government should intervene more with alternative fuel

yes, you're going to have to cite your source about that 12000 to 1 or whatever it was citation. here are mine. there you can find fuel for a dollar gallon produced, and two dollars sold. http://www.wired.com... http://blog.wired.com... http://www.wired.com... http://www.businessweek.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://media.cleantech.com... http://media.cleantech.com... http://crave.cnet.com... the real argument, though, i'm posing is that we should not be against the government's intervention, just because. you give an good idea about raising fuel standards... cause if they did that, then it'd be effectively like us paying two dollars a gallon again. but, eventually, the government should bail us out when we can't raise the standards anymore. you did a good job pointing out some of my unclear points, and have some good ideas, but my ultimate argument that the government should intervene, primarily with fuels (at least eventually), hasn't really been dismantled. (though i could see how you'd disagree given the fuel efficiency argument.. but at this point we'd just be bickering and not talking about the government eventually intervening which is the real point) you never responded to the substance of my argument: that having the fuel economy would save us money. i understand that our premises are different, as per your ideas about how much water it takes... but anyway here is where the debate should be headed should you rightfully accept my premises about the cost of alt fuels in those links: if we wait until the richer can feel it, all that money that's being squandered by teh poor and middle class isn't going to the economy at large cause one thing i wasn't very explicit on. if they can make it for a dollar a gallon, and even if they sold it at 2 a gallon, which is what they say they'd be doing, it'd still work out right. consider, that my google search says the average station produces 700000 gallons of fuel a year. if we have a better infrastructure sooner than later, then taken to the extreme that'd be instead of 3*700k it'd be 2*700k, with a 700,000 saving per station. that, in one year, would be more than enough to pay for a machine there. instead, we're waiting till the rich get pinched... we're wasting at most 700000 dollars a year per gas station. i realize dthe numbers are made optimally for me, and there's a trasition period, but. what the free market fundamentalist would say....wait till gas is 12 dollars a gallon... cause that's the only way the rich and the fuel stations are going to start doing anything: they're not going to do it sooner, cause the richer don't want to be inconvenienced by limited stations, and the stations won't do it, cause they have no consumers. and then, if we did it the free mar fun way, we'd have to wait for those new cars to trickle down. not all things... lke that toy you pose as an example... come from the rich... but things like cars, which people notoriously buy used... is completely different, with that example as irrefutable proof. and you never addressed the fact that demand would indeed be created or argued how it wouldn't. you simply asserted that no demand would be created... that it's just reducing corporate costs only.. just an assertion. if someone can get cheaper fuel, the catch 22 no longer exists, and they'd be more willing to go for an alt fuel car. it's really not hard..