There you go. Automakers have an incentive to develop those technologies and are doing so. That doesn't mean that it will pan out, but they certainly aren't counting on the status quo.Many experts agree that the country's oil dependency is unsustainable and encourages economic volatility, global warming and geopolitical instability. Automakers are already developing more fuel-efficient vehicles that run on hybrid-electric engines, clean diesel, biofuels and hydrogen fuel cells.
The problem is that the pollution will continue. You keep saying that these companies will simply fade away if the market demands it but I keep saying that they are doing all they can to stay in place, even if by doing so they harm the overall population.
Marcus, I'm not saying they are never going to develop them, I am saying they are doing so at a slower pace than they could be doing so do draw out their profits.
Oh, I'm sure a large and growing number of consumers are "concerned about the environment". If Ford or GM were able to introduce an easy to operate clean running vehicle in the same price range as their current vehicles then they'd be able to actually boost their flagging share prices, to say the least.I disagree because most people in the consumer base don't understand the benifit that these type of measures would have. The consumer base is short sighted, and I believe this is a case where government intervention is going to be needed.
In "tneory" and practice, consumers do.IN TNEORY, the consumer base should be able to dictate it's needs and demands very well with it's purchase power.
Oh, I'd say by and large consumers are. Just look at how many products today are marketed as being enviromentally friendly or what not. Starbucks just announced they were going to use like 15% recycled material in their cups or some such yesterday and the share price went up significantly. Why? Because consumers eat that up.But, when the consumer base is not aware of what is in it's best interests it will make decisions that are not in line with those which would be most beneficial.
Honestly, if you really care about clean energy technology replacing the old, you'd want the government to stay the F out of the way.
Then it's a step. I don't really care for the government being involved at all in this. Anyways, if the technology is there for a low or no polluting technology then someone will develop it.The problem is that the pollution will continue. You keep saying that these companies will simply fade away if the market demands it but I keep saying that they are doing all they can to stay in place, even if by doing so they harm the overall population.
You give the american public far more credit than I am willing to.
The problem with that is that they also face the prospect that another firm will bring a "clean" technology to market quicker. Compe ion from within the industry as well as from without.Marcus, I'm not saying they are never going to develop them, I am saying they are doing so at a slower pace than they could be doing so do draw out their profits.
It's an not a nessecary step. man, can you just acknowledge that the oil companies are not looking out for the best interests of the entire country?
Oh, and if the American public is so concerned with the enviroment, why is it that we have so many godamn SUV's on the road with their ty gas milage and UNSAFE records?
Sure, when you can dispell with this conspiratorial nonsense you read in such esteemed publications as Mother Jones and recognize that just because the government funds or doesn't fund a technology, that doesn't mean it won't be commercialized. I mean this is pretty basic . It doesn't matter if those firms invest in it or not. If that technology is real then the money will be there.It's an not a nessecary step. man, can you just acknowledge that the oil companies are not looking out for the best interests of the entire country?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...AGEJ6O54F1.DTLWhen asked to rank the importance of 56 characteristics they considered when buying a new car, Americans ranked fuel economy 44th. This explains why sport utility vehicles, minivans and light trucks accounted for 54 percent of all new cars bought last year.
You are the one spouting off about consipracies Matt. I started off by saying that oil companies are holding back alternative energies because it suits them, and you said that was a conspiracy.
The technology could be real and profitable NOW. But the fact of the matter is that they can make MORE money eaiser on oil still, then make money on the alternative energies later. That is what I am saying, and someone you say that means it's a conspiracy.
They oil companies are going to do what is in their best interests, which is why I suggest the government take steps to do what is in the general publics best interests. The reason things like this don't happen however, is because of the lobbies of automakers and oil companies. Would you disagree on that ?
If the American public was presented with the choice between a SUV which ran on water and one which ran on gas what do you think the response would be? The market potential of such a technology is huge. More and more products are marketed today as being "enviro-friendly" or what not and people eat that up, especially consumers with significant amounts of disposable income.Oh, and if the American public is so concerned with the enviroment, why is it that we have so many godamn SUV's on the road with their ty gas milage and UNSAFE records?
Sorry, the incentive is too great for such technology to not attract investment.
Read this carefully.
It is attracting investment. Investment from the same people who are providing us with energy. It is not in their interests to develop the technology as fast as possible. They are going to develop it, but only at a rate in which they can retain their share of the market or increase it, while still squeezing every last dime out of oil based energy.
my arguement is that this is not what is in the best interests of the american general public but only of the shareholders in aforementioned companies.
Because they can't hold it back.You are the one spouting off about consipracies Matt. I started off by saying that oil companies are holding back alternative energies because it suits them, and you said that was a conspiracy.
Again, because they cannot prevent it from being developed. If they sleep on it then someone else will make it happen.The technology could be real and profitable NOW. But the fact of the matter is that they can make MORE money eaiser on oil still, then make money on the alternative energies later. That is what I am saying, and someone you say that means it's a conspiracy.
Sure, for a host of reasons, the first being that the incentive to bring such a disruptive technology to the market is too great to dissuade outside investment. You seem to be assuming that only the government and the major E&P companies can invest in such technology.They oil companies are going to do what is in their best interests, which is why I suggest the government take steps to do what is in the general publics best interests. The reason things like this don't happen however, is because of the lobbies of automakers and oil companies. Would you disagree on that ?
Secondly, all of your complaints serve as an argument for less government regulation, not more. Your conspiracy theory relies on the use of government intervention to serve certain interests. Well, if the government isn't involved then that is not a problem.
There is no source with an interest in the industry high enough with the resources needed to go faster than the current investors.
And there in lies the bottom line disagreement between us, you believe there is.
I don't and thats why I advocate government involvement.
Oh, I've read your stuff more than I should.Read this carefully.
Ugh. For starters, where is it written that those firms are the only ones that can invest in such technology? This is the basic problem with your argument. Secondly, there is an incentive for those firms to develop that technology instead of sitting on it. Why? Again, because of the threat of compe ion from their peers as well as from outside of the E&P industry.It is attracting investment. Investment from the same people who are providing us with energy. It is not in their interests to develop the technology as fast as possible. They are going to develop it, but only at a rate in which they can retain their share of the market or increase it, while still squeezing every last dime out of oil based energy.
As for the automakers, it's the same thing. Either they continue to innovate or someone else will and they'll be history.
It is in the interest of the shareholders of those firms to see that the company is doing what it can to maximize its value. If those firms don't bring that technology to market then someone else will, either in the industry or without and shareholder value will be lost.my arguement is that this is not what is in the best interests of the american general public but only of the shareholders in aforementioned companies.
Nonsense. Simple nonsense.There is no source with an interest in the industry high enough with the resources needed to go faster than the current investors.
And there in lies the bottom line disagreement between us, you believe there is.
I don't and thats why I advocate government involvement.
The potential payoff is too great for it to not attract non-E&P company investment. This is pretty basic .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
