Advancing this type of technology could eventually reduce public and private sector costs, as well as make more feasible, such projects as an underground energy transmission grid that can deliver energy to all fifty states, plus Canada and Mexico. With such a system in place, energy deregulation could be more successful than it was in California without such infrastructure.

How does your position account for any Arms Race, Space Race, or drug war or terror war?

What market forces required those expenses to our public treasury?

To be consistent, if you allow for any of those, there how can you be credible in not allowing for forms of public policy that can promote and provide for the general Welfare of the United States?

The common Offense instead of Defense is not specifically enumerated in the same manner as the general Welfare.

I think funding of this type of order could be considered within the normal budget of the executive branch since it could be accomplish by attrition of older vehicles. A certain portion of new vehicles could be required to be alternative fuel capable, thus creating more of a market for those vehicles and incentive for better product development for the private sector.

With any increase in demand for that type of product, the private sector will have more profit motive to provide better products and lower cost to the (private sector) consumer.

The arms race and the space race were great boons for the arms industry, one of the few US industries that has actually grown in recent decades; the War on Drugs, as I’ve posted previously, is a complete waste of time and resources; and the War on Terror is a result of probably the worst attack on the US in our nation’s history.

Why is it that there is any consideration for making tax cuts permanent, if we are running massive deficits? Shouldn't a balanced budget or massive surpluses precede permanent tax cuts?

Since you acknowledge that non-market based, public sector initiatives could be a boon to a specific industry, then, wouldn't that also be the case for any industry that can also promote and provide for the general Welfare of the United States, and that could result in lower costs to the public and private sectors?

What question would that be? Is there nothing hemp won't do? That question? Yes, there are many things hemp won't do because brainwashed morons have allowed our government to make it illegal to grow in the US, the only industrialized country in the fucking world without a hemp crop.

Sure, I’m just not convinced a switch to an alternative fuel source at this time would result in a sustained enhancement to the general Welfare of the United States.

Daniel,
While any way you want cut the issue, it still has be economical in the end. A switch to ethanol isnt worth the efforts if it takes as much fossil fuels to process the ethanol as it would save by burning it.
Also, it must be cheaper than gasoline. Which considering what it is and how much captial it takes to get the oil, oil is quite cheap as a substance.

So really, that will leave us with hydrogen. Unless there is something else on the horizon I dont know about. Which converting to will be quite expensive for everyone, and we need to come up with a viable and inexpensive source of the hydrogen. Natural gas is the most likely source unless we find something else.
Of which there is 35trillion cubic square feet of natural gas on the Alaska north slope just waiting for a transportation method to market.

__________________
Abstinence Education at its finest:

What about advances in those technologies through market forces that can be accomplished via a simple executive order?

Simply purchasing some segment of vehicles by the public sector could create more of a market for more development of those types of vehicles and technologies.

The same economic principle could be applied by requiring any drilling outside of the boundaries of nature preserves since it could generate development in newer technologies that could make future drillings less expensive while maintaining a better environment.

Where is the dis-economy in converting to cleaner fuels and technologies by attrition? Those vehicles are already on the market and can only be improved through time and consumer demand.

Your argument would be less disingenuous if we didn't have the practical example of the horse and buggy for comparison. Advances in technology have made what was once practical impractical in modern times. The same argument applies to current fuels and technologies.

OK, explain to me where I can find 10,000,000 cars using hydrogen as thier fuel source, and where the hydrogren is going to come from, plus who and how will the fuel distribution system work?

What is the incentive for people to change? Take me for example, I own an imported medium size 4wd pickup truck, 10 years old. It is what I need to get around where I live. A car simply wont work. So my truck works great right now, why should I dump my current vehicle for something I probably cant afford nor am I sure it could function better than my current vehicle.

This is far more complicated than a simple Executive Order as you said earlier.

__________________
Abstinence Education at its finest:

Changing over to an alternative fuel source will cost money, there’s no way around that. The point Dockman keeps trying to make, in his own way, is that you can shift the burden anywhere you want, the government, corporations, communities, etc., but that doesn’t eliminate the burden. The burden is still there; it’s still going to cost money to make such a change. I just think we need to make sure such a change is going to make sense economically. Alternatives may be cheaper right now, but I think the price of crude is currently being kept artificially high.

Alright, let's clear these up one at a time. Yes, using lasers to drill could make certain projects cheaper and easier to operate. However, at this point, according to your own posted quote:"Researchers believe (emphasis added) that state-of-the-art lasers have the potential to...
This would suggest that they are not able to be used at this time, which renders your point moot.


You are still dodging the question of funding the mandatory use of alternative fuels. Simply requiring new vehicles to be fueled by alternative methods, as I've pointed out before, does not create the funding that would be needed to provide the fuel. The funding for that would have to come from somewhere, either new revenue (taxes), or spending cuts in another area. You have not, or more to the point, will not, identify how this will be accomplished.

As much as you have demonized my supposed lack of research, I would have thought that you would have spent a modicum of time on economic research before posting such an inane statement. You cannot tax yourself into prosperity. Tax cuts bring revenue surpluses. Don't take my word for it, do some research on the CBO website and compare the numbers before and after Capital Gains Taxes were reduced. I believe the revenue increaase after the tax decrease was around 150%. Now I'm no accountant, but I believe that's actually a good thing. You should probably look up a way to compare deficits and GDP before you start bringing up that subject also. One cannot be used as an example, good or bad, without the other.

As I stated earlier, I personally have no problem with Hemp manufacturing, for industrial or recreational use. However, I don't believe it to be the panacea that you do. We may be "the only industrialized country in the fucking world without a hemp crop", but we are also not hurting for the lack of it. Surprising how the rest of the world is so far ahead of us and yet so very far behind, even with the aid of Hemp. Oh, and that problem you have of forgetting the original question (about how to fund your magical EO), that could be short term memory loss caused by the Super Duper Magical Hemp. Just saying.

Where did you get your arbitrary number for the amount of vehicles? Your argument is becoming even more specious than it was at first. No one is asking you, specifically, to do anything that is not in your budget. You may have missed the point of my argument. It really is as simple as an executive order to the executive branch.