government should intervene more with alternative fuel

Because it takes 12,000 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol, I negate. __________________ Gonna refute her individual points first. "comanyies make alternative companies but often must put operations on hold. why? because there's no demand.the consumers who make demand say there's no supply. who can afford as a consumer to buy altnernative vehicles? the richer. does the rising prices right now of gasoline hurt them? not as much so they don't buy. but, even if they bought cars sometimes as they are now, there's still not much there in way of an infrastructure for the supply side. the rich won't start buying more until it really starting hurting them. the poor won't do it cause they can't. the middle won't do it, probaly for the same reason. it's conventional wisdom that the rich are the ones who start these new technologies... and the conventional wisdom is probably true here too." ---What I get out of this is that if the government subsidize corporations in research for alternative fuel or subsidize in order to increase demand. I don't believe that subsidizing will increase demand at all; it will just lower the costs for corporations. "but, unlike many situations with conventinoal wisdom... for altrnernative fuel, waiting till the rich start teh technology isn't in the best interest of the country right now. that's because... for many other things, like buying a DVD player... fuel isn't something that's simply a perk as much, and isn't such a regular and substantial cost for the consumer. it has a noticable affect on the economy. fuel is the opposite." ---I don't understand any of this except for the last two lines and the first. To the first, I don't think the economy of the world rests solely on the 'leadership' of the rich; I don't think that we all look to them to what we buy. I'm pretty certain that I didn't buy my Lego Bionicle Phantoka toy because some rich kid bought one as well. As to the last two lines: Fuel doesn't have a noticeable effect on the economy? What???? "while we're waiting for the rich to convert, what's happening? in the mean time, the poorer are spending their money on gas, or not being as productive as they could with cheaper gas or some gas at all. the middle class largely too. consider all that money they're spending on that, when they could be spending on an array of other things. all that money could have been going to the economy at large, instead of the pockets and costs of a few. (and foreignors, which is a major concern in and of itself)" ---I have no idea what she's talking about here. Affirming this topic won't get anywhere in terms of the poor and the middle class spending too much money on gas; which I'll get to later. "to make it more of a practical example. say a new biodesial machine at a gas station costs fifty thousand. all that money that the poorer are wasting right now would have been more than enough to either subsidize or lend to that station. (you could lend the money to them... and ensur ethey make a tidy profit before they ever have to pay it back, if ever considering there's a risk they might not make money) if we invested in them as a government then, the effects would be much sooner, and the poorer and middle class would save more, and it'd be a boon to the economy. (plus all the jobs involved with the transitioning infrastructure) there'd be so much savings, you could even lend or subsidize biodisal plants too, though it'd probably not be needed for them." ---Alright, so here's where I present my argument: DairyGirl is basically saying that if we subsidize now then we'll get the technology and then suddenly everyone's saving money because biodiesel is cheap. I don't agree with this on two levels. First of all, it doesn't work that way. You don't just get the technology, the biodesel engine, and then ding! it's done. No, biodiesel has an ongoing cost. To get biodiesel we have to grow plants, corn, and various other things in order to grind them and process them into a burnable form inside an engine. In the case of ethanol, the costs that go into producing the corn outweigh the benefits that it produces, which even then, are none. As I mentioned earlier, it's a 12,000 to 1 (that's a .008%) ratio of water to the production of ethanol: The water used in ethanol can be used elsewhere, and with droughts sprouting up around the UNITED STATES, the use of water in the production of ethanol is wasted. And even then.... it's still pretty ridiculous. 12K:1? Are you serious? Second, EVEN IF Ethanol didn't take that much water to produce, it is empirically proven that theres more MPG in using normal gasoline/petroleum than in using E15 or E20. "government intervention is the way to break the catch 22 sooner when it'll make a difference for hte economy, than later when we'll look back and see all that wealth that has been squandered." ---Counterplan: Fund Alternative ENERGY. Alternative FUELS are just gonna take this country, and the world to sh*t. Or, the USFG should implement more liberal laws about the MPG requirements of cars; requiring like, say, 60MPG by 2015. With all the money corporations have, I'm sure they can handle it. Japanese companies are already well on their way there: God, even my family's 10 year old Toyota has better mileage than a 2008 Chevrolet. And if they CAN'T handle it, well, we'll just subsidize them. Necessity is the mother of invention, yes?