• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Wants Research to Wean Vehicles off Oil.....

No, I would definetly say that our energy usage has produced far more benefit than traffic. People wouldnt sit in traffic for an our if it wasnt benefitting them.
Exactly my point: sitting in traffic may benefit them, but it destroys the world around them, the economy and the future of the country and its unborne citizens for generations to come. But, hey, it benefits THEM, so what's the big deal if we roll the rest of the planet into a stinking brown ball and flush it down the drain?

Greed and hedonism have become THE modern religion.
 
The original point of the thread - and AGAIN, that research has been done and paid for. Why are you so willing to pay for the same research over and over again? You've expressed no desire to "wean vehicles off of oil", you want them to use electric vehicles when the vast majority of vehicles are internal combustion, you haven't spoken at all to transition.

Carbon is still the most efficient fuel source. Not worried in the slightest about CO2, I'm more worried about plain CO (and other polluting gases). But with modern emissions systems that's gotten much better.



You are the only person I have ever heard of that thinks nothing can be better than what it is today. But since you deny the scientific principle of the greenhouse effect, I guess that is not too surprising.
 
The unfortunate reality is that far too many Canadians and Americans enjoy all of the independence and personal freedoms without the bother of taking the personal responsibility for their impact on their environment, their fellow citizens, citizens of the world and citizens of the future.

Our, "impact", on the environment is greatly exagerated.
 
That sounds a bit nutter and paranoid. Why can't if just be a simple effort to plan for the future?

It can't be a simple plan for the future, if it doesn't do anything but hurt private citizens.
 
Won't it be fun to convert every existing car, home, building, campus, and institution around the world to this new energy source?

No, that won't cost much, and yes, I'm sure every country will just go along with it just fine.
 
Our, "impact", on the environment is greatly exagerated.
I take it you have never been in the industrial waste or remediation business, or tried to swim in Lake Erie, or visited Love Canal, or been in oil production areas of Nigeria, or ascertained the millions of tonnes a YEAR of garbage dumped in the Atlantic by NYC or the North Sea by Europeans, or seen the containers of ultra-toxic industrial waste abandoned in farmers fields in Arica, or the massive burial pits of industrial and nuclear waste in Eastern Europe, or bothered to find out what condition farm soil and the Ogilala Aquifer are in right in your own back yard.

Must be cozy under that rock.
 
This is the REAL issue regarding this thread. The business of government SHOULD be to govern: i.e. legislate, regulate, enforce and provide needed infrastructure. PERIOD. Letting them play political games with our tax money (worse yet, DEBT) is so far outside of what SHOULD be their limits it is pathetic. And we all just sit idly by and let it happen.

Guy I am all for limiting government, however, as humans who need this planet the government (as well as all people) have a responsibility to keep our planet in the best condition we can for as long as we can. Our government has our money. Whether they invest it in researching ways for our planet to be cleaner, or research on whether or not snorting pesticides is bad for our noses, or just plain old pocketing it doesn't change the fact that they have the money. Now when it comes to how the government uses that money I would, by a large margin, prefer that that money go toward researching ways to improve our lives. The only reason this is political is because no matter which side takes any type of stance on anything the other side has to immediately take the opposite stance. Ensuring the health of a planet is not actually a political stance, it is common sense.
 
It wont produce results, and the results they hope for are just as polluting as oil. Youre simply moving the pollution from auto engines to mining or generators.

Just because something still pollutes does not mean it pollutes as much as auto engines. Developing technology away from a method that is proven to be destroying our Earth is not a bad idea.
 
You are the only person I have ever heard of that thinks nothing can be better than what it is today. But since you deny the scientific principle of the greenhouse effect, I guess that is not too surprising.

Nice try, but inaccurate. My point has been clear (despite your attempts to muddy it). The research we have on tap, the research we've already completed and paid for - let's use that. Let's NOT do it all again, pay for the same thing over again, just to look like we're doing something.

There are good reasons the yield of that research went nowhere last time, no reason to throw good money after bad.
 
I take it you have never been in the industrial waste or remediation business, or tried to swim in Lake Erie, or visited Love Canal, or been in oil production areas of Nigeria, or ascertained the millions of tonnes a YEAR of garbage dumped in the Atlantic by NYC or the North Sea by Europeans, or seen the containers of ultra-toxic industrial waste abandoned in farmers fields in Arica, or the massive burial pits of industrial and nuclear waste in Eastern Europe, or bothered to find out what condition farm soil and the Ogilala Aquifer are in right in your own back yard.

Must be cozy under that rock.

Oh, I thought you were talking about private citizens driving cars.
 
Just because something still pollutes does not mean it pollutes as much as auto engines. Developing technology away from a method that is proven to be destroying our Earth is not a bad idea.

Modern auto engines pollute far, far less than even those 10 years ago, and they were lightyears ahead in clean emission of the ones 10 years before that. Problem is, when you develop a new vehicle, with a drastic change in emissions, all the older revs don't just disappear and fall out of use. There are still cars from the 70s and 80s on the road.

But hey, again, the tech has long been developed to radically reduce harmful emissions. It's been around for decades. And it's inexpensive, especially when done at the factory.
 
Just because something still pollutes does not mean it pollutes as much as auto engines. Developing technology away from a method that is proven to be destroying our Earth is not a bad idea.

However, forcing technology on the people that will harm society is a bad idea.

I'm all for protecting the environmen, but let's not stupid about it.
 
Nice try, but inaccurate. My point has been clear (despite your attempts to muddy it). The research we have on tap, the research we've already completed and paid for - let's use that. Let's NOT do it all again, pay for the same thing over again, just to look like we're doing something.

There are good reasons the yield of that research went nowhere last time, no reason to throw good money after bad.


We are using that research, and new research builds on the old research. That is how our country has progressed through history. It would be stupid to stop progressing and think that we would be able to compete with the rest of the world in the future.
 
You are the only person I have ever heard of that thinks nothing can be better than what it is today. But since you deny the scientific principle of the greenhouse effect, I guess that is not too surprising.

That's ironic, since the greenies want to take us back to the 15th Century. "Global Warming" legislation is going backwards,not forward.
 
We are using that research, and new research builds on the old research. That is how our country has progressed through history. It would be stupid to stop progressing and think that we would be able to compete with the rest of the world in the future.

No, it's not. Government has subsidized research, then private enterprise has taken the research, commercialized it and distributed it. At that point it's in the hands of private R&D.
 
Guy I am all for limiting government, however, as humans who need this planet the government (as well as all people) have a responsibility to keep our planet in the best condition we can for as long as we can. Our government has our money. Whether they invest it in researching ways for our planet to be cleaner, or research on whether or not snorting pesticides is bad for our noses, or just plain old pocketing it doesn't change the fact that they have the money. Now when it comes to how the government uses that money I would, by a large margin, prefer that that money go toward researching ways to improve our lives. The only reason this is political is because no matter which side takes any type of stance on anything the other side has to immediately take the opposite stance. Ensuring the health of a planet is not actually a political stance, it is common sense.
The problem is that these specific efforts by government are counterproductive to what you (and I) seek. This is pork barelling, not intelligent research.

As to partisanship, take another look. Catawba and I are about as far apart in the political spectrum as you can get, but we both want exactly the same things. We just differ on the best way to get there. If your position (or mine) won't stand the challenge, maybe it is not the best position.
 
No, it's not. Government has subsidized research, then private enterprise has taken the research, commercialized it and distributed it. At that point it's in the hands of private R&D.


That is not the history of the US or how many of our great achievements came about.
 
Modern auto engines pollute far, far less than even those 10 years ago, and they were lightyears ahead in clean emission of the ones 10 years before that. Problem is, when you develop a new vehicle, with a drastic change in emissions, all the older revs don't just disappear and fall out of use. There are still cars from the 70s and 80s on the road.

Just because things are better doesn't mean that they are good and cant be improved.



But hey, again, the tech has long been developed to radically reduce harmful emissions. It's been around for decades. And it's inexpensive, especially when done at the factory.

Just because something has been done for decades doesn't make it right. Neither does making it inexpensive.
 
That is not the history of the US or how many of our great achievements came about.

You are wrong, it's precisely how it's worked in the past. The development has to hold it's own in the marketplace.
 
However, forcing technology on the people that will harm society is a bad idea.

I'm all for protecting the environmen, but let's not stupid about it.

How is the government researching alternative methods forcing anything on you? It is more likely that currently Oil is being forced on us now. If you are against something being forced onto you, then alternatives would make sense.
 
No, it's not. Government has subsidized research, then private enterprise has taken the research, commercialized it and distributed it. At that point it's in the hands of private R&D.
Having been in that "system" for many years, I draw the line between fundamental research (that IS what government should fund) and applied research. As soon as there is a commercial prospect or aspect, government of today's "rule-by-special-interest" guarantees that it gets funded for political expedience, not scientific or economic objectivity. The subject of this thread is a perfect example. The last thing I would ever want to see is GOVERNMENT picking winners and losers in business - and that is precisely what Obama is doing (and what EVERY administration before him as as well).
 
Just because things are better doesn't mean that they are good and cant be improved.

True, and it's up to the private market to improve it at this point.

Just because something has been done for decades doesn't make it right. Neither does making it inexpensive.

What? Do you know what we're talking about here? I can name at least one fuel replacement that has been inexpensive and freely available for at least the last 40 years - propane. Heck, Henry Ford's vehicles originally ran on peanut oil. We've known since the beginning that vehicles could run on SVO/WVO. All this has been thoroughly researched. Why do you want to pay to do it all again?
 
You are wrong, it's precisely how it's worked in the past. The development has to hold it's own in the marketplace.

Most of our greatest achievements through history have been the result of public/private partnerships in research.
 
Most of our greatest achievements through history have been the result of public/private partnerships in research.

No, not partnerships. You mistake the sequence. The government doesn't take the development to market nor should they be doing/paying for the research beyond development. The government may have researched and developed the router, but it's all on Cisco now.
 
The government may have researched and developed the router, but it's all on Cisco now.

Exactly, and research is what is proposed. From the OP - "The money would fund research on "breakthrough" technologies such as batteries for electric cars and biofuels made from switch grass or other materials. Researchers also would look to improve use of natural gas as a fuel for cars and trucks."
 
Back
Top Bottom