Were America to lead, the world would follow. “If all cars sold in the United States had to be flexible-fueled, foreign manufacturers would also mass-produce such units,” Dr. Zubrin writes. That would create “a large market in Europe and Asia as well as the United States for methanol and ethanol – much of which could be produced in America.
“Instead of being the world’s largest fuel importer, the United States could become the largest fuel exporter. A larger portion of the money now going to the Middle East would instead go to the United States and Canada,” with the rest going to impoverished tropical nations where a wide variety of crops could be raised to produce new alcohol fuels. “This would reverse our trade deficit, improve conditions in the third world, and cause a global shift in world economic power in favor of the West.”
So what is holding up progress? Obviously, there are special interests determined to keep oil king. And there are those dogmatically opposed to government mandates for any reason -- even to win a war.
But mandates are required to solve the chicken-and-egg dilemma. Dr. Zubrin writes: “Filling stations don’t want to dedicate space to a fuel mix used by only 3 percent of all cars and consumers are not interested in buying vehicles for which the preferred fuel mix is extremely difficult to find.” This is one of those very rare problems that actually can be solved just by passing a law. Build the cars. The non-petroleum fuels will come.
Other transportation innovations can and should follow. In particular, it makes sense to encourage the development of FFVs that also are plug-in hybrids – cars that can run on electricity, too. Such cars could be recharged by plugging into a standard wall socket. (In America today most electricity is not generated from petroleum.)
Someday perhaps there will be automobiles powered by more futuristic means. But right now we can utilize FFVs and alcohol to stem what has been our growing dependence on a commodity controlled by regimes, movements and individuals waging war against us. Will one -- or both -- of the presidential candidates in 2008 make this a priority? That’s up to you and other voters to decide, isn’t it?