Can strict involvement of the government have positive effects on the environment as it relates to technology?

Question

Please feel free to answer YES, NO, UNDECIDED, SRONGLY AGREE or STRONGLY DISAGREE

And also feel free to add your full comments

(Just a little school survey)

Answer 1

In general, no.  When it comes to technology investments, government has a rather good record of betting on the wrong horse.  We see this today in the push for ethanol; it takes as much energy as is in a gallon of the stuff to make a gallon of it, so efforts such as E85 are a complete waste of time and energy.

Answer 2

It can, but only if any decisions are based strictly on mathematical facts. When the government gets involved, most decisions are based on the desires and feelings of constituents, or other politically based directions. That is why it is normally better to leave it to the market, because bad decisions will fail. Decisions made by the government don't fail, they just take more money until the money (Our Money) runs out, then they print more.

The congress has a bill in now that may give tax credits to Hybrid and other alternative fueled car makers. That just puts more money into the wealthy manufacturers. Why not give people a tax allowance and let them decide which way they want to save gasoline.

It is like the Solar allowances offered in the 80's. All it did was drive up the price of solar, and allowed a lot of crooks to make money installing systems, which totally died when the subsidies left. It died because they were just not cost-effective.

Answer 3

STRONGLY DISAGREE. Government interference slows everything down. Why make government a larger employer than it is? Would probably ad tens of thousands more jobs. Government would be soliciting people from other countries to fill positions.

How high should taxes be to pay for this folly?

It moves toward Communism.

Answer 4

No. A reality check shows that countries with relatively less government interference in the economy have cleaner air, cleaner water, and cleaner land, whereas countries with dictatorial governments enjoy the worst pollution on the planet.

Answer 5

So long as our Leaders are beholden to Big Oil and the IMC no.    Not because regulation of the industry is inherently bad, without a system of checks and balances cutthroat capitalism leads us back to wage slavery for all but the very rich elite who use their influence to squash competition that would bring improvements in technology.   There is no reason on God's green Earth that alternative fuels are not being aggressively implemented to thwart global disasters and climate change other than the GREED of men like d**k Cheney and the fools of Enron.  

So long as rank and file Americans sit on their duffs and complain about the price of energy, watch Oil Refineries burn because there is no government oversight to cajole the companies to do routine maintenance and throw away thirty plastic shopper bags a week the influence peddlers in   Washington will be eating Filet Mignon and swilling Glen-Morrow at the club.    I can almost hear Nero fiddling.   But I'm registered to vote and will do so in November and have my congressman's email address in my contact list.   Any citizen who is not registered to vote needs to do so if they want any say in the actual using of technology that is available here and now to fix the problems we are facing, NOW.

Answer 6

Yes.  If the government uses incentives and taxes to try and initiate change it will be good.  They can also be helpful by being early adopters of new systems.  A good example is that government was the first big buyer of alternative fueled vehicles.  Did they make it happen on their own?  No, but they can help kick-start a new technology.

The key is to not legislate a prescribed or proscribed method, only to encourage new technology.