Exactly on point. As far as better ways? Not really, if you figure in the economics of the total package. There are better fuels, however. Natural gas would be a great fuel to promote. We have a LOT of NG offshore, but we can't drill for it due to enviromentalist objections. It's better for heavy trucks/buses due to the weight of the tanks to hold a pressurized gas. But there are options...
Polar bears are strong swimmers; they swim across bays or wide leads without hesitation. They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances. They've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.) (Stirling, 1988).
They drown too. Some of them have had to swim further than normal past few years, and have drowned. I saw this on Animal Planet so it has to be true.
What about the Japanese, or the French, or Koreans? Are they also in on the conspiracy to protect the American auto industry?
Didn't that recent documentary have polar bears swimming for like a couple days straight. Felt bad for the one they were tracking. Swims all the way over to where the walruses are and gets mortally wounded trying to kill one of them.
I don't think it is as much conspiracy as the fact that when an auto maker wants to enter the market they have to deal with the existing infrastructure. The only ones capable of introducing a different engine on a large scale basis are the existing auto manufacturers. Even then they will likely have to join forces to supply the necessary infrastructure.
Debating whether global warming is man-made or not is pointless. Whats important is that we become more efficient as a species and that means using re-newable, clean energy to power our needs. We have 2 paths; 1) we conclude that global warming could well and truly not be man made therefore we should sit still and not worry because there is nothing we can do to stop this natural process anyway or 2) we conclude that global warming could be man made and therefore we take the path of least regret and move towards cleaner sources of energy and a more environmental biased economy migating the risk that we are wrong in the above conclusion whilst becoming more efficient in our ways. As a elitetrader I see the risk/reward being in conclusion # 2 -> the path of least regret. Peace.
Even if the overwhelming preponderance of evidence, both anecdotal and scientific, were not clearly indicating that CO2 emissions are causing the total ice mass of the planet to plummet, the above would be true. Yeah, reducing CO2 emissions and seeking cleaner alternatives to hydrocarbons is a shitty idea. All part of a global left-wing, anti-capitalist conspiracy.
I was going to leave it alone, but now that I see the above post, I must say that it's quite telling that this thread attracted jem, pattersb and ratboy in support. That right there tells you something about the premise. --------------------------------------------------- LOL pattersb apparently thinks better of it and deletes his post minutes after submitting it. Too bad I quoted it before you could delete it, huh? Predictable.