I agree with your proposal that the US and Europe should strive to establish a viable alternatives to pollutive fuel sources, and then spread those options to developing countries that would otherwise be mired in fossil fuels for decades. There are no national boundaries that divide our atmosphere, after all.
I imagine that nearly all hybrid-owners know it comes from a far more efficient source than in-vehicle combustion.
I have NEVER agreed with ethanol. It was merely a subsidy to help the corn farmers of America. And I agree we can't control it now, but as technology improves we one day will. Will you be on board then? The only problem is that we need to start working towards this end now rather than in 50 years or the technology will never improve.
Kudos to you, sir. The first lefty on this thread that admits ethanol was a government lie. It does not work and is actually harmful to the environment. So when are going to get rid of this expensive fraud? Never.
One day there will be a better option, and it will be one that makes sense in the market not in the empty skull of a bureaucrat. Of course, that solution is being delayed because we are being forced to spend time and money on fraudulent solutions like ethanol.
Can you actually come up with a quote showing that someone on this board supports ethanol additives? How about a multitude of them from different posters, as would be necessary to transform your strawman into a valid point?
Feeling a little smarter than everyone today, huh? I may just have to put on my condescension hat later, if'n I can remember where I left it.Looks like the survey findings apply here as well.
I remember it being trumpeted as a solution here and nationally. It was all the rage on a 60 Minutes piece. I thought it was all a lie, and that's exactly what it is. And that's the point: the government lied. Why would you keep believing a liar?
If you think my observation was wrong, don't dance around. Disagree like a man, maaan.
More efficient and higher emmisions. 49% of the U.S. electrical consumption comes from coal fired power plants. Cars emmisions don't hold a candle to the emmisions of a coal burner.
Forgive me, but I don't. Maybe this was before my time, but can you supply a actual link demonstrating the widespread support here?
I don't understand your point. It's a more efficient way to power the car--the fact that coal plants are so widely used is entirely irrelevant.
Strawman? Ethanol wasn't trumpeted by Gore and every other environmental pimp as a solution? I remember several on this board who championed the idea. That it was before your time or that you don't recall it falls is under the broad and deep category of "not my problem."
Without the power coming from these plants, there would be no way to charge the batteries on these cars. Say every person in the U.S. goes green and buys a hybrid. That's 308 million cars x2 because most U.S. families have 2 vehicles. How much energy do you suppose it's going to take to keep these cars charged all the time? My point is your going to swap auto emmisions for power plant emmisions.
I think your observation was spot on. So what? You're trying to prove to us with a couple of polls that birds of a feather flock together? My two year olds can tell you that. The topic, in this case climate change, doesn't matter. Do you think you would have polarized opinions on gay if you asked those same two groups polled about gay?
Not really a game. That is a real problem that I have expressed here before. Hybrids really aren't more green. They do reduce our foreign fuel consumption. We need a NEW energy economy. One not based on oil. Everything that we use or buy is pretty much made from crude oil. We have to transform our whole economy. This process will take decades. All pharmaceuticals, plastics, electricity, chemicals, etc are made from oil derivatives and everything else is transported or created using coal or oil power. This is not a situation where we can just buy a hybrid and claim we are now green. It is not that simple.
