believe Richard Branson (owner of the Virgin Atlantic air) has already offered 25mill. So your 1 mill is cheap :( .
2. I think "free market" technically speaking has not been free since great depression. Otherwise what do you call billions of $ given away to oil, agriculture, Boeing etc etc etc . In my mind it is really a myth! It is a matter of priorities and that is the government's role - set priorities. We spend 100 billion $ a year on the war, if we were to spend half of it on new energy - it would have been a great success! The main problem with this -it is not a commercially viable project . Only consumers would be interested in it ( solar panel will cut your utility bill; wind does not require maintenance and monthly billing ... :)). Oil,gas , coal on the other hand can be SOLD on the regular basis - stream of income. Hence there are lobbying to support these businesses as oppose to renewable. Money comes to politicians and they get reelected to support the business.
2007-04-04 12:11:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I love the free market Pip. Just consider what the reward in profit would be for own the patten on such a fuel. Of course people are looking, and there is plenty of incentive.
2007-04-04 12:09:24 · answer #3 · answered by Herodotus 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it makes sense. An example (possibly poor) is the X Prize for the first private vehicle to reach space with a man in it. Burt Rutan pulled it off with SpaceShipOne and collected the cash.
I'm thinking there must be a Burt Rutan of energy out there somewhere.
2007-04-04 12:03:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It undermines the foundation of American capitalism. The wealthy are getting wealthier and the poor, poorer. That is how established society works.
To offer incentives that are counter to the administrations aims will be met with conservative ridicule and condemnation. The "libs" would be too much of a threat.
And of course we wouldn't want to forget the quote from Bush Sr.
"If they had their way, every American would be out of work and we would be over-run with spotted owls"
2007-04-04 12:07:04 · answer #5 · answered by Jeff F 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
While it sounds like a great idea, $10 million is far, far less than it would cost to actually find a viable replacement for oil-based energy. That kind of research costs billions of dollars.
2007-04-04 12:00:36 · answer #6 · answered by James 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that companies who agree to make vehicles that are environmentally friendly should recieve some compensation- not just for their effort but in hopes that they can market these vehicles at low prices.
right now you can have an suv converted to run on natural gas- it will cost about $10,000.
I think willie nelson's fuel is the best option but I don't see it being used by the majority of people or by most car manufactorers
2007-04-04 12:04:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, the government is actually funding several companies to come up with oil/fuel alternatives. Its not high priority for the media, because there's no blood and death involved.
2007-04-04 12:03:21 · answer #8 · answered by panthrchic 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be great make businesses compete to find he "Cure" for our oil dependance. But not sure how much could fit in current budget even with the thought that in the long run we would be self sufficient and have a better economy.
2007-04-04 12:01:50 · answer #9 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
in history.. every time civilization needed a boost forward, it has been the gov'ts job to provide the infrastructure for that boost...such as the tva, the damms after ww2. the hiway system, electrification of rural america...let gov't provide the impetus and let private industry provide the brainpower...it will be a lot cheaper that way....
2007-04-04 12:03:46 · answer #10 · answered by badjanssen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋