Why?
2007-05-19 14:30:17 · 8 answers · asked by What, what, what?? 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Sure they can. Just not the Federal government of the United States of America....it's in the Constitution.
2007-05-19 14:34:07 · answer #1 · answered by evans_michael_ya 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The government must certainly have a say in setting the basic rules around fuels. Because the access, supply, and control of energy is something that we look to the government to help ensure stays safe. The government also sets and regulates health and safety and environmental regulation.
We have to be protected from the possibility that someone else could disrupt our economy by virtue of seizing control of the energy that drives our economy.
That is why hydrogen, solar, wind, biofuels are all such attractive options going forward - these are things that will reduce the risks that we now find ourselves in with oil and the middle east.
Beyond setting some basic controls and rules (ownership, safety, EPA, etc.), the government must then allow the free market to determine which of the available options work best within our economy.
2007-05-19 14:45:27 · answer #2 · answered by quint 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your first answer was interesting. I looked all thru the Constitution and Amendments and saw nothing about this.
Yes. I think so under the following:
1. Dollar for Dollar TAX Credits for research into, and implementation of other clean sources of fuel, for Corporations.
2. Not allow what Gore is doing in "Buying Tax Credits" for tax purposes, and require the use of the Credit to be used on R & D.
3. Individual Dollar for Dollar Tax Credits for Individuals for Purchasing Alternative Energy Power, and Vehicles.
4. Tax Credits for Companies and Corporations, who provide these same Alternative Power sources and Vehichles to the Poor for free or reduced costs.
It would be a Tax hit for the Gov. over the next 5 years, but it will prove to be a HUGE savings for America in the following years.
Government would only be incenting Companies, not doing it themselves, which I think we could all agree would be far more efficient.
Would something like this get tried???
I don't know. We would have to give Tax Incentive to Corporations. So would there be all the normal screeming of "Tax Breaks For the Rich".
I think we have come to a point where this is our best option...
2007-05-19 15:00:07 · answer #3 · answered by Ken C 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Beacuse ultimately the success of a fuel will be determined by supply and demand, development of fuels is best left to the marketplace.
2007-05-19 14:41:31 · answer #4 · answered by Trav 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No... conflict of interest.. not to mention the usually inefficients of governments in general. That is not to imply that government shouldn't have no input or even assist in the process. But I believe that the private sector will produce the fuel quicker and cheaper....
2007-05-19 14:40:36 · answer #5 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The ultimate decision will come from the marketplace but the government has a role in funding reseach and providing incentives.
2007-05-19 14:44:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes because they know the politics on wuts behind the sources...sum sources may be available now but will run out in the near furture or we might have shaky relations with a country to rely on that source...also most of the buisness would survive from gov granted subsides anyway
2007-05-19 15:14:30 · answer #7 · answered by CJ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Curious to see WHERE in the US Constitution the government is BANNED from engaging in commerce...
2007-05-19 14:49:05 · answer #8 · answered by mariner31 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋