5 of 14

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 2

regular gasoline. And if a hydrogen fuel cell car were to travel that distance, it would cost nearly 4 times as much, $804 dollars. Driving the cost of food up around the world, as well as costing substantially more than traditional fuel sources are reasons why a mandate on the use of alternative fuels would only hurt our economy.

Because of the negative environmental, ecological, and economical impacts that would be brought upon by a mandate of alternative fuel, better options exist. Other fueling options such as hybrids or domestic drilling could be better options. The Department of the Interior has reported that the amount of currently restricted domestic oil is well into the tens of billions of barrels, and could be more than 100 times as much as in currently in the United States Department of Energy reserves. As for hybrids, the Georgetown International Environmental Law Review notes that hybrids achieve markedly better gas mileage than its counterparts, its technology is already viable and mass produced, and it requires no additional infrastructure.

Instead of a mandate, alternative approaches including a free market would be a better option. The CATO Institute reports that markets are more capable than government of reacting quickly and efficiently to declines in petroleum production. This is something that will cause and increase in investments in alternative energy sources and conservation. For these reasons, alternate approaches are superior to a government mandate.

Learn more about this author, Jack Laszlo.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

Add your voice

Know something about The truth about ethanol?
We want to hear your view. Write now!