"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...

In the long run we need to become independent from foreign oil as well
as reducing emissions. Currently all ways of doing this cost more than
that expensive foreign oil.

Quite true.

The "foreign oil" dilemma is much more easily solved, but both issues are
political.

As to emissions, contrast engines from the 1960's with those of today. For
example, a 1969 Mustang with a 351ci V-8 for about 12 MPG and delivered 325
HP - today, a Nissan 3.5L for the 350-Z delivers 325HP, from 216ci engine,
gets 24 MPG, and does it with a twentieth the emissions, mostly CO2.
Contrast that with the 351ci that spewed all sorts of noxious stuff out the
tail pipe.

So do we spend $$trillions reducing emissions, while the rest of the world
continues on its merry way? You probably all heard that China now exceeds
the US as the biggest polluter, in terms of CO2 but all the other far more
noxious gases as well. You've all probably seen the charts that US fuel use
per $ of GNP is about a fourth of what it was in the 1980's.

I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.
It's their karma.