Nice how you sidestepped the issue of who's going to fund this executive order to make use of alternative fuels mandatory. Simply restating your original point without answering the tough questions that the point raises is a poor way to make your point. There can be no "impetus" economically to a proven loser such as alternative fuels have been proven to be compared to oil as they both stand today. When they become an actual viable, economically sound alternative, the free market will push the changes needed to allow alternative fuels to replace oil. In the meantime, refer to the aforementioned Crockett/Bunce story and really pay attention to the part about the federal government's role in spending.

And just as an aside, not a personal hit, why is it that people who are against, or opposed to, sources such as ANWR and nuclear power, are almost always in favor of hemp production? Not that I have anything against hemp, just a question.