the government should intervene more in transition to alternative fuels

In round 2, instigator has settled on a position that is based on the following points:r2-1) "government will cause change to occur sooner than later"I concede the point that the federal government can cause change to occur faster than that portion of the private sector that might involve itself in biofuels. If I controlled spending that represented over 20% of GDP, I could do the same. However, I don't see instigator providing any proof that this change would be positive. I only see a vague theory, which I have argued in round 1 point #2 is flawed. Even if we accept the idea that biofuels could be produced that were more efficient than petroleum (which I don't), I fail to see how the federal government could increase the pace of this process. There is no need to provide funding to the private sector with massive profits waiting to be made. What reason do we have to think this is true?r2-2) "biofuels would save consumers money"However, in round 1, I have shown why this can't possibly be the case. Entrepreneurs simply would not pass up a chance to reap the profits from a multi-trillion dollar industry. John D. Rockefeller faced a similar situation in the 19th century when he was able to lower the costs of oil from 30 cents to 6 cents a gallon in less than 30 years, with the result being huge profits for Standard Oil and the enrichment of the lives of those who were able to light their homes more efficiently. If biofuels can be produced for 1$ a gallon, nearly 1/3 the cost of gas at the pump, there is every reason to believe that investment money would literally flood into biofuels. r2-3) "the private sector doesn't want to take the risks of choosing a technology which might not prove the most successful and perhaps before its time"I completely agree with this statement. But consider that the entities involved: investors, venture capital firms, etc, are experts at what they do. There job is to weigh risk-reward scenarios for investors. They will thoroughly research a technology before investing. And, despite this caution, history is littered with investments that have been made that did not produce. From the little bit of research I've done, there is only a small amount of investment in this field, investment that is already backed by federal grant money, University research, etc. If there was an opportunity to cut the cost of fuel by more than half in a multi-trillion dollar industry, is this picture we would expect to see? I don't think so. I will state my case again: this issue is not lack of funding in an obviously viable business opportunity. We should leave these decisions in the hands of those whose money is on the line. That is the only way we can best apply resources across the many investment opportunities available, based on ideal risk-reward calculations. Federal bureaucrats have shown time and again that politics will taint this process, with federal money going to favored interests, with the goal of garnishing votes.r2-4) "the number one stimulant in an economy, is change, not necessarily more of the same. change means people are spending"This contention is simply false. All change must undergo the test of profit. As I've described above, profit is a sign of efficiency and consumer satisfaction.r2-5) "when i was saying it is bad to spend where the foreigners profit, i was mainly referrencing terrorism and economic dependence"Terrorism simply is not a factor here. In fact, I would argue the opposite. Adam Smith, in his seminal work Wealth of Nations, written in 1776, have shown that we become wealthier by way of free trade, while restraint of trade makes us all poorer. In round 1, I covered this in more detail. Even if my opponent was correct (and has somehow refuted Adam Smith) ISIS's total budget is only about 2.5$ billion. I personally am not willing to pay twice as much for fuel in order to combat terrorists, when my chances of getting killed are four times higher getting hit by lightning. As far as economic dependence, this is a loaded term: refer to Adam Smith, or my discussion of the law of comparative advantage. As another way to look at this, would my opponent recommend that I personally favor policies restraining trade between the state of Pennsylvania (where I live) and neighboring states? After all, we are very dependent on Iowa for corn and beef, Wisconsin for cheese, etc. My opponent summarizes the main points in the following:"the free market left to its own devices is not necessarily the best indicator of what is "ideal". if the government is exacerbating changes that are going to occur anyway, there is savings and profit to be had. that's the whole point of what the free market wants anyways. the government is just helping the market along on its way"However, I fail to see how this has been shown. Why is the free market not the best indicator of what is ideal? I have put forward the test of profit in the free market as an economic theory that can tell us what is ideal. There are other theories that my opponent could give, but has failed to do so. Why would the free market not immediately jump at the chance to reap these purported profits?