government should intervene more with alternative fuel

You say it's common sense that we can't use all that land and so facts and such don't matter. If you read those links I gave and my intro statement, the fuel doesn't come from land, like corn... it comes from organic material like corn husks, other cellulose material, switchgrass (more energy intensive than corn and not corn), algae farms (which cna be grown in the dessert), and other non-harmful to us methods. If we used algae... it'd take the land size of maryland. see the wiki links. Again, Brazil is energy independant on sugar cane... just one type of alternative, but the point is made that it's possible generally. You're creating a problem where there is none. "the real argument, though, i'm posing is that we should not be against the government's intervention, just because." ---Just because period? Please give some explanation. Your argument seems to be that goverment intervention is by definition the least economical way to do things... but you don't provide any arguments to refute my points other than vague "invisible hand" rhetoric. (and some misguided factual info on your part) Really, the argument shouldn't be so much on the science of whether it's possible, but rather, if it's possible and at the 2 dollar level etc that they claim, should the govenrment intervene? You're finding so many ways to actually avoid actually arguing th point of the debate with me. "---The problem with this argument is that there are two different choices from two different backgrounds. In the world of the PRO, the government would be "effectively paying two dollars" but then thered be more usage of gas and more usage of ethanol leading to more usage of land and more usage of water, whereas if you negate, then you have the same "two dollars" except only without all the other disadvantages of ethanol." I acknowledged raising the fuel standard would mean we shouldn't be using ethanol, right now. I said we'd have to postpone intervention till later, perhaps. This is just a misreading on your part, and doesn't attack whether the gov should intervene at some time. ""you never responded to the substance of my argument: that having the fuel economy would save us money." ---Yeah, I didn't. I never mentioned money at all in my case. I don't see why it matters, and I see different things that matter. Is there a problem?" Well, the problem is that you should be addressing my points more. Even if it's just a theoretical argument... cause that's the point of this thread. Plus, you might not be so right abotu the factual nature of th sitaution, ie how much water is used or land.. etc. So you need to argue other things more. "you haven't given any evidence of how the rich DO lead." THen you can afford to buy cars, and you're better off than most people. Even if you're poor and you put all your money into cars, you're the exception to th e rule. The general rule is that, and this is common knowledge so i'm not sure why I'm even debating this, poorer people get their cars from the richer. Most people drive used cars. This is not rocket science. "How the heck is she affirming? The resolution says "government should intervene more with alternative fuel". Well.... Intervene where? How do you intervene with more alternative fuel? Does the government like, go somewhere and douse people in ethanol? Her case has absolutely no link to what the topic is." I said in my initial post that gas stations get subsidies and or loans... and perhaps fuel plants... and i suppose i'd add to that deductions for alt fuel ussage to car buyers. also, incidentally... i looked at your candidate mike gravel's site... http://www.ontheissues.org... and he thinks wind power can get us off gasoline in five years.... that's very hard to believe cars and all that would work. but anyway, whatever method we use, the government should intervene. you'd almost have to have them intervene if we went to wind. again, my main point is that if there's a viable alternative out there that's relatively cheap, gov should intervne. you've avoided this issue, the whole poit of this debate, like the plaque.