Further comments from Energy Outlook

Im not talking about the conspiracy of the way alternative engines were bought by either the Automotive or Oil industries. let me put it like this. If they had bothered to offer alternatives to the ICE than i wouldn't feel the way I do know, but they decided to focus on one type of engine. In my mind the logic that would lead to that would be that it would undermine the return on investment of oil if there had been multiple types of engines on the market back in say the 70s. Now I'm not talking about complete change of the entire system, I'm talking about the ability to choose. It took all of a couple of years to make hybrids possible, but it wasn't till prices of gas went up that people actually started buying them. So its not so much conspiracy theory as a good understanding of the logic that drives America. I mean it is sound business strategy to maximize profits by buying up alternative fuel ideas and shelve them. The less there are to compete, the higher the price of gas, the better the return on initial investment for oil fields. Same for Car manufactures. It costs less to maintain one type of engine, than to offer multiple different versions. Less R&D involved. And so now we are paying for it because we have no infrastructure for the new fuel sources, mainly because those in charge wished to line their pockets. Well, their pockets are lined, but now everyone will have to go through hardships simply for the greed of a few. If that isn't just the way it always is.So if believing that Oil and Auto industries tried to maximize their profits by shelving alternative ideas makes me a conspiracy theorist, then thats what i am. But remember that my beliefs are based on sound business logic.

BTW try addressing what the content of my statements are, not just the verbiage. When i say that the EPA should not worry about its impact on the economy, i mean just that. Its not their role in our government to analyze the effect on our economy. That would be for the groups affected to work out. We don't set laws simply to make our society richer, we do it for the principle of the idea, which seems to be missed most when money comes into the equation. Whats more important, making money now, or still having a planet and environment in 100 years. A lot of what i say is biased by my very long scope on life, not just a live in the moment outlook. I think, what will be here in 50 years? 100? 200? will humans still be able to live here, or will we destroy the environment in our effort to get rich now. When i hear the term "drill here, drill now" I think "get rich here, get rich now" because that is all that will do. And that won't be everyone, that will be a select few who will profit from additional investment, since the poor can't afford to invest in stock, and even if they did, a change of even $45 from the original investment is not a big enough a gain for a person hurting on money.